Field of Science

China is a dictatorship

The fact that Hu Jintao refuses to talk to the Danish press as he visits Denmark next week. Apparently he never has in China either, in the almost ten years that he has been General Secretary, President, etc. etc.

Right now, as I search Google news, all articles fail to mention that the Danes are very skeptical towards a state leader that won't meet the press, and who leads a country whose politics oppresses its own people (no freedom of speech, no democracy, massive violations of human rights), but it is all over the Danish news (in Danish, sorry). He runs a dictatorship, basically. Thanks to Mao.

Hu Jintao, with slight editing.


Titles

This is only a fraction of the new papers on research in evolutionary biology from the last week or so. How many creationist papers have been published in the same time-span?

  • POPULATION SUBDIVISION AND ADAPTATION IN ASEXUAL POPULATIONS OF SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE
  • THE EFFECT OF A COMPETITOR ON A MODEL ADAPTIVE RADIATION
  • The Evolution of Patch Selection in Stochastic Environments
  • Local Adaptation along Smooth Ecological Gradients Causes Phylogeographic Breaks and Phenotypic Clustering
  • Tradeoffs limit the evolution of male traits that are attractive to females
  • THE GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF A COMPLEX ECOLOGICAL TRAIT: HOST PLANT USE IN THE SPECIALIST MOTH, HELIOTHIS SUBFLEXA
  • Ecological and evolutionary dynamics of coexisting lineages during a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli
We may, as evolutionists (a term that I take to mean those who believe in evolution*) be frustrated with creationists, because they so incessantly refuse to give up dogma and take the evidence from nature at face value.

However, some years ago I realized how much more frustrating it must be for the creationists that the experts all but a few loonies believe in evolution, that all the evolution research in universities confirms evolution, and that nearly everyone who aren't a creationist because of their religious beliefs believe in evolution. The creationists (at least the ones who aren't ignorant and boneheaded) know that the evidence is on our side, and that must be excruciatingly frustrating.

 

 * You may refuse to use the word believe in this context, and insist that we say "accept evolution", but then you don't read enough dictionaries.

Kreativ Blogger {award}

I've been chosen for the Kreativ Blogger award chain letter*. I'll play along.

Rules: link to the blog who nominated you, say seven things about yourself that readers may not know, list seven other blogs that you feel deserve the award chain letter and let them know, and include the Kreativ Blogger logo. Here goes:

Dear friends, I wish to send my heartfelt thanks to my (new) dearest friend, Gunnar De Winter of The Beast, the Bard and the Bot for thinking of Pleiotropy (it is an important concept in genetics). I would not be here without him.

And friends, you probably didn't know about me that I
  1. don't believe in free will, 
  2. am an optimist-pessimist-optimist, 
  3. want to try to be homeless, 
  4. want to try to be pregnant, 
  5. have eaten cod uterus, 
  6. taught myself to play guitar and piano,
  7. currently have a Klout score of 44
Lastly, here are six blogs that warms my heart:


* Today, about 870,000 results Googling "Kreativ Blogger award", and about 324,000 results in Google images.

Carnival of Evolution on Pharyngula

The June edition of Carnival of Evolution is now live on Pharyngula: Carnival of Evolution #48: The Icelandic Saga!

There are nearly 50 posts written by some amazing science bloggers. I seriously wonder when CoE is going to reach that tipping point where close to all evolutionary biologists know about it, and looks forward to some more or less light reading about diverse topics in evolution every month.

Follow CoE on Twitter @CarnyEvolution
Like CoE on Facebook

Titles

Wondering, with all the time in the world, would we even do all the things we say we would if we had all the time in the world?

How does that even work? By saying all the time int he world, do we mean that time will stand still at our command, while we can do what we want in the "meantime"? Or does it mean to live forever, in which case I don't think I would use my immortality to read these papers?

  • Density-dependent fitness benefits in quorum-sensing bacterial populations 
  • On the Evolution of Personalities via Frequency-Dependent Selection 
  • Fitness conferred by replaced amino acids declines with time ecological and evolutionary dynamics of coexisting lineages during a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli 
  • Species Interactions Alter Evolutionary Responses to a Novel Environment 
  • Thermodynamic Basis for the Emergence of Genomes during Prebiotic Evolution 
  • Metopic suture of Taung (Australopithecus africanus) and its implications for hominin brain evolution

The Black Queen Hypothesis

ResearchBlogging.org In the game of Hearts, the object is to not get certain cards. The most vile of them all is the dreaded black queen of spades, which is as bad as all the other bad cards put together.

In a recent theory paper, Jeff Morris, Rich Lenski, and Erik Zinser present the Black Queen Hypothesis to explain why some organisms lose genes that are apparently important for survival.

Prochlorococcus is a bacterium that is able to live in an environment full of a toxic peroxide, HOOH, because they have a gene, KatG, that produces catalase-peroxidase, a compound that neutralizes HOOH. But then why are some forms of Prochlorococcus able to survive in this environment even without a functional copy of KatG? Here is their Black Queen Hypothesis:

In the context of evolution, the BQH posits that certain genes, or more broadly, biological functions, are analogous to the queen of spades. Such functions are costly and therefore undesirable, leading to a selective advantage for organisms that stop performing them. At the same time, the function must provide an indispensable public good, necessitating its retention by at least a subset of the individuals in the community—after all, one cannot play Hearts without a queen of spades. The detoxification of HOOH fulfills both of these criteria, and therefore the BQH predicts that this function will be performed by helpers that comprise only a fraction of the community.
In other words, the mutant form of Prochlorococcus that does not have KatG survives because of the public good produced by the original Prochlorococcus with a functional copy of KatG. And it does not cause the original type to become extinct, because it depends on it for removing HOOH from the environment.

Initially, all Prochlorococcus has the gene, KatG, that allows the bacteria to produce catalase-peroxidase. This allows the cells to live in an environment with a peroxide, HOOH (blue), which is otherwise toxic. The HOOH diffuses into the cells, where it is neutralized by catalase-peroxidase. This creates a gradient such that there is less HOOH the closer you get to the center of the colony.
A mutant is born (red cell) that has lost KatG, and so cannot produce catalase-peroxidase. If it were to live in an environment with HOOH, it would die. However, it can live close to other Prochlorococcus that are resistant to HOOH (blue), because these resistant cells remove HOOH from the environment.
Because producing KatG comes at a slight cost in fitness, those who don't spend the resources producing it has a slight reproductive advantage over those who do. As a result, the mutant Prochlorococcus will soon increase in number.
An equilibrium is established such that the original KatG producing Prochlorococcus and the mutant form coexist, because the higher the number of mutant cells results in less HOOH being removed from the environment. Negative frequency-dependent selection thus ensures that both types can exist side by side, because it is favorable to be the less frequent type.

Negative frequency-dependent selection works like this: If chance would have it that more is born of the mutant type, then there isn't enough space for them where HOOH is being removed, and some will die. However, the original KatG producers are still fine, so they will have a fitness advantage and grow in number. If it happens that there are few mutants, they they again has a fitness advantage over the original type, and now they will grow in number.


Jeff Morris

Luckily, Jeff works three doors down the hall from me, and so I was able to go talk to him about the BQH. The BQH is formulated mathematically as if the organisms/bacteria are in a homogeneous well-mixed environment. However, this is of course, as they discuss in the paper, not 100% realistic. Bacteria often exist in microenvironments, and it matters where the mutant cells are in space in relation to the original KatG producers; if they are too far away, HOOH is not removed from their environment, and they die. Jeff agrees that this heterogeneity - as portrayed in the figures above, where HOOH isn't removed equally from all of space - changes the dynamics somewhat, most probably by shifting the equilibrium frequencies of the two types, such that there are fewer mutants in a heterogeneous environment compared to a well-mixed homogeneous environment.

Jeff has this to add (personal correspondence):

No modern Prochlorococcus (that we've found so far) has katG. Almost all other cyanobacteria do, however, so we infer that Pro lost it at some point. The "helpers" in the modern ocean are entirely different species. So really what you're describing in the blog is the hypothetical process by which the first Pro to lost katG was able to invade its ancestral population.

The neat thing is that, because other species exist that aren't in competition with Pro but still degrade HOOH, the katG-deficient Pro was able to sweep its ancestor to extinction. In general BQH stands out (along with Red Queen) in considering interspecies interactions more explicitly than most evolutionary ideas.
Read more about the BQH on BEACON's blog and Science Daily.

Reference:
Morris JJ, Lenski RE, & Zinser ER (2012). The Black Queen Hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio, 3 (2) PMID: 22448042.

The evolving carnival

The CoE blogger thinks Carnival of Evolution is evolving. Doofus! There's no population, no real inheritance, and not even a genetic code to be transmitted. All it amounts to then is akin to memes, and they really don't evolve the same as genes. I like the stats, though:
Figure 1: Number of posts included in CoE by month from its conception in August 2008 through May 2012. Not all months are included, because not all past editions are accessible. Numbers are approximate (counted one time by one person).

Notice that very consistent increase in body size of CoE over through time. A one-tailed t-test with unequal variance on the first half of editions vs. the second half gives p= 4.7072e-5, which is highly significant. That is, the average change in size from the first half (18.81) to the second (33.95) is not due to random fluctuations in number of posts included in the editions. CoE is definitely evolving. Creationists, go redacted!

There are still a few days left to submit to the next edition, which will be hosted on Pharyngula (clue: get linked to and get 29,000 in a day).

Titles

Yet more papers from the ToCs that I'd like to live longer to read.
  • Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy
  • Serial Founder Effects During Range Expansion: A Spatial Analog of Genetic Drift
  • The evolution of sex is favoured during adaptation to new environments
  • The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution
  • Group adaptation, formal darwinism and contextual analysis
  • The effects of migration and drift on local adaptation to a heterogeneous environment

Is Eigenfactor really a good measure?

I have just been alerted to Eigenfactor - a new measure of how influential scientific journals are. A one-page article in PNAS discusses its use, and explains how it is calculated:
The Eigenfactor™ algorithm corresponds to a simple model of research in which readers follow chains of citations as they move from journal to journal. Imagine that a researcher goes to the library and selects a journal article at random. After reading the article, the researcher selects at random one of the citations from the article. She then proceeds to the journal that was cited, reads a random article there, and selects a citation to direct her to her next journal volume. The researcher does this ad infinitum.
A comparison of journals reveals that the journals we already know to be the best(?) have high Eigenfactors:
But, when I went to Eigenfactor.org and read the FAQ, I saw this:
1. How do I interpret a journal's Eigenfactor™score? A journal's Eigenfactor score is our measure of the journal's total importance to the scientific community. 
With all else equal, a journal's Eigenfactor score doubles when it doubles in size. Thus a very large journal such as the Journal of Biological Chemistry which publishes more than 6,000 articles annually, will have extremely high Eigenfactor scores simply based upon its size.
Whaaat?! That seems misleading, doesn't it? Just because a journal publishes more articles certainly doesn't mean it is more prestigious to publish in. I realize that that wasn't the question; the question was which journals are most influential, and this I can see. However, what does that matter for the author who has to choose the journal to submit to? Take PLoS journals. If you submit to PLoS Biology or PLoS Computational Biology, then upon rejection they'll suggest you to submit to PLoS ONE. Why? Well, clearly because it is way easier to get accepted there - PLoS ONE is a much larger journal (with a policy of accepting papers as long as they are not erroneous).

Looking up the Eigenfactor of these journals, I get this:

PLOS ONE: 0.319571
PLOS Biology: 0.159932
PLOS Computational Biology: 0.060394

 PLoS ONE is thus twice as influential as PLoS Biology, and over five times as influential as PLoS Comp Bio. However, no sane author I know would prefer to publish in PLoS ONE over PLoS Biology, so what's the use, then? None, as far as I am concerned.

CoE #47: All the evolution news fit to blog

47th Carnival of Evolution has been posted on Evolving thoughts. All the evolution news that fit to blog includes this interesting post on the caveman diet:
Except for Captain Caveman and Fred Flintstone, were there other overweight cavemen? Would we be healthier if we adopted the diet that ancient humans ate thousands of years ago?
What is your favorite diet? 
The Atkins diet? South Beach diet? Ever heard of the paleolithic (paleo) diet?

Titles

Last weeks interesting papers on evolution:
  • Adaptive evolution of facial colour patterns in Neotropical primates
  • Selection in a fluctuating environment leads to decreased genetic variation and facilitates the evolution of phenotypic plasticity
  • Footprints of positive selection associated with a mutation (N1575Y) in the voltage-gated sodium channel of Anopheles gambiae
  • Inference of Genotype–Phenotype Relationships in the Antigenic Evolution of Human Influenza A (H3N2) Viruses
  • In Situ Evolutionary Rate Measurements Show Ecological Success of Recently Emerged Bacterial Hybrids

Titles

More papers published this week about evolution:
  • The Evolution of an Enigmatic Human Trait: False Beliefs due to Pseudo-Solution Traps.
  • Spatial Structure and Interspecific Cooperation: Theory and an Empirical Test Using the Mycorrhizal Mutualism
  • THE ECO-EVOLUTIONARY RESPONSES OF A GENERALIST CONSUMER TO RESOURCE COMPETITION
  • Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than ‘good genes’
  • Evidence for elevated mutation rates in low-quality genotypes
  • Ontogenetic niche shifts in dinosaurs influenced size, diversity and extinction in terrestrial vertebrates
  • Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: can physical obstacles accelerate speciation?
  • Synthetic Genetic Polymers Capable of Heredity and Evolution
  • ROLES FOR MODULARITY AND CONSTRAINT IN THE EVOLUTION OF CRANIAL DIVERSITY AMONG ANOLIS LIZARDS
  • ENVIRONMENTAL ROBUSTNESS AND THE ADAPTABILITY OF POPULATIONS
How wonderful life would be if there were more hours in a day. I'd use them for sleeping.

 

Titles

As a new feature mostly intended for my own benefit, I will start posting titles of new papers that I come across in the ToCs that I get emailed every week. I practically never have time to read the papers I find, and so they disappear into oblivion, which is sad. Perhaps just listing the titles here will result in me going back to them at some point. Also, even though I only post the title, it's easy to find them again by a simple Google scholar search.
  • Cooperation and the evolution of intelligence
  • EXPLORING VARIATION IN FITNESS SURFACES OVER TIME OR SPACE
  • Goldilocks Meets Santa Rosalia: An Ephemeral Speciation Model Explains Patterns of Diversification Across Time Scales
  • Generalized Movement Strategies for Constrained Consumers: Ignoring Fitness Can Be Adaptive
  • Reproduction-longevity trade-offs reflect diet, not adaptation

Correlation does too imply causation

What's this nonsense I hear that correlation doesn't imply causation? Of course it does. If there is correlation between two variables, there must be causation somewhere. Granted, the correlation alone doesn't show which of the three types of causation it is (A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B*), but causation has to be there, if the correlation isn't spurious. It would be correct to say that correlation doesn't indicate the kind of causation.



In this case, causation is likely that those who've gone to the moon are alive, and those who are alive have eaten, and those who have eaten have likely eaten chicken - particularly likely if you're among those who have been in training to to go the moon.

More.

* All three cases could have intermediate variables, of course.

Carnival of Evolution #46

Carnival of Evolution #46 has been posted. This time, in addition to the posts, we get to learn about different trees used in evolutionary biology and computer science. E.g., the cladogram:



See the rest at Synthetic Daisies.

Carnivores have bad taste

ResearchBlogging.org

Pseudogenes are genes that used to have a function, but no longer do. If a gene contributes to an important function for the organism, offspring with deleterious mutations that ruin the gene will have lower fitness, and as a result won't have as many offspring, if any at all. That mutated gene will likely not go to fixation (become prominent in the population). On the other hand, if the gene used to have a function, but no longer don't, then mutations affecting the gene won't be deleterious. Mutations that turn off its expression (so the protein the gene codes for is no longer produced), and mutations that mess up the amino-acid sequence of the protein (so the protein can't carry out the previous function), won't be detrimental to the individual that has those mutations if the individual no longer needs that function. As a result, those mutations can go to fixation either by genetic drift (i.e., at random), or can even be selected for (e.g., when there is a cost to producing the proteins).

However, examples where pseudogenization is coupled to function is rare. A new study published in PNAS links genes that code for taste receptors to specific dietary changes in carnivorous mammals. Basically, animals that do not eat sweets don't have receptors for sweetness (e.g., cats), and animals that swallows their food whole have no receptors for umami (e.g., sea lions, dolphins).


Mutations causing loss of the sweet-taste receptor gene are in red. The exons (DNA coding for a protein) are intact for dog, which can taste sweet just fine, compared to the exons for various other carnivores which cannot taste sweet, the poor souls.


Examples of what the mutations actually do. Looks like they typically cause frameshifts, which makes the rest of the gene nonsense, and introduces stop codons, which causes transcription to stop prematurely. The first one, with Sea and Fur Seals, shows a mutation that messes up the promoter region of the gene, thereby ruining gene expression.


Phylogenetic tree showing loss (diamonds) of Tas1R2, one of the genes coding for a protein that enables animals to taste sweet.

In this way, several species have lost taste-receptors, and they have done so independently. The Fossa of Madagascar™ have lost the gene for the sweet-taste, but their most close relative examined, the Yellow Mongoose, have not. The red diamonds in the this phylogenetic tree indicates in which the gene for sweet taste has become a pesudogene. The results strongly suggest that loss of the gene has occurred multiple times, rather than once in a common ancestor.

Measuring the strength of selection along these branches, the authors found that the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions, dN/dS (aka ω) is considerably lower for the species that can still taste sweet, compared to those that can't. An ω lower than one means that mutations that change the amino acid sequence aren't tolerated, while those that don't (the synonymous mutations) are.

So this lower ratio means is that there is strong purifying selection on the gene when the gene is still in use, whereas when ω is higher, selection doesn't care much about the gene. However, the best model fit was one where the branches leading to species with intact taste-receptors had ω=0.13656, while the others had ω=0.41974. That is, while the latter is found to have been under relaxed selection compared to the former, the fact that ω isn't (close to) 1 suggest that it selection isn't wholly indifferent to the state of the protein. The authors themselves are at a loss as to the nature of this mechanism:
Recently, sweet, umami, and bitter taste receptors have been implicated in several extraoral functions (36). Pseudogenization of Tas1r receptor genes in dolphins and sea lions and Tas2r receptor genes in dolphin indicates that these receptors cannot be involved in extraoral (e.g., gut, pancreas) chemosensation (36) in these species. Thus, to the extent that these extraoral taste receptors are functionally significant in rodents and humans, these functions must have been assumed by other mechanisms in the species we have identified here with pseudogenized receptors. What these other mechanisms are remains to be determined, and further assessment of the relationships among taste receptor structure, dietary choice, and the associated metabolic pathways will lead to a better understanding of the evolution of diet and food choice as well as their mechanisms.

One of the species in the order Carnivora is the Banded Linsang, which lives in tropical forests of Thailand, Malaysia, Borneo, and Java. I include a picture of it here just because I have never seen this creature before, and because it is super adorable. It is a close relative of cats, and cannot taste sweet.

Reference:
Jiang P, Josue J, Li X, Glaser D, Li W, Brand JG, Margolskee RF, Reed DR, & Beauchamp GK (2012). Major taste loss in carnivorous mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PMID: 22411809

CoE #45 - the bug edition

Adrian Thysse has done something new. He has slaved through all 45+ submissions to this month's edition of Carnival of Evolution (which, in case you have never hosted, you might not know is a lot of work), and this is the result:



Excellent! I predict that before 2013 we'll see an edition of CoE with sound and even cooler animation, perhaps even uploaded to Youtube and CNN. That really wouldn't be too much to ask.

Nothing is unstable

A previous post from almost three years ago keeps getting comments: Another creationist dentist expert on evolution. That's great, even if it is fueled by creationists like anonymous who left this comments a few days ago:
How can an iris, that can't smell or see, evolve to look and smell like a wasp? The skeptics of God remind me of the biblical verse that reads "they worship the created insread of the creator". God also says He has left evidence of Himself through all creation. Just for a time, I challenge you to put down science books, study not read God's word with an open mind and see if you still cannot see God. By the way, where did all the atoms, energy and all the other elements needed for creation come from. You cannot expect a Big Bang to come from nothingness.
If the question was honest, in that the commenter really wanted an explanation for how a plant can mimic a wasp, then that would be intriguing. There are of course explanations, but this creationist of course isn't interested in any of that. The remarkable thing, though, is the notion that the plant needs to be able to see and/or smell the wasp in order to mimic it. What an utterly ignorant understanding of evolutionary theory!



Another anonymous commenter was kind enough to point to this video of Lawrence Krauss explaining how something can come from nothing. Basically, nothing is unstable. That is, "nothing" is unstable. See for yourself:

Is stasis a general trend across non-skeletal traits?

In today's eSkeptic, which celebrates Darwin's 203rd birthday, Donald Prothero writes about the most cited paper in all of paleontology: Eldredge and Gould's Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism (1972).

Prothero explains that the revelation was that species (at least as described by fossils) mostly don't change, but rather are in stasis for most of the time. Gradualism, as proposed by Darwin, doesn't describe the change of species very well.
For the first decade after the paper was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology. Soon the great debate among paleontologists boiled down to just a few central points, which Gould and Eldredge (1977) nicely summarized on the fifth anniversary of the paper’s release. The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution. If species didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain relatively unchanged, then biostratigraphy would never work—and yet almost two centuries of successful biostratigraphic correlations was evidence of just this kind of pattern. As Gould put it, it was the “dirty little secret” hidden in the paleontological closet. Most paleontologists were trained to focus on gradual evolution as the only pattern of interest, and ignored stasis as “not evolutionary change” and therefore uninteresting, to be overlooked or minimized. Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (“stasis is data” in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later.
Stasis, which I have blogged about previously, is not nothing, but a phenomenon to be explained. Why would populations not change gradually, as some had expected? The environment does change ever so often, perhaps even what cold be termed gradually at times. Does stasis in the fossil record have to do with the fact that the information we get from fossils are predominantly about the morphology of vertebrate skeletons? Could it be that gradual changes in response to selection causes gradual changes in traits that don't affect skeletons (such as physiology or behavior)? Could there be general features of genetic architecture, for example, that constrains how skeletal morphology can change?

Alternatively, are is there evidence of stasis on other kinds of traits?


Gould, Shermer, and Prothero in 2001.

Program of the Proceedings of the 44th Carnival of Evolution

We are happy to announce the program for the Proceedings of the 44th Carnival of Evolution to be held at The Atavism:

Session 1. Symposium on the evolution of novelty
Session 2. Evolutionary ecology and life history evolution
Session 3. Philosophy and evolution
Session 4a. Experimental Evolution
Session 4b. Timing and tempo of evolution
Session 5. Outreach and anti-creationism

The poster session will start following the last talk, and will be followed by a banquet.

Notable speakers include

Carl Zimmer, The Loom
Eric M. Johnson, The Primate Diaries
Jeremy B. Yoder, Denim & Tweed
John Wilkins, Evolving Thoughts
S. E. Gould, Scientific American
Zen Faulkes, NeuoroDojo

Registration is free, and we hope you can all attend.

Organizing committee:
David Winter, The Atavism
Bjørn Østman, Pleiotropy, Carnival of Evolution