Why do bees turn back and look?

The timing of learning of colour and shape of the food source, as well as of near-by landmarks, was examined exploiting a behaviour described recently, the Turn Back and Look behaviour (TBL): Bees departing from a novel food source after feeding turn around to view it at a short distance (Figs. 2, 3) before departing for the hive. They repeat this behaviour on several successive visits, termed the TBL phase (Fig. 5). To examine the function of the TBL, I trained individual bees in 4 different modes. In the first 3 they could view a food source or a landmark of a particular colour or shape during (i) arrival as well as departure, (ii) only arrival, and (iii) only departure; in the final mode (iv) the bees viewed one colour (or shape) on arrival, and another on departure. At the end of the TBL phase, the bees were tested by offering them a choice between the visual stimulus to which they were trained (modes i–iii) and a different (novel) one, or between the stimulus viewed on arrival and that viewed on departure (mode iv). The test results show that learning after feeding (while performing the TBL), i.e. backward conditioning, occurs regardless of whether the colour (Fig. 6, Fig. 10a) or shape (Fig. 7) of the food source, or the colour (Fig. 10b), shape (Fig. 11), and position (Fig. 12) of a near-by landmark is considered. Bees trained in mode (iv) preferred the stimulus learned on arrival over that learned on departure in almost all cases. However, a stimulus viewed exclusively on departure (mode iii) was often learned as well as when it was viewed exclusively on arrival (mode ii) (Figs. 10a, 11, 12), or both on arrival and departure (mode i) (Fig. 6). The finding that the timing of learning can be manipulated suggests that it is not based on hard wired predispositions to learn particular visual cues on arrival, and others on departure.     

Why do green rods of frog and toad retinas look green?

Amphibian “green” rods express a blue-sensitive cone visual pigment, and should look yellow. However, when observing them axially under microscope one sees them as green. We used single-cell microspectrophotometry (MSP) to reveal the basis of the perceived color of these photoreceptors. Conventional side-on MSP recording of the proximal cell segments reveals no selective long-wave absorbing pigment explaining the green color. End-on MSP recording shows, in addition to the green rod visual pigment, an extra 2- to 4-fold attenuation being almost flat throughout the visible spectrum. This attenuation is absent in red (rhodopsin) rods, and vanishes in green rods when the retina is bathed in high-refractive media, and at wide illumination aperture. The same treatments change the color from green to yellow. It seems that the non-visual pigment attenuation is a result of slender green rod myoids operating as non-selective light guides. We hypothesize that narrow myoids, combined with photomechanical movements of melanin granules, allow a wide range of sensitivity regulation supporting the operation of green rods as blue receptors at mesopic-to low-photopic illumination levels. End-on transmittance spectrum of green rods looks similar to the reflectance spectrum of khaki military uniforms. So their greenness is the combined result of optics and human color vision.     

Why do imagery and perception look and feel so different?

Despite the past few decades of research providing convincing evidence of the similarities in function and neural mechanisms between imagery and perception, for most of us, the experience of the two are undeniably different, why? Here, we review and discuss the differences between imagery and perception and the possible underlying causes of these differences, from function to neural mechanisms. Specifically, we discuss the directional flow of information (top-down versus bottom-up), the differences in targeted cortical layers in primary visual cortex and possible different neural mechanisms of modulation versus excitation. For the first time in history, neuroscience is beginning to shed light on this long-held mystery of why imagery and perception look and feel so different.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Offline perception: voluntary and spontaneous perceptual experiences without matching external stimulation''.     

Why do bacterial plasmids carry some genes and not others?

Previous explanations of why bacterial genes for certain "optional" traits tend to occur on plasmids rather than chromosomes are based on an outdated misunderstanding of natural selection. They also fail to explain why certain characters that are ubiquitous in some bacterial species tend to occur on plasmids. This paper shows that all major classes of traits usually associated with plasmids rather than chromosomes confer adaptations to locally restricted conditions. A new "local adaptation" model of plasmid evolution, based on simultaneous application of modern selection theory at the levels of gene, plasmid, cell, and clone reproduction, shows that genes coding local adaptations will reproduce more successfully when on plasmids than when on chromosomes, due to plasmids' greater horizontal mobility.     

Bcl-2 proteins: regulators of apoptosis or of mitochondrial homeostasis?

Programmed cell death (apoptosis) is used by multicellular organisms during development and to maintain homeostasis within mature tissues. One of the first genes shown to regulate apoptosis was bcl-2. Subsequently, a number of Bcl-2-related proteins have been identified. Despite overwhelming evidence that Bcl-2 proteins are evolutionarily conserved regulators of apoptosis, their precise biochemical function remains controversial. Three biochemical properties of Bcl-2 proteins have been identified: their ability to localize constitutively and/or inducibly to the outer mitochondrial, outer nuclear and endoplasmic reticular membranes, their ability to form heterodimers with proteins bearing an amphipathic helical BH3 domain, and their ability to form ion-conducting channels in synthetic membranes. The discovery that mitochondria can play a key part in the induction of apoptosis has focused attention on the role that Bcl-2 proteins may have in regulating either mitochondrial physiology or mitochondria-dependent caspase activation. Here we attempt to synthesize our current understanding of the part played by mitochondria in apoptosis with a consideration of how Bcl-2 proteins might control cell death through an ability to regulate mitochondrial physiology.     

How do we compare hundreds of bacterial genomes?

The genomic revolution is fully upon us in 2006 and the pace of discovery is set to accelerate with the emergence of ultra-high-throughput sequencing technologies. Our complete genome collection of bacteria and archaea continues to grow in number and diversity, as genome sequencing is applied to an array of new problems, from the characterization of the pan-genome to the detection of mutation after experimentation and the exploration of microbial communities in unprecedented detail. The benefits of large-scale comparative genomic analyses are driving the community to think about how to manage our public collections of genomes in novel ways.     

Why do parasitized hosts look different? Resolving the “chicken-egg” dilemma

Phenotypic differences between infected and non-infected hosts are often assumed to be the consequence of parasite infection. However, pre-existing differences in hosts’ phenotypes may promote differential susceptibility to infection. The phenotypic variability observed within the host population may therefore be a cause rather than a consequence of infection. In this study, we aimed at disentangling the causes and the consequences of parasite infection by calculating the value of a phenotypic trait (i.e., the growth rate) of the hosts both before and after infection occurred. That procedure was applied to two natural systems of host–parasite interactions. In the first system, the infection level of an ectoparasite (Tracheliastes polycolpus) decreases the growth rate of its fish host (the rostrum dace, Leuciscus leuciscus). Reciprocally, this same phenotypic trait before infection modulated the future level of host sensitivity to the direct pathogenic effect of the parasite, namely the level of fin degradation. In the second model, causes and consequences linked the growth rate of the fish host (the rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax) and the level of endoparasite infection (Proteocephalus tetrastomus). Indeed, the host’s growth rate before infection determined the number of parasites later in life, and the parasite biovolume then decreased the host’s growth rate of heavily infected hosts. We demonstrated that reciprocal effects between host phenotypes and parasite infection can occur simultaneously in the wild, and that the observed variation in the host phenotype population was not necessarily a consequence of parasite infection. Disentangling the causality of host–parasite interactions should contribute substantially to evaluating the role of parasites in ecological and evolutionary processes. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Why do animals hybridize?

Animal hybridization is increasingly recognized as common and evolutionarily important, but the role of behavior in promoting hybridization events is not well understood. Understanding the behavioral causes of hybridization requires understanding the ecological, demographic, and phenotypic influences on mate choice in hybridizing taxa. Here, I review how these influences on mate choice can contribute to hybridization by (1) circumventing (female) choice, (2) bringing formerly isolated species into sympatry, (3) masking cues important for mate recognition, (4) altering the traits or preferences involved in mate recognition, or (5) altering the costs and benefits of mate choice. In particular, hybridization in response to either high direct costs of mate choice or high direct benefits of heterospecific mating may be widespread, a possibility that awaits further testing. Adopting a mate choice perspective to the study of hybridization challenges the assumption of hybrids as reproductive “mistakes” and allows for functional explanations regarding the occurrence and maintenance of hybridization. As evidence of the prevalence and evolutionary importance of animal hybridization accumulates, investigations into the role of behavior will be increasingly important for our understanding of diversification and for conservation applications.     

Why do plants silicify?

Despite seminal papers that stress the significance of silicon (Si) in plant biology and ecology, most studies focus on manipulations of Si supply and mitigation of stresses. The ecological significance of Si varies with different levels of biological organization, and remains hard to capture. We show that the costs of Si accumulation are greater than is currently acknowledged, and discuss potential links between Si and fitness components (growth, survival, reproduction), environment, and ecosystem functioning. We suggest that Si is more important in trait-based ecology than is currently recognized. Si potentially plays a significant role in many aspects of plant ecology, but knowledge gaps prevent us from understanding its possible contribution to the success of some clades and the expansion of specific biomes.     

Why do proteins use selenocysteine instead of cysteine?

Selenocysteine is present in a variety of proteins and catalyzes the oxidation of thiols to disulfides and the reduction of disulfides to thiols. Here, we compare the kinetic and thermodynamic properties of cysteine with its selenium-containing analogon, selenocysteine. Reactions of simple selenols at pH 7 are up to four orders of magnitude faster than their sulfur analogs, depending on reaction type. In redox-related proteins, the use of selenium instead of sulfur can be used to tune electrode, or redox, potentials. Selenocysteine could also have a protective effect in proteins because its one-electron oxidized product, the selanyl radical, is not oxidizing enough to modify or destroy proteins, whereas the cysteine-thiyl radical can do this very rapidly.     

Why are defensive toxins so variable? An evolutionary perspective

Defensive toxins are widely used by animals, plants and micro-organisms to deter natural enemies. An important characteristic of such defences is diversity both in the quantity of toxins and the profile of specific defensive chemicals present. Here we evaluate evolutionary and ecological explanations for the persistence of toxin diversity within prey populations, drawing together a range of explanations from the literature, and adding new hypotheses. We consider toxin diversity in three ways: (1) the absence of toxicity in a proportion of individuals in an otherwise toxic prey population (automimicry); (2) broad variation in quantities of toxin within individuals in the same population; (3) variation in the chemical constituents of chemical defence. For each of these phenomena we identify alternative evolutionary explanations for the persistence of variation. One important general explanation is diversifying (frequency- or density-dependent) selection in which either costs of toxicity increase or their benefits decrease with increases in the absolute or relative abundance of toxicity in a prey population. A second major class of explanation is that variation in toxicity profiles is itself nonadaptive. One application of this explanation requires that predator behaviour is not affected by variation in levels or profiles of chemical defence within a prey population, and that there are no cost differences between different quantities or forms of toxins found within a population. Finally, the ecology and life history of the animal may enable some general predictions about toxin variation. For example, in animals which only gain their toxins in their immature forms (e.g. caterpillars on host plants) we may expect a decline in toxicity during adult life (or at least no change). By contrast, when toxins are also acquired during the adult form, we may for example expect the converse, in which young adults have less time to acquire toxicity than older adults. One major conclusion that we draw is that there are good reasons to consider within-species variation in defensive toxins as more than mere ecological noise. Rather there are a number of compelling evolutionary hypotheses which can explain and predict variation in prey toxicity.     

Why do RNA viruses recombine?

Recombination occurs in many RNA viruses and can be of major evolutionary significance. However, rates of recombination vary dramatically among RNA viruses, which can range from clonal to highly recombinogenic. Here, we review the factors that might explain this variation in recombination frequency and show that there is little evidence that recombination is favoured by natural selection to create advantageous genotypes or purge deleterious mutations, as predicted if recombination functions as a form of sexual reproduction. Rather, recombination rates seemingly reflect larger-scale patterns of viral genome organization, such that recombination may be a mechanistic by-product of the evolutionary pressures acting on other aspects of virus biology.     

Why do worms need cholesterol?

Cholesterol is a structural component of animal membranes that influences fluidity, permeability and formation of lipid microdomains. It is also a precursor to signalling molecules, including mammalian steroid hormones and insect ecdysones. The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans requires too little cholesterol for it to have a major role in membrane structure. Instead, its most probable signalling functions are to control molting and induce a specialized non-feeding larval stage, although no cholesterol-derived signalling molecule has yet been identified for these or any other functions.     

Why do microorganisms produce rhamnolipids?

We review the environmental role of rhamnolipids in terms of microbial life and activity. A large number of previous research supports the idea that these glycolipids mediate the uptake of hydrophobic substrates by bacterial cells. This feature might be of highest priority for bioremediation of spilled hydrocarbons. However, current evidence confirms that rhamnolipids primarily play a role in surface-associated modes of bacterial motility and are involved in biofilm development. This might be an explanation why no direct pattern of hydrocarbon degradation was often observed after rhamnolipids supplementation. This review gives insight into the current state of knowledge on how rhamnolipids operate in the microbial world.