Protein oligomerization: how and why

A large fraction of cellular proteins are oligomeric. Protein oligomerization may often be an advantageous feature from the perspective of protein evolution and has probably evolved by a variety of mechanisms. The study of protein oligomerization may provide insights into the early protein environment and the evolution of modern proteins. Oligomeric mini-proteins, short peptides with discrete protein-like structures, may serve as valuable models for understanding features of protein oligomerization.     

Isoprene emission from plants: why and how

BACKGROUND: Some, but not all, plants emit isoprene. Emission of the related monoterpenes is more universal among plants, but the amount of isoprene emitted from plants dominates the biosphere-atmosphere hydrocarbon exchange. SCOPE: The emission of isoprene from plants affects atmospheric chemistry. Isoprene reacts very rapidly with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere making hydroperoxides that can enhance ozone formation. Aerosol formation in the atmosphere may also be influenced by biogenic isoprene. Plants that emit isoprene are better able to tolerate sunlight-induced rapid heating of leaves (heat flecks). They also tolerate ozone and other reactive oxygen species better than non-emitting plants. Expression of the isoprene synthase gene can account for control of isoprene emission capacity as leaves expand. The emission capacity of fully expanded leaves varies through the season but the biochemical control of capacity of mature leaves appears to be at several different points in isoprene metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: The capacity for isoprene emission evolved many times in plants, probably as a mechanism for coping with heat flecks. It also confers tolerance of reactive oxygen species. It is an example of isoprenoids enhancing membrane function, although the mechanism is likely to be different from that of sterols. Understanding the regulation of isoprene emission is advancing rapidly now that the pathway that provides the substrate is known.     

Neisserial surface variation: how and why?

Neisseria gonorrhoeae exhibits striking variability in several of its surface components (pili, Opa proteins and lipooligosaccharide) in vivo and in vitro. Such flagrant variation of this mucosal pathogen's surface components contrasts sharply with changes in single surface components of blood-borne trypanosomes and borreliae. Despite these differences, similar molecular events are sometimes involved.     

Action understanding: how, what and why

The mirror neuron system may help us understand how others act and what they do. A recent study has shown that consciously reflecting on their intentions additionally recruits mentalizing areas.     

Fish species – how and why

It is argued, with selected examples from freshwaterfish systematics, that species should be viewed as anexpression of self-perpetuated clustered variation innature, conforming to the phylogenetic speciesconcept. The importance of species lies in thefunctional and structural significance of theirdiagnostic characters. Species can be nested by theircharacters into a tree diagram (phylogeny) orhierarchical alignment structure (classification) ofcharacter distribution, which may be taken to reflectevolution, the unifying theory of organismaldiversification. The phylogenetic species concept,which emphasizes recognition of a pattern ofvariation, describes better than any other proposedconcept the units called species by systematists.Other concepts are based on processes and normally donot permit recognition of particular taxa. Specieshave unique histories, and speciation may proceed bydifferent mechanisms. Whereas it may be postulatedthat speciation entails an irreversible change in thegenetic structure of taxa, recognized by phenotypicexpression and apparently also maintained to a largeextent by selection for a particular phenotype,species recognition must remain independent ofassumptions about species history and spatialdistribution. Species are monophyletic taxa and thespecies category does not differ significantly inphylogenetic regard from other systematic categories.Species as such are not necessarily evolutionaryunits. It is recommended to apply species names withreference to the diagnostic characters of the speciesand to abandon the type specimen described by theInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature as anomenclatural reference unit.     

Geographic patterns: how to identify them and why

Geographic patterns of genetic diversity allow us to make inferences about population histories and the evolution of inherited disease. The statistical methods describing genetic variation in space, such as estimation of genetic variances, mapping of allele frequencies, and principal components analysis, have opened up the possibility to reconstruct demographic processes whose effects have been tested by a variety of approaches, including spatial autocorrelation, cladistic analyses, and simulations. These studies have significantly contributed to our understanding of human genetic variation; however, the molecular data that have accumulated since the mid-1980s have also created new complications. Reasons include the generally limited sample sizes, but, more generally, it is the nature of molecular variation itself that makes it necessary to develop and apply specific models and methods for the treatment of DNA data. The foreseeable diffusion of laboratory techniques for the rapid typing of many DNA markers will force us to change our approach to the study of human variation anyway, moving from the gene level toward the genome level. Because extensive variation among loci is the rule rather than the exception, an important practical tip is to be skeptical of inferences based on single-locus diversity.     

The how and why of adult neurogenesis

Brain plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to change structure and/or function during maturation, learning, environmental challenges, or disease. Multiple and dissociable plastic changes in the adult brain involve many different levels of organization, ranging from molecules to systems, with changes in neural elements occurring hand-in-hand with changes in supportive tissue elements, such as glia cells and blood vessels. There is now substantial evidence indicating that new functional neurons are constitutively generated from endogenous pools of neural stem cells in restricted areas of the mammalian brain, throughout life. So, in addition to all the other known structural changes, entire new neurons can be added to the existing network circuitry. This addition of newborn neurons provides the brain with another tool for tinkering with the morphology of its own functional circuitry. Although the ongoing neurogenesis and migration have been extensively documented in non-mammalian species, its characteristics in mammals have just been revealed and thus several questions remain yet unanswered. Is adult neurogenesis an atavism, an empty-running leftover from evolution? What is adult neurogenesis good for and how does the brain ‘know’ that more neurons are needed? How is this functional demand translated into signals a precursor cell can detect? Adult neurogenesis may represent an adaptive response to challenges imposed by an environment and/or internal state of the animal. To ensure this function, the production, migration, and survival of newborn neurons must be tightly controlled. We attempt to address some of these questions here, using the olfactory bulb as a model system.     

Socially transferred materials: why and how to study them

When biological material is transferred from one individual’s body to another, as in ejaculate, eggs, and milk, secondary donor-produced molecules are often transferred along with the main cargo, and influence the physiology and fitness of the receiver. Both social and solitary animals exhibit such social transfers at certain life stages. The secondary, bioactive, and transfer-supporting components in socially transferred materials have evolved convergently to the point where they are used in applications across taxa and type of transfer. The composition of these materials is typically highly dynamic and context dependent, and their components drive the physiological and behavioral evolution of many taxa. Our establishment of the concept of socially transferred materials unifies this multidisciplinary topic and will benefit both theory and applications.     

More on how and why: a response to commentaries

We are grateful to the commentators for taking the time to respond to our article. Too many interesting and important points have been raised for us to tackle them all in this response, and so in the below we have sought to draw out the major themes. These include problems with both the term ‘ultimate causation’ and the proximate-ultimate causation dichotomy more generally, clarification of the meaning of reciprocal causation, discussion of issues related to the nature of development and phenotypic plasticity and their roles in evolution, and consideration of the need for an extended evolutionary synthesis.     

mRNA vaccines for COVID-19: what,why and how

The Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus -2 (SARS-CoV-2), has impacted human lives in the most profound ways with millions of infections and deaths. Scientists and pharmaceutical companies have been in race to produce vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine generation usually demands years of developing and testing for efficacy and safety. However, it only took less than one year to generate two mRNA vaccines from their development to deployment. The rapid production time, cost-effectiveness, versatility in vaccine design, and clinically proven ability to induce cellular and humoral immune response have crowned mRNA vaccines with spotlights as most promising vaccine candidates in the fight against the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the general principles of mRNA vaccine design and working mechanisms of the vaccines, and provide an up-to-date summary of pre-clinical and clinical trials on seven anti-COVID-19 mRNA candidate vaccines, with the focus on the two mRNA vaccines already licensed for vaccination. In addition, we highlight the key strategies in designing mRNA vaccines to maximize the expression of immunogens and avoid intrinsic innate immune response. We also provide some perspective for future vaccine development against COVID-19 and other pathogens.     

More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited

In 1961, Ernst Mayr published a highly influential article on the nature of causation in biology, in which he distinguished between proximate and ultimate causes. Mayr argued that proximate causes (e.g. physiological factors) and ultimate causes (e.g. natural selection) addressed distinct ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and were not competing alternatives. That distinction retains explanatory value today. However, the adoption of Mayr’s heuristic led to the widespread belief that ontogenetic processes are irrelevant to evolutionary questions, a belief that has (1) hindered progress within evolutionary biology, (2) forged divisions between evolutionary biology and adjacent disciplines and (3) obstructed several contemporary debates in biology. Here we expand on our earlier (Laland et al. in Science 334:1512–1516, 2011) argument that Mayr’s dichotomous formulation has now run its useful course, and that evolutionary biology would be better served by a concept of reciprocal causation, in which causation is perceived to cycle through biological systems recursively. We further suggest that a newer evolutionary synthesis is unlikely to emerge without this change in thinking about causation.     

Explaining how and explaining why: developmental and evolutionary explanations of dominance

There have been two different schools of thought on the evolution of dominance. On the one hand, followers of Wright [Wright S. 1929. Am. Nat. 63: 274–279, Evolution: Selected Papers by Sewall Wright, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1934. Am. Nat. 68: 25–53, Evolution: Selected Papers by Sewall Wright, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Haldane J.B.S. 1930. Am. Nat. 64: 87–90; 1939. J. Genet. 37: 365–374; Kacser H. and Burns J.A. 1981. Genetics 97: 639–666] have defended the view that dominance is a product of non-linearities in gene expression. On the other hand, followers of Fisher [Fisher R.A. 1928a. Am. Nat. 62: 15–126; 1928b. Am. Nat. 62: 571–574; Bürger R. 1983a. Math. Biosci. 67: 125–143; 1983b. J. Math. Biol. 16: 269–280; Wagner G. and Burger R. 1985. J. Theor. Biol. 113: 475–500; Mayo O. and Reinhard B. 1997. Biol. Rev. 72: 97–110] have argued that dominance evolved via selection on modifier genes. Some have called these “physiological” versus “selectionist,” or more recently [Falk R. 2001. Biol. Philos. 16: 285–323], “functional,” versus “structural” explanations of dominance. This paper argues, however, that one need not treat these explanations as exclusive. While one can disagree about the most likely evolutionary explanation of dominance, as Wright and Fisher did, offering a “physiological” or developmental explanation of dominance does not render dominance “epiphenomenal,” nor show that evolutionary considerations are irrelevant to the maintenance of dominance, as some [Kacser H. and Burns J.A. 1981. Genetics 97: 639–666] have argued. Recent work [Gilchrist M.A. and Nijhout H.F. 2001. Genetics 159: 423–432] illustrates how biological explanation is a multi-level task, requiring both a “top-down” approach to understanding how a pattern of inheritance or trait might be maintained in populations, as well as “bottom-up” modeling of the dynamics of gene expression.     

Local protein synthesis in neuronal axons: why and how we study

Adaptive brain function and synaptic plasticity rely on dynamic regulation of local proteome. One way for the neuron to introduce new proteins to the axon terminal is to transport those from the cell body, which had long been thought as the only source of axonal proteins. Another way, which is the topic of this review, is synthesizing proteins on site by local mRNA translation. Recent evidence indicates that the axon stores a reservoir of translationally silent mRNAs and regulates their expression solely by translational control. Different stimuli to axons, such as guidance cues, growth factors, and nerve injury, promote translation of selective mRNAs, a process required for the axon’s ability to respond to these cues. One of the critical questions in the field of axonal protein synthesis is how mRNA-specific local translation is regulated by extracellular cues. Here, we review current experimental techniques that can be used to answer this question. Furthermore, we discuss how new technologies can help us understand what biological processes are regulated by axonal protein synthesis in vivo. [BMB Reports 2015; 48(3): 139-146]     

Oscillatory signaling processes: the how, the why and the where

Oscillatory processes in biological signal transduction have come under progressively increasing scrutiny in terms of their functional significance and mechanisms of emergence and regulation. Since oscillatory processes can be a by-product of rapid adaptation and can also easily emerge if the feedback underlying adaptive processes is inadvertently artificially enhanced, one needs to exercise caution in both claiming the existence of in vivo oscillations and seeking to assign to them a specific functional significance. Nevertheless, oscillations can be a powerful means of encoding and transferring information both in time and in space, thus possessing important potential advantages for evolutionary selection and stabilization. Thus periodicity in the cell responses to diverse persistent external stimuli might become a more recognized and even expected feature of signaling processes.