Life history focus on a malaria parasite: linked traits and variation among genetic clones

Life history theory has long been a major campaign in evolutionary ecology, but has typically focused only on animals and plants. Life history research on single-celled eukaryotic protists such as malaria parasites (Plasmodium) will offer new insights into the theory’s general utility as well as the parasite’s basic biology. For example, parasitologists have described the Plasmodium life cycle and cell types in exquisite detail, with little discussion of evolutionary issues such as developmental links between traits. We measured 10 life history traits of replicate single-genotype experimental Plasmodium mexicanum infections in its natural lizard host to identify groups of linked traits. These 10 traits formed 4 trait groups: “Rate/Peak” merges measures of growth rate and maximum parasitemia of infections; “Timing” combines time to patency and maximum parasitemia; “Growth Shape” describes the fit to an exponential growth curve; and “Sex Ratio” includes only the gametocyte sex ratio. Parasite genotype (clone) showed no effect on the life history trait groups, with the exception of gametocyte sex ratio. Therefore, variation in most life history traits among infections appears to be driven by environmental (individual host) effects. The findings support the model that life history traits are often linked by developmental constraints. Understanding why life history traits of Plasmodium are linked in this way would offer a new window into the evolution of the parasites, and also should inform public health efforts to control infection prevalence.     

An evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness

Everyday experience suggests that physical attractiveness is important in personal—and especially sexual—relationships. This impression is confirmed by a large body of social psychological research.^1,2 Cross-cultural surveys and ethnographic accounts show that concern with the attractiveness of potential mates is also common in non-Western societies and in tribal and peasant cultures.³ However, social psychologists and anthropologists have often had a hard time explaining why attractiveness should count for so much, or why some features rather than others should seem particularly attractive. The theoretical difficulties in accounting for physical attraction are brought out in a Brazilian saying, “Beleza nâo pôe na mesa” (“Good looks don't put anything on the table”), which points to the absence of any evident practical advantage to choosing an attractive mate. Faced with these difficulties, a growing number of researchers in biology, psychology, and anthropology have turned to the modern theory of sexual selection, which has been highly successful in explaining nonhuman animals attractions to traits of no direct ecological utility. In this article, I survey recent efforts to apply the theory of sexual selection to human physical attraction.     

What is a species? Essences and generation

Arguments against essentialism in biology rely strongly on a claim that modern biology abandoned Aristotle’s notion of a species as a class of necessary and sufficient properties. However, neither his theory of essentialism, nor his logical definition of species and genus (eidos and genos) play much of a role in biological research and taxonomy, including his own. The objections to natural kinds thinking by early twentieth century biologists wrestling with the new genetics overlooked the fact that species have typical developmental cycles and most have a large shared genetic component. These are the “what-it-is-to-be” members of that species. An intrinsic biological essentialism does not commit us to Aristotelian notions, nor even modern notions, of essence. There is a long-standing definition of “species” and its precursor notions that goes back to the Greeks, and which Darwin and pretty well all biologists since him share, that I call the Generative Conception of Species. It relies on there being a shared generative power that makes progeny resemble parents. The “what-it-is-to-be” a member of that species is that developmental type, mistakes in development notwithstanding. Moreover, such “essences” have always been understood to include deviations from the type. Finally, I shall examine some implications of the collapse of the narrative about essences in biology.     

Catalytic RNA,ribozyme, and its applications in synthetic biology

Ribozymes are functional RNA molecules that can catalyze biochemical reactions. Since the discovery of the first catalytic RNA, various functional ribozymes (e.g., self-cleaving ribozymes, splicing ribozymes, RNase P, etc.) have been uncovered, and their structures and mechanisms have been identified. Ribozymes have the advantage of possessing features of “RNA” molecules; hence, they are highly applicable for manipulating various biological systems. To fully employ ribozymes in a broad range of biological applications in synthetic biology, a variety of ribozymes have been developed and engineered. Here, we summarize the main features of ribozymes and the methods used for engineering their functions. We also describe the past and recent efforts towards exploiting ribozymes for effective and novel applications in synthetic biology. Based on studies on their significance in biological applications till date, ribozymes are expected to advance technologies in artificial biological systems.     

Postgenomic futures: translations across the machine-nature border in systems biology

Abstract

This article discusses the production of new “postgenomic” knowledges that aim to be more ecological and “wholistic” than the reductionist genetics of the last forty years. It examines systems biology and, briefly, developmental systems theory, which are two approaches that attempt to model complexities in biology. System biological metaphors and languages have been in part taken from engineering models of automobiles, airplanes and robots and then applied to complex living systems. Systems biology is only the most recent example and perhaps an excellent case in which to study this movement back and forth across the machine-living organism border in Euro-American biology to track how what we know to be nature and machine is constituted. This article argues for a careful analysis of this historical production specifically around the question of what is lost in translation at these border crossings and their potential consequences.     

Natural decision theory: A general formalism for the analysis of evolved characteristics

Classical Decision Theory, a mature and highly developed theory of rational choice, can be applied within evolutionary biology to the question of what traits an organism ought “rationally” to adopt, given that it wants to maximize its fitness. In this way the powerful formalism of decision theory can be brought to bear on the problem of how to predict which characters will be favored by natural selection, or to explain why certain characters have been so favored.Under some circumstances the classical theory of decision can be applied as it stands to an evolutionary problem simply by substituting an appropriate measure of biological fitness for the decision-theoretic concept of “utility”. Under other circumstances, however, it is necessary to extend the classical rules of decision in certain new directions. The result is a family of decision calculi of which the classical is only one. The name “Natural Decision Theory” is proposed for this extended class of biologically relevant decision methods.The decision tree method of diagramming an evolutionary decision situation is illustrated for the classical and three non-classical decision criteria, and is suggested as a potential means of gaining new insights into evolutionary forces.     

Bulk segregant linkage mapping for rodent and human malaria parasites

In 2005 Richard Carter's group surprised the malaria genetics community with an elegant approach to rapidly mapping the genetic basis of phenotypic traits in rodent malaria parasites. This approach, which he termed “linkage group selection”, utilized bulk pools of progeny, rather than individual clones, and exploited simple selection schemes to identify genome regions underlying resistance to drug treatment (or other phenotypes). This work was the first application of “bulk segregant” methodologies for genetic mapping in microbes: this approach is now widely used in yeast, and across multiple recombining pathogens ranging from Aspergillus fungi to Schistosome parasites. Genetic crosses of human malaria parasites (for which Richard Carter was also a pioneer) can now be conducted in humanized mice, providing new opportunities for exploiting bulk segregant approaches for a wide variety of malaria parasite traits. We review the application of bulk segregant approaches to mapping malaria parasite traits and suggest additional developments that may further expand the utility of this powerful approach.     

Rethinking individuality: the dialectics of the holobiont

Given immunity’s general role in the organism’s economy—both in terms of its internal environment as well as mediating its external relations—immune theory has expanded its traditional formulation of preserving individual autonomy to one that includes accounting for nutritional processes and symbiotic relationships that require immune tolerance. When such a full ecological alignment is adopted, the immune system becomes the mediator of both defensive and assimilative environmental intercourse, where a balance of immune rejection and tolerance governs the complex interactions of the organism’s ecological relationships. Accordingly, immunology, which historically had affiliated with the biology of individuals, now becomes a science concerned with the biology of communities. With this translocation, the ontological basis of the organism is undergoing a profound change. Indeed, the recent recognition of the ubiquity of symbiosis has challenged the traditional notions of biological individuality and requires a shift in the metaphysics undergirding biology, in which a philosophy of the organism must be characterized by ecological dialectics “all-the-way-down.”     

How to Rethink Evolutionary Theory: A Plurality of Evolutionary Patterns

Nature has recently depicted the empirical advancements of the theory of evolution as a confrontation between “reformists”, that claim for an urgent rethinking of the standard neo-Darwinian approach including so far neglected factors and processes, and “conservatives” who reply “all is well” about the current evolutionary research programme based on genetic variation and natural selection. The fight is mainly around genetic reductionism, but it seems inconclusive. Reformists stress very important factors, but they are still missing a coherent proposal about the architecture of the future extended evolutionary theory. Conservative react defensively, relying just on non-essential add-ons to the old and stable neo-Darwinian core. We analyze the debate and we propose an interpretation. Evolutionary biology is a rapidly expanding field. The bone of contention is how to update and extend the central core of the Darwinian legacy. We propose here the idea that what is happening in the field today is a development of the evolutionary research programme, whose structure is composed of a set of compatible and integrated evolutionary patterns. Evolutionary biology has been extended over its history by the inclusion of more and more patterns, rather than by revision to core theory. Niles Eldredge’s “Hierarchy Theory” is an example of global structure (meta-theory) aiming at incorporating and unifying the currently observed evolutionary patterns.     

Systems biology of eukaryotic superorganisms and the holobiont concept

The founders of modern biology (Jean Lamarck, Charles Darwin, August Weismann etc.) were organismic life scientists who attempted to understand the morphology and evolution of living beings as a whole (i.e., the phenotype). However, with the emergence of the study of animal and plant physiology in the nineteenth century, this “holistic view” of the living world changed and was ultimately replaced by a reductionistic perspective. Here, I summarize the history of systems biology, i.e., the modern approach to understand living beings as integrative organisms, from genotype to phenotype. It is documented that the physiologists Claude Bernard and Julius Sachs, who studied humans and plants, respectively, were early pioneers of this discipline, which was formally founded 50 years ago. In 1968, two influential monographs, authored by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Mihajlo D. Mesarovi?, were published, wherein a “systems theory of biology” was outlined. Definitions of systems biology are presented with reference to metabolic or cell signaling networks, analyzed via genomics, proteomics, and other methods, combined with computer simulations/mathematical modeling. Then, key insights of this discipline with respect to epiphytic microbes (Methylobacterium sp.) and simple bacteria (Mycoplasma sp.) are described. The principles of homeostasis, molecular systems energetics, gnotobiology, and holobionts (i.e., complexities of host–microbiota interactions) are outlined, and the significance of systems biology for evolutionary theories is addressed. Based on the microbe—Homo sapiens—symbiosis, it is concluded that human biology and health should be interpreted in light of a view of the biomedical sciences that is based on the holobiont concept.     

On the “cytosociology” of enzyme action in vivo: A novel thermodynamic correlate of biological evolution

The evolution of enzyme action in vivo is examined, in the light of established thermodynamic correlates of biological evolution. Adopting a “process” view of matter in the “living state,” the authors focus the analysis on the transition-state theory of reaction rates. Thus, the free-energy change associated with the transition-state barrier is seen as a primary target in the evolution of cellular metabolism. The utility and limitations of reductionistic approaches to enzyme evolution, based on the single enzyme, are explored first. Then, canvassing the wealth of evidence on the role of enzyme organization in vivo, the authors synthesize a “cytosociological” view of enzyme evolution. In this view, a composite (resultant) of individual transition-state barriers is deemed a more appropriate “potential function” for modification in the higher evolution of cell metabolism. The suggested direction of evolutionary changes in this function, dictated by the increasing “socialization” of enzyme action in vivo, stands as a novel postulate. This approach is shown to be completely consonant with current thinking on the thermodynamics of biological evolution, and to provide further insight into the nature of material transformations in the “living state”.     

The many faces of biological individuality

Biological individuality is a major topic of discussion in biology and philosophy of biology. Recently, several objections have been raised against traditional accounts of biological individuality, including the objections of monism (the tendency to focus on a single individuality criterion and/or a single biological field), theory-centrism (the tendency to discuss only theory-based individuation), ahistoricity (the tendency to neglect what biologists of the past and historians of biology have said about biological individuality), disciplinary isolationism (the tendency to isolate biological individuality from other scientific and philosophical domains that have investigated individuality), and the multiplication of conceptual uncertainties (the lack of a precise definition of “biological individual” and related terms). In this introduction, I will examine the current philosophical landscape about biological individuality, and show how the contributions gathered in this special issue address these five objections. Overall, the aim of this issue is to offer a more diverse, unifying, and scientifically informed conception of what a biological individual is.     

An enzyme family reunion — similarities,differences and eccentricities in actions on <Emphasis Type="Italic">α</Emphasis>-glucans

α-Glucans in general, including starch, glycogen and their derived oligosaccharides are processed by a host of more or less closely related enzymes that represent wide diversity in structure, mechanism, specificity and biological role. Sophisticated three-dimensional structures continue to emerge hand-in-hand with the gaining of novel insight in modes of action. We are witnessing the “test of time” blending with remaining questions and new relationships for these enzymes. Information from both within and outside of ALAMY_3 Symposium will provide examples on what the family contains and outline some future directions. In 2007 a quantum leap crowned the structural biology by the glucansucrase crystal structure. This initiates the disclosure of the mystery on the organisation of the multidomain structure and the “robotics mechanism” of this group of enzymes. The central issue on architecture and domain interplay in multidomain enzymes is also relevant in connection with the recent focus on carbohydrate-binding domains as well as on surface binding sites and their long underrated potential. Other questions include, how different or similar are glycoside hydrolase families 13 and 31 and is the lid finally lifted off the disguise of the starch lyase, also belonging to family 31? Is family 57 holding back secret specificities? Will the different families be sporting new “eccentric” functions, are there new families out there, and why are crystal structures of “simple” enzymes still missing? Indeed new understanding and discovery of biological roles continuously emphasize value of the collections of enzyme models, sequences, and evolutionary trees which will also be enabling advancement in design for useful and novel applications.     

GENETIC HITCHHIKING AND THE DYNAMIC BUILDUP OF GENOMIC DIVERGENCE DURING SPECIATION WITH GENE FLOW

A major issue in evolutionary biology is explaining patterns of differentiation observed in population genomic data, as divergence can be due to both direct selection on a locus and genetic hitchhiking. “Divergence hitchhiking” (DH) theory postulates that divergent selection on a locus reduces gene flow at physically linked sites, facilitating the formation of localized clusters of tightly linked, diverged loci. “Genome hitchhiking” (GH) theory emphasizes genome‐wide effects of divergent selection. Past theoretical investigations of DH and GH focused on static snapshots of divergence. Here, we used simulations assessing a variety of strengths of selection, migration rates, population sizes, and mutation rates to investigate the relative importance of direct selection, GH, and DH in facilitating the dynamic buildup of genomic divergence as speciation proceeds through time. When divergently selected mutations were limiting, GH promoted divergence, but DH had little measurable effect. When populations were small and divergently selected mutations were common, DH enhanced the accumulation of weakly selected mutations, but this contributed little to reproductive isolation. In general, GH promoted reproductive isolation by reducing effective migration rates below that due to direct selection alone, and was important for genome‐wide “congealing” or “coupling” of differentiation (F_ST) across loci as speciation progressed.     

Preliminary studies of Eutorna phaulocosma (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae) in New Zealand

Abstract

In 1978 George C. Williams predicted that the last two decades of this century would be a fabulous age, and that evolutionary biology would provide critical insights into the processes of change in the biological world. He suggested that these might come to be described as the “good old days”. I am not so sure that this is likely, but I am very sure that it will be a turbulent time. I think also that those biologists who attended the recent SYSTANZ meeting on evolution must by now be equally convinced. The conference was punctuated by heated debates on major topics such as Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory, vicariance biogeography, and teleology, to mention but a few.     

Statistical theories of functions and the problem of epidemic disease

Several decades ago, Christopher Boorse formulated an influential statistical theory of normative biological functions but it has often been claimed that his theory suffers from insuperable problems such as an inability to handle cases of epidemic and universal diseases. This paper develops a new statistical theory of normative functions that is capable of dealing with the notorious problem of epidemic and universal diseases. The theory is also more detailed than its predecessors and offers other important advantages over them. It is argued here that statistical theories of biological functions should not be so quickly dismissed.     

Selection never dominates drift (nor vice versa)

The probability that the fitter of two alleles will increase in frequency in a population goes up as the product of N (the effective population size) and s (the selection coefficient) increases. Discovering the distribution of values for this product across different alleles in different populations is a very important biological task. However, biologists often use the product Ns to define a different concept; they say that drift “dominates” selection or that drift is “stronger than” selection when Ns is much smaller than some threshold quantity (e.g., ½) and that the reverse is true when Ns is much larger than that threshold. We argue that the question of whether drift dominates selection for a single allele in a single population makes no sense. Selection and drift are causes of evolution, but there is no fact of the matter as to which cause is stronger in the evolution of any given allele.     

What are genes “for” or where are traits “from”? What is the question?

For at least a century it has been known that multiple factors play a role in the development of complex traits, and yet the notion that there are genes “for” such traits, which traces back to Mendel, is still widespread. In this paper, we illustrate how the Mendelian model has tacitly encouraged the idea that we can explain complexity by reducing it to enumerable genes. By this approach many genes associated with simple as well as complex traits have been identified. But the genetic architecture of biological traits, or how they are made, remains largely unknown. In essence, this reflects the tension between reductionism as the current “modus operandi” of science, and the emerging knowledge of the nature of complex traits. Recent interest in systems biology as a unifying approach indicates a reawakened acceptance of the complexity of complex traits, though the temptation is to replace “gene for” thinking by comparably reductionistic “network for” concepts. Both approaches implicitly mix concepts of variants and invariants in genetics. Even the basic question is unclear: what does one need to know to “understand” the genetic basis of complex traits? New operational ideas about how to deal with biological complexity are needed.     

The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr

Ernst Mayr's distinction between “ultimate” and “proximate” causes is justly considered a major contribution to philosophy of biology. But how did Mayr come to this “philosophical” distinction, and what role did it play in his earlier “scientific” work? I address these issues by dividing Mayr's work into three careers or phases: 1) Mayr the naturalist/researcher, 2) Mayr the representative of and spokesman for evolutionary biology and systematics, and more recently 3) Mayr the historian and philosopher of biology. If we want to understand the role of the proximate/ultimate distinction in Mayr's more recent career as a philosopher and historian, then it helps to consider hisearlier use of the distinction, in the course of his research, and in his promotion of the professions of evolutionary biology and systematics. I believe that this approach would also shed light on some other important “philosophical” positions that Mayr has defended, including the distinction between “essentialism: and “population thinking.”