Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

Guybrush · 01-18-2012, 05:11 AM

I've yet to read the scientific article, but the news article is interesting.

Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

An evolutionary biologist has made yeast which are normally unicellular free-floaters cooperate in permanent multicellular arrangements simply by regularly removing free floating single individuals from his breeding tanks. In other words, he simply introduced artificial selective pressure against the typical single celled arrangement (meaning the environment favours clumping) and let natural evolution do the rest.

It's such a simple experiment which basically anyone could do and the results are still quite interesting. For biologists, it confirms something we know while still shedding some new light on the hows (f.ex it didn't take very long to see results), but for many of the evolution doubters out there, this should be even more significant as it demonstrates how multicellularity can start.

duga · 01-18-2012, 12:16 PM

This is so cool! With the speed and relative ease that this took, imagine what it means in terms of evolution on other planets or even the drastic turns our evolution could have taken. If the environment had been even slightly different than the one our ancestors evolved in, we would be very different creatures.

Sadly, we biologists can add more and more evidence supporting evolution but we are going to keep getting the same responses... "If you are so sure, why is it just a theory?" Bah... A lot of times I just want to give up. The one thing we can't seem to make them understand is that if we are shown significant evidence disproving evolution, we would all start questioning it. Hell, I'd be one of the first ones to say we were wrong. Oh well.

Sorry for the rant. As far as the article goes... I will definitely have to track down that publication. Applying artificial selection has been something I've been very interested in. In fact, I've had ideas as a plant biologist that involve taking plants that produce novel drugs and studying how they evolved to produce them (some produce them to deter predators while some are meant to attract pollinators) and perhaps apply artificial pressure and get them to artificially evolve the drug to do something that we want. In a way, marijuana growers already do this to get a desired effect from their strain.

We are obviously a long way off from being able to do this with a great deal of control, but it's something to think about. I'm glad to see it in action.

**Janszoon** · 01-18-2012, 12:18 PM

Like Duga said, I doubt this (or anything) will convince the anti-evolution crowd unfortunately. Still pretty neat though!

Neapolitan · 01-18-2012, 01:41 PM

To me it's like looking at a glass and saying it is half empty or half full. Evolution didn't take place for the free-floating single cell of the brewer's yeast, in the experiment they were discarded, so to me that leaves questions about the experiment. What if in that yeast culture there were two types of yeast (for the sake of clarity & brevity name them A and B) yeast A is not prone to multi-cellularity and yeast B is prone to multi-cellularity, they both co-exist in the culture before the experiment took place. And the experiment just separated the two traits and it favoured the yeast that would give rise to the desire result of multi-cellularity instead of the undesired uni-cellularity.

It reminded me of Russian experiment done on wild fox, fox were made domesticated in time they lost many traits of fox like bushy tail but when released fox back into the wild they gain back those traits like bushy tail. So like the fox tail what would happen to that multi-cellular yeast if it was released back into its natural environment would it regress to natural state of uni-cellularity, and is multi-cellularity a trait it can revert to back and forth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

The one thing we can't seem to make them understand is that if we are shown significant evidence disproving evolution, we would all start questioning it.

I think that should be always done. Experiments and the hypothesis dealing with evolution should be questioned anyway that's just a part of science.

Guybrush · 01-18-2012, 02:03 PM

Neapolitan, I assume what you're really wondering is whether the clumping trait is something the genomes of unicellular yeast are capable of; that they can arrange themselves either on their own or in clumps similar to how a rabbit can change from a dark summer coat to a white winter coat without having to "evolve" their DNA. The ability for a genome to express itself in different ways is called plasticity and it's something biologists study and are aware of. I've not read the scientific article yet, but I'm sure the scientific article will document some of the directional genetic changes which are a response (evolution) to the artificial selective pressure.

Plasticity and evolution is pretty basic stuff and it would be a very strange place to make a mistake. These guys would know about it and would know that in order to call it evolution, they should prove that what happened is not just another expression within the range of the organisms plasticity, but a novel behaviour caused by a genetic evolutionary response to the artificial selection pressure.

If you were to release multicellular yeast into an environment where being unicellular has the highest fitness benefit, then they should evolve back to a unicellular arrangement. I'm not sure if you feel that would disprove evolution and, if so, why.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

This is so cool! With the speed and relative ease that this took, imagine what it means in terms of evolution on other planets or even the drastic turns our evolution could have taken. If the environment had been even slightly different than the one our ancestors evolved in, we would be very different creatures.

Sadly, we biologists can add more and more evidence supporting evolution but we are going to keep getting the same responses... "If you are so sure, why is it just a theory?" Bah... A lot of times I just want to give up. The one thing we can't seem to make them understand is that if we are shown significant evidence disproving evolution, we would all start questioning it. Hell, I'd be one of the first ones to say we were wrong. Oh well.

Sorry for the rant. As far as the article goes... I will definitely have to track down that publication. Applying artificial selection has been something I've been very interested in. In fact, I've had ideas as a plant biologist that involve taking plants that produce novel drugs and studying how they evolved to produce them (some produce them to deter predators while some are meant to attract pollinators) and perhaps apply artificial pressure and get them to artificially evolve the drug to do something that we want. In a way, marijuana growers already do this to get a desired effect from their strain.

We are obviously a long way off from being able to do this with a great deal of control, but it's something to think about. I'm glad to see it in action.

It's definetly an interesting field and probably quite satisfying to work with. I can imagine biologists becoming quite fond of and excited about their breeding tanks/whatevers where they're evolving specific traits

Neapolitan · 01-18-2012, 02:31 PM

Well, Evolution outside of science can be a highly debatable topic, I prefer not to favour either side of it.

What is more intriguing to me is the road not taken. What about those singular yeast cell do they also mutate but without becoming multi-cellular or are they also prone to (like you say) placidity? I think if there was a way to map the genomes every day for 60 days (time given in the article for the experiment) for both yeast A and yeast B and any other yeast that branches off to see molecular change in the DNA for each one - I might be more satisfied, for me that would be proof of something happening.

This is something I wondered about after reading the article: how many generations would it take for a single cell yeast to become multicellular yeast and if release into an environment non-conducive for multi-cellularity would they die off or survive and if they survive how many generations would it take them to revert back to singular cell form, and how much of a difference in their DNA would there be from the original yeast that was used when they began the experiment?

**Janszoon** · 01-18-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Well, Evolution outside of science can be a highly debatable topic, I prefer not to favour either side of it.

What do you mean by "evolution outside of science"?

Guybrush · 01-18-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

What about those singular yeast cell do they also mutate but without becoming multi-cellular or are they also prone to (like you say) placidity? I think if there was a way to map the genomes every day for 60 days (time given in the article for the experiment) for both yeast A and yeast B and any other yeast that branches off to see molecular change in the DNA for each one - I might be more satisfied, for me that would be proof of something happening.

Organisms' DNA mutates. Of course the genetic makeup of the yeast would change over time, no matter what you did with it. We know this from a wealth of studies already. Science is way past that point and it's about time the general populace catches up.

The interesting thing here is not actually that stuff evolves. Micro organisms (and life in general) evolve in the labs and elsewhere and that's nothing new. The interesting thing here is the evolution of the multicellular trait. Many have thought it a very difficult trait to achieve, but this scientist and his study shows how quickly it can happen in yeast and that can tell us something about how the trait first appeared in other lineages.

I find it a bit difficult to respond to you because I'm not sure we're on the same page. For example, I don't know to what extent you understand evolution. Perhaps you believe genetic mutations are very rare?

duga · 01-18-2012, 08:38 PM

Yeah, I'm getting the impression he doesn't quite understand.

Neapolitan, what is your understanding of what is going on? If they were to move the multi-cellular yeast to a different environment, surely it would die. It only has an advantage in the environment they "evolved" it in.

Electrophonic Tonic · 01-18-2012, 08:51 PM

This reminds me a lot of the Miller-Urey experiment. Basically, it proved that the elements and conditions on the early Earth some 4-3 billion years ago could create live. The experiment ran for a few weeks, and they found amino acids.

Yet again, science has the tangible evidence for evolution but no one on either side of the argument will change their position no matter what.

And, if anyone can appreciate multicellular life, it's my Cambrian friend below my user name. The Anomalocaris approves.

01-18-2012, 05:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory I've yet to read the scientific article, but the news article is interesting. Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory \| Wired Science \| Wired.com An evolutionary biologist has made yeast which are normally unicellular free-floaters cooperate in permanent multicellular arrangements simply by regularly removing free floating single individuals from his breeding tanks. In other words, he simply introduced artificial selective pressure against the typical single celled arrangement (meaning the environment favours clumping) and let natural evolution do the rest. It's such a simple experiment which basically anyone could do and the results are still quite interesting. For biologists, it confirms something we know while still shedding some new light on the hows (f.ex it didn't take very long to see results), but for many of the evolution doubters out there, this should be even more significant as it demonstrates how multicellularity can start. __________________ Something Completely Different

01-18-2012, 12:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	This is so cool! With the speed and relative ease that this took, imagine what it means in terms of evolution on other planets or even the drastic turns our evolution could have taken. If the environment had been even slightly different than the one our ancestors evolved in, we would be very different creatures. Sadly, we biologists can add more and more evidence supporting evolution but we are going to keep getting the same responses... "If you are so sure, why is it just a theory?" Bah... A lot of times I just want to give up. The one thing we can't seem to make them understand is that if we are shown significant evidence disproving evolution, we would all start questioning it. Hell, I'd be one of the first ones to say we were wrong. Oh well. Sorry for the rant. As far as the article goes... I will definitely have to track down that publication. Applying artificial selection has been something I've been very interested in. In fact, I've had ideas as a plant biologist that involve taking plants that produce novel drugs and studying how they evolved to produce them (some produce them to deter predators while some are meant to attract pollinators) and perhaps apply artificial pressure and get them to artificially evolve the drug to do something that we want. In a way, marijuana growers already do this to get a desired effect from their strain. We are obviously a long way off from being able to do this with a great deal of control, but it's something to think about. I'm glad to see it in action. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

01-18-2012, 12:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	Like Duga said, I doubt this (or anything) will convince the anti-evolution crowd unfortunately. Still pretty neat though! __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

01-18-2012, 08:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	Yeah, I'm getting the impression he doesn't quite understand. Neapolitan, what is your understanding of what is going on? If they were to move the multi-cellular yeast to a different environment, surely it would die. It only has an advantage in the environment they "evolved" it in. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

01-18-2012, 08:51 PM	#10 (permalink)
Electrophonic Tonic Your Ad Here Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: The Twilight Zone Posts: 876	This reminds me a lot of the Miller-Urey experiment. Basically, it proved that the elements and conditions on the early Earth some 4-3 billion years ago could create live. The experiment ran for a few weeks, and they found amino acids. Yet again, science has the tangible evidence for evolution but no one on either side of the argument will change their position no matter what. And, if anyone can appreciate multicellular life, it's my Cambrian friend below my user name. The Anomalocaris approves.