Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | February 2nd 2009 09:44 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

Show Me The Science Month Day 7

The birth of new species always involves a barrier to cross-breeding between two different groups of the same species. This barrier may start out as a geographical barrier (two raccoon populations on different sides of a mountain never encounter each other and thus fail to interbreed), but however it starts, reporductive barriers always turn into a genetic barrier. To form new species, two populations of organisms have to drift apart genetically.

The genetic split can happen in a variety of ways, as scientists are discovering in the their quest to find 'speciation genes.' It can happen because a selfish gene fails to be shut down in the offspring of cross-breeding flies, and it can happen because one mouse gene doesn't work right when it encounters genetic variants from another subspecies.

A report in Science describes one more speciation gene, this time in two sub-species of thale cress plants. In this case, the barrier to reproduction is the result of faulty gene copying.

At some point in thale cress history, a gene called HPA coding for a metabolic enzyme was accidentally copied. For a time, the two copies of this gene, each one at a different place in the genome, produced a functional enzyme. However, since two copies of the HPA gene are not needed, mutations eventually began to erode one of the copies. Since the mutations were not harmful to the plant, natural selection did not weed them out, and one copy of this gene was rendered completely non-functional.

The catch is that, in different populations of thale cress (all of the same species), a different copy of the HPA gene was destroyed. In one population, copy 1 (on chromosome 1) was knocked out, while in the other, copy 2 was destroyed (on chromosome 5). When you put a deficient copy 1 and a deficient copy 2 together in the same organisms, bad things happen.

To understand what bad things are going on, remember that these plants are diploid organisms, meaning they have two copies of each chromosome. So it's possible that a plant can have one good and one bad copy each of chromosomes 1 and 5; those plants do just fine, because they still manage of have enough good copies of the HPA gene. Other combinations of chromosomes don't do so well: a plant that has two bad copies of chromosome 1, but one good and one bad copy of chromosome 5, still has one functional HPA gene (on the good chromosome 5); it is alive, but not thriving. Plants that have all bad copies of both chromosomes 1 and 5 never make it out of the embryo stage.

In other words, after the HPA gene was accidentally duplicated in an ancestral population of thale cress, different sub-populations started to follow different evolutionary trajectories, by collecting mutations in different copies of the HPA gene. These two sub-populations have barely started down their diverging evolutionary roads, but the distance they've traveled is enough to put up a significant reproductive barrier between these two populations of thale cress. New species develop by these first small genetic steps.

If you've been following along in this series, you're probably sick of speciation genes by now. Tomorrow we'll leave speciation genetics for the time being and talk about some fossils.

In the meantime, go check out the Rugbyologist's reluctant celebration of the Darwin Bicentennial. Read about how he thinks his takedown of the Bicentennial made me cry, but in reality, those were tears accompanying uncontrollable laughter because he's got some hilarious stuff over there, including a third order polynomial model of the demise of creationism.

Join me tomorrow, here at Adaptive Complexity, for day 8 of Show Me The Science Month. Evolution as a science is alive and well. Each day I will blog about a paper related to evolution published in 2009.

Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Now that I've finished my three-day series on 'speciation genes', go read about John Wilkins' dislike of the term:

But why think that there should be particular classes of genes that
contribute to speciation? Sure, there may be genes that are implicated
in Drosophilid speciation, or maybe even in insect speciation, but all
that matters in sexual species is that some barrier to
reproduction exists. It need not be a particular barrier. Consider this
- how many ways are there to impede the flow of traffic? SHould we
expect there are only a couple of ways? Witches' hats and workers'
signs may be common, but there are sinkholes, burning barriers of
demonstrations, collapsed cranes, street parties... and the list could
be indefinitely extended. I suspect that speciation is like that - it's
a negative property, and oen that can be arrived at in an indefinitely large number of ways. There's some bad thinking going on here.

Wilkins raises a valid point, but I've heard scientists who work in this field argue that there are reasons to suspect that certain classes of genes may indeed be more likely to contribute to speciation. Whether that's true is still an open question, but it's why many of these researchers are looking at the earliest steps of potential speciation. Sure, there are plenty of ways to for two populations to be reproductively incompatible, but are there certain types of genes that are typically invovlved in the first steps towards reproductive isolation? Some researchers think so. I don't have to reproduce their arguments here (and I'm not personally convinced by them at this point), but these arguments shouldn't be simply dismissed as bad thinking.

I'll come back to this subject when my kids aren't climbing all over me.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
To return to the subject briefly: Are there certain classes of genes more likely to be involved in speciation than others? Again, I'm not sure, but the paper I just blogged about here is  a bad example of what should be a  'speciation gene'. In this case, the genetic incompatibility between these two sub-populations is largely what you get when you have two recessive, deleterious allels segregating in a single population. In the paper, most hybrid plants are just fine, and it's possible that some of the hybrids may even be fitter than non-hybrids.

Contrast this paper with the fly paper and the mouse paper I blogged about earlier. In those two papers, the 'speciation gene' is extremely efficient at producing hybrid sterility. The genetic reproductive barrier found in these two papers is much more impermeable than the reproductive barrier described in the plant paper. That impermeable reproductive barrier is reversible with a single allele swap - in other words, all that's holding this barrier up is a single genetic change. In that sense, the genes discussed in the fly and mouse papers fit the term 'speciation gene' than the genetic incompatibility described in the thale cress paper.

To be fair, the only paper of these three that uses the term 'speciation gene' is the mouse paper.

One final thought: the term "speciation gene" (gene involved in speciation) may be flawed, but the term speciation genetics (using the tools of genetics to identify speciation mechanisms) is good.

jtwitten's picture
This is actually the first time since the demise of Tycho Brahe that a third order polynomial has been referred to as "hilarious stuff."

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.