Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version Print | Comments

Document 'Darwin chip' brings evolution into the classroom

by New Scientist

Reposted from:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13611-darwin-chip-brings-evolution-into-the-classroom.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

10:58 08 April 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Ewen Callaway

A new "Darwin chip" could make evolution as easy as pressing play.

Researchers have created an automated device that evolves a biological molecule on a chip filled with hundreds of miniature chambers.

The molecule, which stitches together strands of RNA, became 90 times more efficient after just 70 hours of evolution.

"It's survival of the fittest," says Brian Paegel, a biochemist at the Scripps Research Institute, in La Jolla, California, who led the study with colleague Gerald Joyce.

The experiment could be used in the future to evolve molecules – or even cells – to sense environmental pollutants, Paegel says.

Dispelling doubts

And by demonstrating natural selection in real-time, the device could also help dispel doubts over evolution in the classroom and beyond, says Joyce. "There's a whole bunch of people who think evolution is only theory, including some former presidential candidates."

While Darwin used natural selection to explain differences between species, his principles also work at the level of molecules.

RNA is usually used to create proteins from genes. But some kinds of RNA can perform tasks similar to protein enzymes. Paegel's team used just such an RNA molecule, or ligase, in their work.

In the process, the ligase sews another strand of RNA to itself and is then duplicated by a pair of proteins.

Because of occasional errors in copying, the new ligase molecule might work differently from its predecessor – sometimes better, and sometimes worse. Paegel's team wanted to see if they could evolve a better ligase by natural selection.

Evolving ability

To do this, they took a form of ligase that is not very good at recognising RNA molecules, and dumped it in a pool of RNA. After letting it duplicate for a while, the researchers gradually reduced the number of RNA molecules in the pool, meaning that only the more efficient copies of the ligase could survive.

All the reactions occurred in a miniature chamber on the "evolution chip". After reaching a specified level of efficiency, a miniature pump automatically sucked up a small amount of the contents and plopped it into a new chamber. This started another round of selection.

After 70 hours and billions of duplications, Paegel's team stopped the reaction and analysed the last few batches. The ligase molecules they pulled out were able to find and stitch RNA molecules 90 times more efficiently than the ligase the team started with.

'Tasty potato'

Other researchers have created similar evolution machines, but few as fast and simple as the automated chip. "It's a big technical advance," says Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Harvard University. Other labs are likely to follow, he says. "It doesn't look that difficult to do."

The device might be able to evolve better sensors to detect environmental pollutants such as lead, Paegal says. Just as his team reduced the number of RNA molecules in the reaction to select for a better ligase, cutting the level of lead would select an improved lead sensor.

Paegel also hopes to use the Darwin chip to make molecules with new chemical properties, not just improved editions of old molecules.

"We took a potato and made a really tasty potato," says Pagael. "But we would really like to discover broccoli – something completely different."

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #157580 by Fermion on April 9, 2008 at 9:41 am

 avatarGreat news!

Other Comments by Fermion

2. Comment #157584 by black wolf on April 9, 2008 at 9:51 am

 avatarIs optimism about the possibly persuasive nature of such a practical demonstration of the mechanisms of evolution appropriate. I think yes. But this 'yes' is not an unconditional affirmation.
What we do know is that die-hard creationists lie, they distort and spin or deny any new development, evidence and research to fit their agenda. Therefore I predict that the first argument against this will be 'haha, this is man-made, so it proves that intelligent creation is necessary to prompt any evolutionary process, and it also proves that evolution can only work if the parameters are determined by an intelligent creator'.
They constantly demand, completely oblivious to logic, that natural evolution be demonstrated before their very eyes, with every single physical change visible from an inorganic molecule to a complete modern organism, i.e. homo sapiens. They are not willing to admit the simple fact that mounting evidence of accumulated variation is logically equivalent to observing every step in sequence. And they are not willing to apply their hypocritical demands to their own biased ideology. The easiest tactical step in their strategy is to put pressure on school boards and science teachers not to mention any fact or undertake any demonstration, such as this chip, that might possibly touch the dogma they wish to implant into all children's minds, and it's already working. All children, not just their own - there's homeschooling for that, but that's not what they're satisfied with. The strategy is the gradual implementation of theocracy. Enough of the completely factual ranting for now.

Other Comments by black wolf

3. Comment #157597 by DamnDirtyApe on April 9, 2008 at 10:13 am

Ah, this stuff is cool. I work in an Embedded Systems lab doing some image processing stuff. One guy here's working on fault-tolerant computation inspired by RNA messaging.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

4. Comment #157600 by Mr. Flibble on April 9, 2008 at 10:14 am

 avatarWould it be wrong to say that this chip is Intelligently Designed?

*ducks*

Other Comments by Mr. Flibble

5. Comment #157612 by Mozglubov on April 9, 2008 at 10:38 am

I'm not sure it will be all that effective at dispelling doubts, since there are already genetic algorithms that can do the same thing in a virtual environment. This is just one more thing to willfully ignore. For those few who are open minded, though, it might help them see the light.

That said, it still sounds like an interesting development.

Other Comments by Mozglubov

6. Comment #157683 by slummingangel on April 9, 2008 at 12:12 pm

 avatarWould it be wrong to say that this chip is Intelligently Designed?

*ducks*

nah look at a mitisubishi lancer evolution that's intelligently designed

Other Comments by slummingangel

7. Comment #157736 by infidel_michael on April 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Would it be wrong to say that this chip is Intelligently Designed?

The chip IS intelligently designed, there is nothing wrong with that. But the process inside is darwinian evolution. Creationists will do their worst to confuse these two things to imply that when humans start darwinian evolution in lab, the result is intelligently designed.

Scientists should emphasize that the process inside is spontaneous and nobody knows the result before it is done. Design means plan - blueprint of the result, if you don't know how the result should look like, you don't design it. These scientist don't know how the resulting DNA will look like, therefore they don't design it.

Otherwise, if such DNA's should be considered as intelligently designed, then ID is consistent with theistic evolution and that's probably not what IDists want to achieve.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

8. Comment #157756 by alexmzk on April 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm

if it involves chips, it's sure to do well with british schoolkids.

Other Comments by alexmzk

9. Comment #157768 by rthille on April 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Those "former presidential candidates" don't "think" that evolution is only a theory. They _believe_ it's only a theory. There is no thinking going on...

Other Comments by rthille

10. Comment #157772 by Andrew Stich on April 9, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Yet another piece of irrefutable (to the extent of my current intellectual abilities) evidence for evolution. We have plenty; this is another (albeit a particularly strong one). I'm not sure that this will have a very big impact on those who defy evolution currently, since they have demonstrated an incredible (well, objectively speaking: it isn't incredible in the sense that most people actually do have it) capability to ignore evidence. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm ready to be convinced of that. Someone convince me.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

11. Comment #157780 by Animavore on April 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm

 avatarI want one.

Other Comments by Animavore

12. Comment #157830 by theantitheist on April 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm

This is going to confuse the majority of simple religous folk and there responce will be.

Duh??

how do you explain why a do good thing then??

fantastic stuff, but it ain't going to change one mind of a believer.

Other Comments by theantitheist

13. Comment #157885 by AntonAAK on April 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm


Would it be wrong to say that this chip is Intelligently Designed?

*ducks*


No. It would be absolutely correct to say that this chip is intellegently designed.

But where did the designers come from?

Are they supernatural beings who exist outside of reality but can still interact with it? From the point of view of the chips and the 'life forms' evolved on it perhaps. But we can explain where the designers came from and how they evolved.

The problem with ID and any God hypothesis is that it is just assumed that the creator doesn't require an explanation.

If you cannot explain the designer, design is no explanation whatsoever.

Other Comments by AntonAAK

14. Comment #157889 by LaTomate on April 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm

 avatar
Scientists should emphasize that the process inside is spontaneous and nobody knows the result before it is done. Design means plan - blueprint of the result, if you don't know how the result should look like, you don't design it. These scientist don't know how the resulting DNA will look like, therefore they don't design it.


Computer scientists and engineers have been doing this for a while now - trained artificial neural networks, trained hidden markov models, multi-agent systems, etc...

Although my knowledge of these fields is somewhoat outdated - I majored in AI and biocomputing at uni but that was 5 years ago - the striking thing about all of these methods is that the creators of these systems do not know what they will look like, and once they have attained a result they have no precise idea of how the result was obtained. All they have is a general idea of the workings of the system.

So it's pretty much the same as here: they kick off a process which is almost impossible to follow in detail but which creates a very efficient solution or solver which is often too complex to understand in detail either.

Correct me if you think I'm mistaken though ;)

Other Comments by LaTomate

15. Comment #157902 by Double Bass Atheist on April 9, 2008 at 5:46 pm

 avatarCan we please have the first shipment sent to Ben Stein's house?!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

16. Comment #157906 by Mr. Flibble on April 9, 2008 at 5:53 pm

 avatarI know the chip qualifies as being ID, and the process inside it is microevolution, I was just trying to be daft. :p

Other Comments by Mr. Flibble

17. Comment #157925 by flobear on April 9, 2008 at 6:50 pm

 avatar
Computer scientists and engineers have been doing this for a while now - trained artificial neural networks, trained hidden markov models, multi-agent systems, etc...


I'm an engineering PhD student. We regularly use genetic algorithms to solve some problems in our lab. Basically the algorithm creates a population of solutions, sees how well each one fits the selection criteria and then creates a new population by randomly mutating the best "hits".

I must admit though, I don't quite understand the biology that's going on here. How do the better ligases get selected for and replicated? Also, is there mutation going on here or just the variance of the original population? Anyone care to illuminate me?

Other Comments by flobear

18. Comment #157958 by DasSquid on April 9, 2008 at 9:37 pm

 avatarflobear, what I can gather is going here is this...

The original ligase is being dumped in a solution with a high concentration of RNA molecules. Each time the ligase is replicated it's not replicated perfectly (this is the mutation part), so some ligases(ligasii?) will be better at detecting RNA and bonding with it, and some will be worse. In particular solutions there's likely a threshold the ligase has to meet so it can detect RNA and replicate.

As the ligases that have replicated over and over are moved into pools of less concentrated RNA then that particular threshold increases, here is the natural selection, only the ligases that have the better abilities at detecting the RNA are able to find the RNA molecules and therefore replicate, passing their 'genes' onto the next generation.

So eventually they just keep getting better and better due to the pools of RNA having less and less concentration. So finally, only when the concentration of RNA in a pool is incredibly low, the only ligases that can survive are a whole buttload more efficient than those at the beginning.

This is a fucking marvelous little tool, and being able to have it in classrooms is just sooo damn cool! I wish I was a kid again.

Other Comments by DasSquid

19. Comment #158053 by stephenray on April 10, 2008 at 3:07 am

AAAARRGHHHHH!!

SKYNET!!!

Run for the hills...

Other Comments by stephenray

20. Comment #158060 by bugaboo on April 10, 2008 at 3:17 am

"if it involves chips, it's sure to do well with british schoolkids."

Could be combined with Fluoresence in Situ Hybridization then they could have FISH 'n Chips. Might even work better with some sodium chloride and 1% acetic acid. Oh dear, sorry!

Other Comments by bugaboo

21. Comment #158061 by ateu luso on April 10, 2008 at 3:17 am

Having just read the piece on the Higgs boson ("In search of the God particle", April 8th), and now this, I just feel like saying:

Isn't science fucking GREAT?!?

Little by little we're chipping away at the fantasies of the deluded. Let's keep it up, they're running out of hiding places!

Other Comments by ateu luso

22. Comment #158083 by flobear on April 10, 2008 at 4:00 am

 avatarDasSquid: Thanks for the explanation. Without it I wouldn't have been able to understand the original article (or at least the parts I read).

I was able to learn that the ligase itself is made of RNA, and that replication does not occur until a promoter region has been attached to it. The "good" ligases are better at attaching this promoter region to themselves. Once the promoter region is attached, other enzymes in the mixture do the replication part.

This stuff is simply amazing! To me, it is such a shame that people cannot see the elegance and beauty of this process. Even when it is demonstrated so perfectly, there are people who refuse to just look!

I wish there was a realize-I'm-being-stupid button on people's foreheads. Right in the middle of their denial you could smash the button *wham!* and then they'd realize...

Other Comments by flobear

23. Comment #158116 by j.mills on April 10, 2008 at 4:55 am

 avatarTo me, the excitingest part of this is the possibility of creating nanotechnology by evolving new molecules. DESIGNING a protein or enzyme to do a particular job might be an intractable problem, but this kind of approach lets nature do the work! You just need to tweak the environment to select for the abilities you're after. ("just", he says! :) )

Other Comments by j.mills

24. Comment #158120 by lievemebe on April 10, 2008 at 5:08 am

The telling part of this demonstration is that less becomes more in tiny steps. Something that creationists find hard to deal with.

Other Comments by lievemebe

25. Comment #158293 by Mitchell Gilks on April 10, 2008 at 9:47 am

 avatarThis will not convince anyone, if you haven't been convinced by the overwhelming evidence already, then nothing will convince you.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

26. Comment #158340 by Scep on April 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me faith heads will always be faith heads.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe".
Carl Sagan

Other Comments by Scep

27. Comment #158435 by notsobad on April 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm

 avatarInteresting news:
Ancient serpent shows its leg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7339508.stm

Other Comments by notsobad

28. Comment #160140 by Socrates on April 13, 2008 at 5:44 pm

 avatarThat is a truly amazing piece of technology!

Other Comments by Socrates
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: