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)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

by New Scientist

Thanks to Vaal for the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations — the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special — either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ — and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

Read our Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions special report.

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #191035 by Jack Rawlinson on June 10, 2008 at 6:25 am

 avatarHaven't we had this posted already elsewhere? Maybe I saw it in the forum...?

Damned cool, though.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

2. Comment #191047 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:41 am

I believe it was linked in the forum somewhere, I've seen it recently, too.

edit: for those inclined to scoff at the word 'believe', it's use here is meant to convey the probable inaccuracy of my statement.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

3. Comment #191056 by Vendetta on June 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

 avatarYa, but we all know that micro-evolution is fine but macro-evolution is a lie, right? Lol. Religious nutters.

Other Comments by Vendetta

4. Comment #191063 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:58 am

Ugh, what was I thinking? The bacteria didn't become jellyfish or frogs, so natural selection must be false... HILARIOUS

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

5. Comment #191080 by UncleJJ on June 10, 2008 at 7:30 am

Haven't we had this posted already elsewhere? Maybe I saw it in the forum...?


Yes, it was posted here on June 3rd entitled "A New Step In Evolution" although they are different articles the subject matter is the same.

However, it's a very interesting development and strong evidence of evolution, as though we didn't have enough already.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

6. Comment #191083 by MarcLindenberg on June 10, 2008 at 7:38 am

 avatarVery interesting, I hope that evolves into a something that is useful to our argument. Not sure how accepted that would be from the creationist world view...

Other Comments by MarcLindenberg

7. Comment #191108 by Azven on June 10, 2008 at 8:17 am

 avatarThe first appearance of this:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2669,A-New-Step-In-Evolution,Carl-Zimmer

Other Comments by Azven

8. Comment #191160 by mordacious1 on June 10, 2008 at 9:56 am

Josh

Summer re-runs already?

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #191170 by skip on June 10, 2008 at 10:10 am

 avatarBut there must be a transitional bacterium between these transitional bacterium! then we'll know evolution is true! And yet another transition between those transitions. They'll never prove evolution at this rate. Durn those gaps!

hee hee...

I love science!

Other Comments by skip

10. Comment #191287 by Ubiquitous Che on June 10, 2008 at 1:57 pm

That's fantastic. I know it's already been proven, but it's always good to put another nail in the coffin of the 'benign mutations are impossible' argument.

Very glad it got reposted.

Other Comments by Ubiquitous Che

11. Comment #191343 by mandrellian on June 10, 2008 at 3:54 pm

This "god" all the kids are talking about must be very, very tiny to be able to hide in such a gap ...

Other Comments by mandrellian

12. Comment #191347 by black wolf on June 10, 2008 at 4:10 pm

 avatar
This "god" all the kids are talking about must be very, very tiny to be able to hide in such a gap ...


Not only that, he must be the exact size to fit the gap perfectly. And able to change his shape when the gap changes. The only logical conclusion can be that wittle goddy is designed.

Other Comments by black wolf

13. Comment #191356 by twiddler on June 10, 2008 at 4:45 pm

 avatarGod created the new bacteria! for some un-godly known reason.

Other Comments by twiddler

14. Comment #191357 by acs on June 10, 2008 at 4:48 pm

I regularly debate with a group of baptists on a saturday night. Its fun, its public and the audience usually gets some understanding of how religion corrupts.

I presented the Lenski findings to the theists last Saturday (I had previously sent to article to their leader). They really didnt like it and for the first time they yelled, screamed and lost all civility. They had lost one of the tennets of their faith.

It was the best night of "fundie bashing" I have had in a long time.

Other Comments by acs

15. Comment #191379 by Ubiquitous Che on June 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm

acs: If you haven't yet, check out PZ's article on this subject over at Pharyngula. There's already creationists out and about attempting to twist the results to look like Theistic Evolution. Here's an exerpt of Myers':
This is simply baffling. Behe claims that he has shown in his book that the result observed by Lenski and colleagues could not occur without intelligent intervention…yet it did. He is trying to argue that an experiment that showed evolution in a test tube did not show evolution in a test tube. Behe's claims are comparable to someone living after the time of Kepler and Newton trying to claim that because Copernican circular orbits don't fit the data cleanly, the earth must be stationary - in response to research that shows the earth is moving. That is how backward Behe's claims are.


Other Comments by Ubiquitous Che

16. Comment #191429 by EvidenceOnly on June 11, 2008 at 12:21 am

One can wonder whether Behe has read the article or understands its true impact in support of evolution.

The one thing we can be certain of is that he and his cohort IDiots will keep lying for Jesus until they return to the same state as before they were born.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

17. Comment #191453 by Vaal on June 11, 2008 at 2:13 am

 avatarVery interesting experiment. Evolution in action, fascinating. Experiments like this are the reason I love science. Those gaps are really getting smaller, except of course for the wilfully ignorant and deluded.

Listening to some of the comments of the most obstinate theists who sometimes populate this site, it is self evident that they will find no evidence that could ever persuade them. Unless of course God visited them to say that he doesn't exist!

Other Comments by Vaal

18. Comment #191463 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 2:48 am

 avatarI missed this last time round.

This is bad news if you like to cold-cook your beef by marinating it in lemon juice.

Although, I suppose, we could always start buying meat that has been properly butchered and doesn't have shit in it.

(That whooshing noise was the sound of the point missing me.)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

19. Comment #191479 by bugaboo on June 11, 2008 at 3:25 am

18. Comment #191453 by Vaal

Hi Vaal

If you like this check out the experiments done by Joshua Lederberg in the 60's.(replica plating) He plated bacteria out on petri dishes and then took prints of them (using velvet)and plated these out on multiple plates always in the same orientation. When he applied an antibiotic to the plates the colonies that grew (resistant bacteria)always appeared in the same place on each of the plates. Thus showing that the mutations leading to resistance were present before the selection pressure. If the mutations had arisen after selection the colonies would have grown in random spots. A simple elegant experiment to show Darwinian selection at work. Selection working on pre-existing mutations.

Other Comments by bugaboo

20. Comment #191504 by Azven on June 11, 2008 at 4:54 am

 avatarDoes anyone have a web reference to any Creationists who have comented on this - I'd love to read it!

Other Comments by Azven

21. Comment #191515 by Vaal on June 11, 2008 at 5:27 am

 avatarThanks for that bugaboo. That is the great thing about this site, that I can find links to other resources that I would hardly ever find for myself, thanks to some great contributors.

Azven, of course they will ignore it, or just say it is incorrect, and spout the usual Behe inspired discredited nonsense.

Other Comments by Vaal

22. Comment #192505 by wagnerpe on June 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

Anyone else hear about the strains of bacteria that feed on antibiotics? It's was a great story on NPR recently. Fortunately, none of the strains they found are infectious to humans...but given their proclivity towards rapid evolution and adaptation I would say it's not too far off. Love this stuff...

Other Comments by wagnerpe

23. Comment #192513 by bugaboo on June 13, 2008 at 8:46 am

23. Comment #192505 by wagnerpe

Yes but dont know too much about it. An article appeared in "Science" a couple of months ago stating that not only were the bacteria resistant but actually metabolised the antibiotics. I dont think the worry was that they could infect humans or other animals but that they could actually be used to "soak up" antibiotic contamination in the environment which is causing problems. Bear in mind also that antibiotics (from eg fungi)have been around for perhaps as long as bacteria and co-evolved with them.

Other Comments by bugaboo
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: