Scientists decipher 3 billion-year-old genomic fossils
December 19, 2010 By Denise Brehm
The figure shows the evolution of gene families in ancient genomes across the Tree of Life. The sizes of the little pie charts scale with the number of evolutionary events in lineages, slices indicate event types: gene birth (red), duplication (blue), horizontal gene transfer (green), and loss (yellow). The Archean Expansion period (3.33 to 2.85 billion years ago) is highlighted in green. Graphic: Lawrence David
(PhysOrg.com) -- About 580 million years ago, life on Earth began a rapid period of change called the Cambrian Explosion, a period defined by the birth of new life forms over many millions of years that ultimately helped bring about the modern diversity of animals. Fossils help palaeontologists chronicle the evolution of life since then, but drawing a picture of life during the 3 billion years that preceded the Cambrian Period is challenging, because the soft-bodied Precambrian cells rarely left fossil imprints. However, those early life forms did leave behind one abundant microscopic fossil: DNA.
Because all living organisms inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes, computational biologists at MIT reasoned that they could use modern-day genomes to reconstruct the evolution of ancient microbes. They combined information from the ever-growing genome library with their own mathematical model that takes into account the ways that genes evolve: new gene families can be born and inherited; genes can be swapped or horizontally transferred between organisms; genes can be duplicated in the same genome; and genes can be lost.
The scientists traced thousands of genes from 100 modern genomes back to those genes' first appearance on Earth to create a genomic fossil telling not only when genes came into being but also which ancient microbes possessed those genes. The work suggests that the collective genome of all life underwent an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, during which time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being.
Eric Alm, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Department of Biological Engineering, and Lawrence David, who recently received his Ph.D. from MIT and is now a Junior Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows, have named this period the Archean Expansion.
Because so many of the new genes they identified are related to oxygen, Alm and David first thought that the emergence of oxygen might be responsible for the Archean Expansion. Oxygen did not exist in the Earth's atmosphere until about 2.5 billion years ago when it began to accumulate, likely killing off vast numbers of anerobic life forms in the Great Oxidation Event.
"The Great Oxidation Event was probably the most catastrophic event in the history of cellular life, but we don't have any biological record of it," says Alm.
Closer inspection, however, showed that oxygen-utilizing genes didn't appear until the tail end of the Archean Expansion 2.8 billion years ago, which is more consistent with the date geochemists assign to the Great Oxidation Event.
Instead, Alm and David believe they've detected the birth of modern electron transport, the biochemical process responsible for shuttling electrons within cellular membranes. Electron transport is used to breathe oxygen and by plants and some microbes during photosynthesis when they harvest energy directly from the sun. A form of photosynthesis called oxygenic photosynthesis is believed to be responsible for generating the oxygen associated with the Great Oxidation Event, and is responsible for the oxygen we breathe today.
The evolution of electron transport during the Archean Expansion would have enabled several key stages in the history of life, including photosynthesis and respiration, both of which could lead to much larger amounts of energy being harvested and stored in the biosphere.
"Our results can't say if the development of electron transport directly caused the Archean Expansion," says David. "Nonetheless, we can speculate that having access to a much larger energy budget enabled the biosphere to host larger and more complex microbial ecosystems."
David and Alm also went on to investigate how microbial genomes evolved after the Archean Expansion by looking at the metals and molecules associated with the genes and how those changed in abundance over time. They found an increasing percentage of genes using oxygen, and enzymes associated with copper and molybdenum, which is consistent with the geological record of evolution.
"What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms," says Alm. "And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail."
More information: Rapid evolutionary innovation during an Archean Genetic Expansion, by Lawrence A. David and Eric J. Alm. Nature online Dec. 19, 2010.
Provided by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
28 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
41 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Scotland passes turbine test to harness tidal power,
40 comments
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
16 hours ago
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
-
How important is composition of TBST in diluting antibodies and Western Blotting?
May 22, 2012
-
Does the medulla monitor blood pH
May 20, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
17 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
Researchers solve structure of human protein critical for silencing genes
In a study published in the journal Cell on May 24, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) scientists describe the three-dimensional atomic structure of a human protein bound to a piece of RNA that "guides" the pr ...
15 hours ago |
4.7 / 5 (6) |
0
|
It's in the genes: Research pinpoints how plants know when to flower
Scientists believe they've pinpointed the last crucial piece of the 80-year-old puzzle of how plants "know" when to flower.
15 hours ago |
4 / 5 (5) |
1
|
Copy of the genetic makeup travels in a protein suitcase
Scientists from the Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Bonn have succeeded for the first time in the real time filming of the transport of an important information carrier in biological ...
21 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
'Transformer' protein makes different sized transport pods
These spheres may look almost identical, but subtle differences between them revealed a molecular version of the robots from Transformers. Each sphere is a vesicle, a pod that cells use to transport materials ...
21 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
Astronauts enter world's 1st private supply ship
(AP) -- Space station astronauts floated into the Dragon on Saturday, a day after its heralded arrival as the world's first commercial supply ship.
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.
Travel to high altitudes tied to Crohn's, colitis flare-ups
(HealthDay) -- People with inflammatory bowel disease, which includes Crohn's disease and colitis, may be at increased risk for flare-ups when they fly or travel to high altitudes for skiing or mountain climbing, ...
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (21)
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (21)
Yeah, basicly that's what it amounts to.
Some time in the past 20 years or so we transitioned to a state where anyone with a p.h.d. can make up a theory or a computer model, call it a discovery, and publish it, and it's immediately labeled as a "discovery", as if it were an actual, factual object. Additonally, if it insults "creationists" or something similar, they get bonus points.
Pretty much summary of modern scientific method.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (14)
It's no wonder that the average person is so misled.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (18)
"New gene families can be born and inherited; genes can be swapped or horizontally transferred between organisms; genes can be duplicated in the same genome; and genes can be lost."
Are those events made up as well?
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (18)
The scientific method intails observing a phenomenon, speculating about cause and effect, setting up an experiment to recreate the conditions that are involved with the proposed theory, and verifying the hypothesis.
None of this, beyond the existence of the phenomenon, can be verified. Just because a computer model can be constructed to spit out the similar results, does not mean that it actually happened that way.
All we have is an unverifiable theory.
That is not science.
That is a nice story, but in any other circumstance, we'd call that a myth.
It is in no way different from ancient Greeks stories about gods hurling thunderbolts from Mt Olympus.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (11)
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
Garbage in/garbage out.
If it can't be verifeid, then it aint science.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
A man fathers a child in Australia: goes to WWII is killed in Norway.
(Ancient dinosaurs could travel 1000 miles in a week - Pterosaurs).
His brother marries widow and both child and father die in Sydney after long life; We find DNA of father son, make linkage; REAL father never found so even with DNA we cannot know what genes were EXPRESSED! DNA IS THE LIBRARY, which books were 'checked out?'
MIT needs MORE DNA AND NEEDS technique for ancient life gene repression and expression...my friends...we have a LONG way to go !
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (3)
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (15)
And garbage in/garbage out applies much more to the process by which you arrived at your opinions than it applies to these MIT fellas' research.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (8)
Easy explanation: God caused all life to evolve millions of times faster for the first thousand years the earth has existed.
or
Easy Deflection: These scientists are either incompetent, or atheistic deceivers.
[/sarcasm]
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
Well that post was a pretty good example of Active Ignorance in action.
Lets watch you ignore this question?
When was the Flood? Why isn't there any evidence for it?
If you have to avoid those questions then your beliefs are simply wrong.
Ethelred
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (15)
Typical of the dumb masses.
Since you don't have a clue, I'll explain it for you again, although I have little hope that you can grasp, even this simple analogy.
Simply creating a computer program that will give you the results that you program it to, proves nothing at all.
I'm glad that you're impressed with nothing, but some of us actually have a clue, and aren't impressed with shiny objects.
It also makes no difference how long this pseudoscience has been around.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (14)
I could also point out that Tarot card reading has been around for thousands of years, but I doubt that anyone who cares about science is about to pull out a Waite deck and get started writing papers about the "results" that they come up with.
Pity, though, they'd probably be as valid as the paper that started this thread.
Finally, a long time ago, a very wise man pointed out that there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
True then, true now.
Once these guys come up with some real evidence and actually have something tangible to support their theories, then we can call it science.
The sad fact is that folks like you will still not understand the difference.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (12)
re: Ethelred
Kinda murky waters here, just trying to figure out the point that you're trying to make. I'd love to see you actually defend anything that you wrote, since you don't have a clue as to what any of us are saying.
Do you just enjoy making random pronouncements and insults for no reason?
Please do us all the honor of describing the scientific method in more appropriate terms than those already posted, explain just what results that you think that I, or anyone else would prefer, and show your work, since I'm sure we'd ll like to know the source of your clairvoyance, and finally describe which "flood" to which you are referring, and what relevance it has to this particular discussion.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Physorg is obviously not a place for you, why don't you go somewhere else instead of just hurling insults.
Dec 19, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
More
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Ethelre
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Ethelred
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (12)
I was obviously speaking of an established science field, your comparison fails. Show me another one.
"Simply creating a computer program that will give you the results that you program it to, proves nothing at all."
It does if you program it with valid rules. Many discoveries nowadays begin with a simulation as a sort of "proof of concept", and though no one would call it "all the proof we ever need", it's still good evidence. If NASA's simulations tell us that an asteroid is going to hit the Earth, do you say it's bogus because a computer was involved in the process?
The statistical methods used in this paper are routinely used to discover cures for diseases. Some day you'll be treated by the same field you're badmouthing now. Our computational methods are getting pretty good, you're just jealous of how others are in the front line of discovery while you sit there and be cranky.
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
Kindly piss off.
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
This is a battle of wits with an unarmed man, and it's not even fun anymore.
How sad for you.
Best of luck in life, you're going to need it.
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
No guts no glory.
Everyone needs luck in life. Perhaps when you reach my age you will have managed to learn that. I hope you manage to learn SOMETHING.
In any case I thank for your clear surrender to a superior force. Anytime you want to try REASON or EVIDENCE do let me know. Its much more fun but so rare.
Ethelred
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Facepalm.
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
It's almost gotten to a boiling point, this conflict between the anti-intellectual and the educated, it will be nothing if not interesting to see what becomes of this social divide in the future.
"I'm an idiot and I hate everyone who isn't. Scientists from MIT are the enemy, they don't like to watch daytime television in their underpants. They understand things that no one needs to know and they try to bore everyone with it! Their fancy computer models are no match for my unwavering ability to deny anything and everything that conflicts with my simple and baseless beliefs! DEATH TO THE SCIENTISTS!!!
Dec 20, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
CHollman82: The first time I read comments like that I was baffled too. How can it be? What can they possibly gain by attacking people who are making discoveries and sharing?
StillWind: It's funny that your comment was several hours after mine, so there's no way you missed it -- I just composed a nice reply with no insults and defending these scientists. It means you found no flaw in my reasoning; thank you!
Dec 25, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Well that statement is actually wrong in one very important respect:
To be scientific a statement must be capable of falsification, in other words it must be that the statement can be used to make a prediction about part of the real world so that if the prediction is wrong then either part or all of the statement can be deduced to be wrong.
It occurred to me not long ago [I'm a slow learner :-] that if you ignore the supernaturalism of the cultural context, then the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth contain an important analogue of scientific method: forgiveness.
Scientific method proceeds by eliminating statements which are wrong. The person/s who made and defended the statement which turned out to be wrong will have made a very real contribution to human knowledge. [ ....cont]
Dec 25, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
There is a very deep issue here about the nature of human knowledge. Those who understand the issue of falsifiability as the basis of science will probably tune in well to the idea that all human knowledge is actually of this nature. I mean human experience is _about_ the world, but in fact is [much of] what the brain is doing. So the experience is actually _in_ the brain but _about_ the world.
Before the advent of scientific method and its clear efficacy, people in general had no way of knowing that _all_ knowledge is constructed. Scientific method has allowed us to discover that naive realism - the basis of all traditional and assumed certainty - is normally practical but none the less deeply flawed. One of these flaws is the psychological projection which underpins supernaturalism.
Dec 25, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
One thing I agree with you about however, is that this research is conjecture, and until I see a solid prediction or piece of collaborating physical evidence, while I see it as quite reasonable; its still speculative.