Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation

Oct 08, 2012 by Faye Flam

One of the more difficult aspects of evolution for some people to swallow is the notion that random copying errors in DNA can add up to anything useful.

In two recently published projects, however, scientists show how typos can indeed lead to improvements. In numerous species of insects, they document the DNA errors that led to changes that are not only beneficial but also brilliant. Various species of beetles, aphids, butterflies, and have independently acquired that allow them to eat highly toxic plants and then use the toxins to defend themselves against predators.

The toxins in question, called cardenolides, are made by several plants including milkweed, which is the for caterpillars. The toxin kills by binding to and disabling a protein shared by all complex animals and needed for transmitting and other key functions.

Being toxic to all animals is a nice for a plant, said Princeton University biologist Peter Andolfatto, senior author of one of the papers. "But these insects are amazing." More than two dozen species have independently acquired in the same gene - the one that holds the recipe for the protein the plant toxin targets. The mutation allows the insects to make an alternative version the toxin can't affect.

But many of the insects developed resistance in a tricky way - by creating a duplicate copy of this gene.

"Now they can play a completely different game," Andolfatto said. "They keep one copy basically untouched and take the other copy and start to explore some new evolutionary paths." Those with duplicate genes end up with a resistant form and a vulnerable one.

Then the insects pulled off another evolutionary trick, he said. They underwent changes in nearby parts of the DNA that tweaked the way the two different copies of the gene were activated in various parts of the body.

The altered, toxin-resistant gene was more active in the gut, where cells would have to deal directly with the chemical assault. But in the brain, the original, more vulnerable gene is more active, perhaps, Andolfatto said, because the original version of the protein is more effective there.

Evolution, Aldolfatto said, combined three different approaches to solving one problem. And these changes happened on a parallel track in completely different species.

How does he know these adaptations didn't evolve just once in a common ancestor? Andolfatto said the poison-eating insects they studied are very distantly related, having diverged about 300 million years ago. All of them have much closer relatives that don't tolerate the toxin.

He and colleagues from Princeton and the University of the Andes in Bogota, Colombia, published their work in last week's issue of the journal Science. A similar project led to a recent publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"These are both excellent papers that describe an amazing example of convergent evolution," said University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Marcus Kronforst. "You see all these distantly related insects independently evolving to the same selective pressure - solving the problem in the same way."

It's true that there are many more bad than good mutations, but organisms are riddled with hidden mutations - DNA spelling changes that don't cause any obvious effect. When a species moves into an environment with a toxic plant, a few individuals may carry a previously hidden mutation that endows them with some degree of resistance.

"Now those individuals are set up to be really successful because they and their offspring can feed on these plants and nobody else can use this resource," Kronforst said.

The mutation might have been floating around before the insects encountered the poisonous plants, or cropped up afterward. "Either way the story is the same," he said. "The mutations pop up randomly, but they are beneficial in the current environment. That's natural selection in action."

There's an added bonus: Poison-eating insects can store the toxins and thus become poisonous themselves. In monarchs, the butterflies continue to carry the toxin even though they no longer eat the that nourished them as caterpillars.

Of course, sickening a predator doesn't do you much good if you get eaten in the process. Kronforst said he's studying the way toxic insects evolve distinctive "warning" colors, allowing predators to learn to avoid them.

And where you find toxic insects with warning colors, he said, you often find nontoxic "mimics" that adopt the same colors and avoid being eaten themselves. Kronforst is working out the DNA alterations that lead to these advantageous color changes in both the toxic and the imitators.

Sometimes, he's found, a group of individuals within a species will crop up with a new warning color. In the butterflies he studies, some are yellow and some are white, and they prefer mating with individuals of their own color. Such mating preferences can trigger the formation of a new species.

The way new species are born is another longstanding puzzle in evolution that DNA is helping scientists to solve.

Explore further: Natural born killers: Chimpanzee violence is an evolutionary strategy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Evolution predictable for insects eating toxic plants

Jul 24, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould once asked: If we rerun the tape of life, would the outcome of evolution be the same? For years, scientists have questioned whether evolution is predictable, ...

Insects use plant like a telephone

Apr 23, 2008

Dutch ecologist Roxina Soler and her colleagues have discovered that subterranean and aboveground herbivorous insects can communicate with each other by using plants as telephones. Subterranean insects issue chemical warning ...

Global warming may reroute evolution

Feb 16, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Rising carbon dioxide levels associated with global warming may affect interactions between plants and the insects that eat them, altering the course of plant evolution, research at the University ...

Recommended for you

Life on Earth still favours evolution over creationism

Sep 11, 2014

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, first published in 1859, offered a bold new explanation for how animals and plants diversified and still serves as the foundation underpinning all medical and biological ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KalinForScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
just classic - beautiful findings about an even more beautiful phenomenon, namely - evolution :)

but of course, predictably, the dumb-headed creationists will again come out with "but God made them this way", neglecting the lack of any evidence in support of their fairy-tales.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
Even the ability to use a new source of nutrient chemicals that enable individual survival and the metabolism of the nutrient chemicals to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction is considered something to be explained via random processes (or a mistake). This at a time when "Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans." http://dx.doi.org...i0.17338

It is the inability of otherwise intelligent people to see the obvious pattern of biological design across species that is more amazing to me than their ridiculous claims of adaptive evolution via random mutations. -- Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338. DOI: 10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338. Speciation is nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-dependent in all species. Is that a mistake?
KalinForScience
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2012
@ JVK: You have deep misunderstanding of what is a random (stochastic) process, what is selection, what is adaptation, and finally - you have poor knowledge on the mechanisms of biological evolution; this prevents you from comprehending the process and you resort to fairy-tales explanations. The remedy - read proper science literature :)