Saturday, January 17, 2015
New analysis promps scientists to rethink.
A new discovery of a fish called Janusiscus schultzei, was found imbeded in a rock. The fossel provided evidence that the fish was a relative of a bony fish. However, recent tests and observations have provided evidence that the fish is a relative of a cartilaginous species. The tests showed that the fossel had traces of the partial skull roof and brain case looked vary similar to that of a bony fish. Though the scientists also found that the placement of blood vessels in the brain case located above and between the jaws were like that of a cartilaginous due to new and improved 3-D scans and X-Rays. Thus the name of the creature became Janusiscus schultzei.
This article relates to our current topic in Biology, Evolution. Scientists found that this particular fish could have a common ancestor that lived over 420 million years ago. However, recent data says that these shark-like creatures are highly evolved and in the past had lots of bone, linking them to the evolution of sharks. Thus explaining that over time the creatures like sharks are not primitive, but had evolved far, just like humans.
Article Page: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41893/title/Reassessing-One-Really-Old-Fish/
Friday, January 16, 2015
Immune System Evolution
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115134715.htm
By: Science Daily
Evolutionary theory is based around the fact that organisms adapt to their surroundings. This article provides a clear example of just that, offering deeper insight into evolution, humanity, and our immune system. A study spanning the course of two decades has found that the environment has a much bigger impact on the human immune system than hereditary genes. For the first 20 years of a human's life, his/her immune system remains extremely active, continually adapting to encounters with any sort of outside influence and growing all the stronger for it.
Clearly, this connects to what we've talked about recently, such as evolution and adaptation. Without evolution, we would still be bacteria swimming in a primordial soup, and this recent discovery helps shed light into one of nature's most vital processes.
By: Science Daily
Evolutionary theory is based around the fact that organisms adapt to their surroundings. This article provides a clear example of just that, offering deeper insight into evolution, humanity, and our immune system. A study spanning the course of two decades has found that the environment has a much bigger impact on the human immune system than hereditary genes. For the first 20 years of a human's life, his/her immune system remains extremely active, continually adapting to encounters with any sort of outside influence and growing all the stronger for it.
Clearly, this connects to what we've talked about recently, such as evolution and adaptation. Without evolution, we would still be bacteria swimming in a primordial soup, and this recent discovery helps shed light into one of nature's most vital processes.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Dinosaurs wiped out suddenly
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150113121218.htm
By: Pensoft Publishers
Most of the theory on why the dinosaurs have gone extinct have been based on fossil evidence found in the Americas. In fact, nearly all the fossils in the late cretaceous were from North America. Recently, a group of paleontologist have found more fossil evidence in Europe. This evidence suggests that the Dinosaurs had gone extinct in their prime time. This evidence also further supports the theory that dinosaurs had been wiped out by an asteroid impact.
This connects to what we have learned as it relates to evolution. It was through the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals were able to gain dominance and rule the land, much like how the dinosaurs had done so 65 million years ago. By better understanding how the dinosaurs went extinct, it is easier to understand the conditions in which the mammals had to evolve in, leading to a potentially better understanding of how mammals evolved after the dinosaurs.
By: Pensoft Publishers
Most of the theory on why the dinosaurs have gone extinct have been based on fossil evidence found in the Americas. In fact, nearly all the fossils in the late cretaceous were from North America. Recently, a group of paleontologist have found more fossil evidence in Europe. This evidence suggests that the Dinosaurs had gone extinct in their prime time. This evidence also further supports the theory that dinosaurs had been wiped out by an asteroid impact.
This connects to what we have learned as it relates to evolution. It was through the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals were able to gain dominance and rule the land, much like how the dinosaurs had done so 65 million years ago. By better understanding how the dinosaurs went extinct, it is easier to understand the conditions in which the mammals had to evolve in, leading to a potentially better understanding of how mammals evolved after the dinosaurs.
Stone Age humans weren't necessarily more advanced than Neanderthals
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114101528.htm
By: University of Montreal
Date: 1/14/2015
It was long thought that Neanderthals did not have the ability to create tools out of bone, however, recent discoveries in the past decade has put this statement into questioning. Very recently, a multi-purpose bone tool was discovered. It had been made from a reindeer femur, and had been intricately crafted by a Neanderthal. The tool had been of secondary thought, after obtaining the meat for energy, and can be seen with fractures where the marrow was released. The tool was most likely use for carving sharp edges for stone tools, as well as being a scraper. The reason for such interest in a bone tool that appeared to be common place, was the fact that the tool shows that Homo Sapiens were not the only ones capable of understanding the properties of bone and how to create such a tool. This supports that argument that the gap between the two species is not as large as it originally seemed. Having the brain power to make more complex tools, thought to be specific to only Homo Sapiens, is revealed to also be a trait of some Neanderthals as well, meaning technically, one species is not as superior as first though. This is relevant to our studies as it showcases they difference between the predecessor of and the Homo Sapiens species as well.
By: University of Montreal
Date: 1/14/2015
It was long thought that Neanderthals did not have the ability to create tools out of bone, however, recent discoveries in the past decade has put this statement into questioning. Very recently, a multi-purpose bone tool was discovered. It had been made from a reindeer femur, and had been intricately crafted by a Neanderthal. The tool had been of secondary thought, after obtaining the meat for energy, and can be seen with fractures where the marrow was released. The tool was most likely use for carving sharp edges for stone tools, as well as being a scraper. The reason for such interest in a bone tool that appeared to be common place, was the fact that the tool shows that Homo Sapiens were not the only ones capable of understanding the properties of bone and how to create such a tool. This supports that argument that the gap between the two species is not as large as it originally seemed. Having the brain power to make more complex tools, thought to be specific to only Homo Sapiens, is revealed to also be a trait of some Neanderthals as well, meaning technically, one species is not as superior as first though. This is relevant to our studies as it showcases they difference between the predecessor of and the Homo Sapiens species as well.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Pet CSI: How Dog and Cat DNA Nabs Bad Guys
article by Vicki Croke, published January 13, 2015
http://thewildlife.wbur.org/2015/01/13/pet-csi-how-dog-and-cat-dna-nabs-bad-guys/
Recently, scientists have been aiding lawyers in the courtrooms by providing evidence with DNA from a victim's pet. Since pets tend to leave either shed, drool, pee, feces, or blood in various place around their owner's home, it is very probable that if the suspect was in their home he/she would have picked up some of whatever was left by the pet. In this way, it is increasingly common for scientists to compare, for example, the DNA from dog hair on the suspect's jacket with the DNA of the victim's pet. The DNA profile of every animal is different enough that no other dog hair would give the same profile as the victim's dog. So, if the dog hair profile and the victim's dog's DNA matches up, lawyers can conclude it evident that the suspect either was in the victim's home or was in close enough proximity to acquire the victim's dog's hair. An entire field is being grown around this concept of using animal DNA in court, leading to the recent foundation of the International Veterinary Forensics Sciences Association.
This article relates to our study of molecular genetics. During this unit, we learned about how human DNA is used as evidence in court for crimes. But what if the crime left no human blood? What if the suspect only committed vandalism? Human DNA would not likely be available. Pet DNA however, would probably be acquired by the suspect, flagging him/her down to be connected with the household he/she stole from.
http://thewildlife.wbur.org/2015/01/13/pet-csi-how-dog-and-cat-dna-nabs-bad-guys/
Recently, scientists have been aiding lawyers in the courtrooms by providing evidence with DNA from a victim's pet. Since pets tend to leave either shed, drool, pee, feces, or blood in various place around their owner's home, it is very probable that if the suspect was in their home he/she would have picked up some of whatever was left by the pet. In this way, it is increasingly common for scientists to compare, for example, the DNA from dog hair on the suspect's jacket with the DNA of the victim's pet. The DNA profile of every animal is different enough that no other dog hair would give the same profile as the victim's dog. So, if the dog hair profile and the victim's dog's DNA matches up, lawyers can conclude it evident that the suspect either was in the victim's home or was in close enough proximity to acquire the victim's dog's hair. An entire field is being grown around this concept of using animal DNA in court, leading to the recent foundation of the International Veterinary Forensics Sciences Association.
This article relates to our study of molecular genetics. During this unit, we learned about how human DNA is used as evidence in court for crimes. But what if the crime left no human blood? What if the suspect only committed vandalism? Human DNA would not likely be available. Pet DNA however, would probably be acquired by the suspect, flagging him/her down to be connected with the household he/she stole from.
New Fossil Discovery Sheds Insight on Evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150113-sea-monsters-paleontology-scotland-animals-science-fossils/
Recently, a fossil was discovered in Scotland that reveals clues about the evolution of reptiles in Europe. The fossil that was discovered is a new genus of "ichthyosaur", a reptile that ruled the seas during the Middle Jurassic period. It is around 14 feet long, and is the first of its kind to be discovered by paleontologists.
The new fossil comes from a time during the Middle Jurassic period that scientists know very little about. Scientists do know that after the Middle Jurassic period, there was a larger and more advanced type of ichthyosaur that becomes dominant around the world. The fossil found in Scotland is a smaller and more primitive type of ichthyosaur, revealing that the transition to the more advanced type of ichthyosaur happened later than scientists had thought. The discovery of this smaller fossil also indicates that the transition to the larger ichthyosaurs was a gradual shift, not a sudden shift due to a change in environment.
This connects to our study of evolution in class. This small version of ichthyosaur shows that the change to the bigger ichthyosaurs was a slow and gradual change, as the ichthyosaurs underwent natural selection and the better fit traits were passed on. The smaller ichthyosaur pinpoints a more exact rate at which the ichthyosaurs evolved.
Domestication: Cat's and Humans
Hanita Haller; 1/13/15
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/our-cats-ourselves.html
This article is about controlled evolution, or as it is more commonly called, domestication. Most people do not think of domestication as a type of evolution, but that is exactly what it is. Humans have created a new ecosystem for themselves, and have coevolved with those that have been introduced to and welcomed in their new ecosystem. This new ecosystem has given humans smaller brains, smaller jaws, and an extraordinary variation in colors. Dogs have exhibited the same changes, in addition to a variety of size and shape.
The article focuses more on cats, who have been partially domesticated. Because they have only been coexisting with humans in our newly invented ecosystem for 1/3 of the time that dogs have, cats have not evolved in the same way that humans and dogs have. House cats have smaller skulls and jaws than their wild counterparts, but have yet to produce a wide range in size and shape, or give up on their hunting instinct. The cats' jaws and brain reduced in size quickly because they no longer have to hunt for their own food, or chew tough meat, but the other signs of domestication must come by chance - or through breeding.
The article's focus on domestication and genetic variation links back to the current unit on evolution. Coevolution is also referenced repeatedly, which happens to be one of our unit vocabulary words. Most importantly, the article talks about the genetic history of humans, and the impact that we have had on the world, and on other species, a topic which has been important to the entire Honors Biology course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/our-cats-ourselves.html
This article is about controlled evolution, or as it is more commonly called, domestication. Most people do not think of domestication as a type of evolution, but that is exactly what it is. Humans have created a new ecosystem for themselves, and have coevolved with those that have been introduced to and welcomed in their new ecosystem. This new ecosystem has given humans smaller brains, smaller jaws, and an extraordinary variation in colors. Dogs have exhibited the same changes, in addition to a variety of size and shape.
The article focuses more on cats, who have been partially domesticated. Because they have only been coexisting with humans in our newly invented ecosystem for 1/3 of the time that dogs have, cats have not evolved in the same way that humans and dogs have. House cats have smaller skulls and jaws than their wild counterparts, but have yet to produce a wide range in size and shape, or give up on their hunting instinct. The cats' jaws and brain reduced in size quickly because they no longer have to hunt for their own food, or chew tough meat, but the other signs of domestication must come by chance - or through breeding.
The article's focus on domestication and genetic variation links back to the current unit on evolution. Coevolution is also referenced repeatedly, which happens to be one of our unit vocabulary words. Most importantly, the article talks about the genetic history of humans, and the impact that we have had on the world, and on other species, a topic which has been important to the entire Honors Biology course.
Black Widow Spider Venom Dangers
http://www.livescience.com/49333-why-black-widow-spider-venom-is-so-potent.html
In the article "Why Black Widow Spider Venom is so Potent," by Jennifer Viegas on Discovery News, she informs the readers about the potency of their venom. Over the years, the venom has developed into a powerful tool, allowing black widow spiders to triumph over many insects and sometimes animals. This lethal venom has evolved rapidly, and in doing so, equipped the spiders with an advantage, allowing them to create larger and stronger webs in efforts to handle even-bigger prey. This information, presented at the 2015 annual conference of the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology in West Palm Beach Florida.
These spiders produce similar toxic compounds as others in the spider community, however, in their's, the most powerful neurotoxins called latrotoxins. Latrotoxins are named after a group of black widow spiders called Latrodectus. The most toxic latrotoxins is the alpha-latrotoxin, which hijacks the victim's own nervous system. Jessica Garb of UMASS Lowell, determined that latrotoxins are actually more popular in the arachnid community than previously believed, as many other types of spiders produce their own watered down versions helpful in hunting, but nontoxic to humans.
So the question then becomes, why do female black widow spiders have this feature? Garb and her team of scientists think it was to expand their diet. These spiders are able to eat small mammals and reptiles, in addition to typical smaller prey.The females also eat the males, and because their diets are quite open ended, it begs the question, was there a time when this species had a strict diet and was forced to adapt to its surroundings, therefore prompting the venom toxicity to increase to broaden its options.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Modern Genetics Confirm Ancient Relationship between Fins and Hands
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222165441.htm
This article describes how scientists have finally made a conclusive link between the fins of aquatic animals and the human counterpart (comprising of wrists/fingers or ankles/toes) called the autopod. In the past, scientists had studied teleost fish in comparison with human bone structures, which comprise most of the world's commercial fish. However, they were barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. They never found a signatory connection between the two, and a lack of expression of necessary limb-forming genes called Hox genes confirmed this. The Hox genes function using genetic switches that can turn them on and off. While scientists found these genes in teleosts, they did nothing went turned on. The reason behind teleost fish not activating the necessary genes was due to an ancestral split millions of years ago, where speciation made them a separate group from more bony fishes that maintained a similar structure to the autopod. Scientists then studied a fish called the spotted gar, a North American fish with more bony structures than the teleosts. Scientists found that when the gar's Hox genes were activated, autopod-like structures were formed as compared to transgenic rats. This breakthrough showed a direct genetic/evolutionary connection between aquatic life bone structures and human/mammal bone structures, thus strengthening existing ideas about the origin of mammal/human life.
This relates to our current topic of evolution because it shows how homologous structures evolved, and what possible common ancestry might occur between fish and humans. It also relates to genetics in that scientists used methods of genetic fingerprinting to discover this connection (PCR and Gels were most likely used).
This article describes how scientists have finally made a conclusive link between the fins of aquatic animals and the human counterpart (comprising of wrists/fingers or ankles/toes) called the autopod. In the past, scientists had studied teleost fish in comparison with human bone structures, which comprise most of the world's commercial fish. However, they were barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. They never found a signatory connection between the two, and a lack of expression of necessary limb-forming genes called Hox genes confirmed this. The Hox genes function using genetic switches that can turn them on and off. While scientists found these genes in teleosts, they did nothing went turned on. The reason behind teleost fish not activating the necessary genes was due to an ancestral split millions of years ago, where speciation made them a separate group from more bony fishes that maintained a similar structure to the autopod. Scientists then studied a fish called the spotted gar, a North American fish with more bony structures than the teleosts. Scientists found that when the gar's Hox genes were activated, autopod-like structures were formed as compared to transgenic rats. This breakthrough showed a direct genetic/evolutionary connection between aquatic life bone structures and human/mammal bone structures, thus strengthening existing ideas about the origin of mammal/human life.
This relates to our current topic of evolution because it shows how homologous structures evolved, and what possible common ancestry might occur between fish and humans. It also relates to genetics in that scientists used methods of genetic fingerprinting to discover this connection (PCR and Gels were most likely used).
How Culture Has Shaped Human Evolution
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/11/human-evolution.aspx
The article above gives reasoning and evidence for how human culture and/or society has shaped the evolution of our species. The author organizes his evidence into three main points:
1)Culture, cultural transmission, and cultural evolution come from genetically evolved psychological adaptations in humans to acquire information/skills from observation and inference
2)These adaptations allow for a second system of inheritance in humans(and other highly intelligent organisms) that operates by different rules than those observed by genetic inheritence.
3)Inherited information/practices can affect the processes of natural selection and other forms of evolution(Ex. Domestication of cows led to lactase persistence being selected for in certain human societies)
This relates to our current unit as it shows how human society and artificial selection can influence the evolution of our species.
Evolution is happening right now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9A9OctSts
The most common argument against evolution is that there is no proof because you can't see it happening. Evolution is a process that spans over many generations of a species and takes a very long time but it doesn't mean you can't see it happening. In the last 25 years, the population of African and Asian elephants has decreased by as much as 50% due to poachers killing them for their tusks. The elephants have naturally selected to be tuskless. The African and Asian populations use to have as little as 5% tuskless elephants but now they are as high as 30%. The tuskless elephants are less likely to be killed by poachers and are thus more likely to pass on that gene. This is relevant to the material we are learning in class about the process of natural selection and evolution.
The most common argument against evolution is that there is no proof because you can't see it happening. Evolution is a process that spans over many generations of a species and takes a very long time but it doesn't mean you can't see it happening. In the last 25 years, the population of African and Asian elephants has decreased by as much as 50% due to poachers killing them for their tusks. The elephants have naturally selected to be tuskless. The African and Asian populations use to have as little as 5% tuskless elephants but now they are as high as 30%. The tuskless elephants are less likely to be killed by poachers and are thus more likely to pass on that gene. This is relevant to the material we are learning in class about the process of natural selection and evolution.
Can returning crops to their wild states help feed the world?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216140743.htm
This article talks about how returning crops to their wild states might help feed the world in the near future. They discuss how experimentally breeding with these crops has made them lose some of their important properties. A scientist in the article suggested a way that fixes weaknesses that have sprung up by accident in the process of traditional crop breeding over the course of thousands of years. The scientist suggested that we replace those lost properties by isolating them from related plants, or using precision methods to repair the faulty genes. The one problem with this is, by definition, these methods of replacing the lost properties is genetically modifying the plants. That is a problem because just being categorized with the word genetically modified usually has a negative connotation, and people are not going to like it, even though it's not really genetically modifying these crops.
This article relates to our curriculum because learning about GMO's, and if they could feed a growing population was a key part of our unit about genetic engineering, and we even had a debate about it.
This article relates to our curriculum because learning about GMO's, and if they could feed a growing population was a key part of our unit about genetic engineering, and we even had a debate about it.
Evolution of Color in Plants and Animals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150109093727.htm
Published: January 9th, 2014
This article looks into why color variants occur in populations, a question that scientists are still trying to solve. One color should eventually replace the other through natural selection as it becomes more beneficial to the species, but that is not what happens. Instead, these differences continue to exist. In order to answer this question, scientists studied fish of the same species that varied in color, a darker fish and a gold fish, with the gold color being dominant but the darker color more common. They placed the fish on both dark and light surfaces and recorded changes in the shade of their color. The results of their experiment were that the darker fish could alter its color to better fit its environment while the gold colored fish could not. This shows that differences in the ability to change colors to match environments could be an important way that color frequencies are created and maintained in the wild.
This article relates to our curriculum because natural selection and evolution are two main points in our current unit, and it is about the study of evolution of color in animals and why natural selection does not appear to occur in some populations.
Published: January 9th, 2014
This article looks into why color variants occur in populations, a question that scientists are still trying to solve. One color should eventually replace the other through natural selection as it becomes more beneficial to the species, but that is not what happens. Instead, these differences continue to exist. In order to answer this question, scientists studied fish of the same species that varied in color, a darker fish and a gold fish, with the gold color being dominant but the darker color more common. They placed the fish on both dark and light surfaces and recorded changes in the shade of their color. The results of their experiment were that the darker fish could alter its color to better fit its environment while the gold colored fish could not. This shows that differences in the ability to change colors to match environments could be an important way that color frequencies are created and maintained in the wild.
This article relates to our curriculum because natural selection and evolution are two main points in our current unit, and it is about the study of evolution of color in animals and why natural selection does not appear to occur in some populations.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Evolution in the human body
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211141833.htm
This article talks about how studies of many primate species (including humans) has shown us how we have evolved to fight infectious bacteria in the bloodstream. The bacteria feeds off of the iron in the bloodstream. It talks about how scientists have only been aware of nutritional immunity for 40 years, but over the past 40 million years of primate evolution, this battle for iron between bacteria and primates has been a determining factor in our survival as a species. The human body has evolved to have a runny nose, sneeze, become inflamed in order to rid the body of the bacteria. The body also does a variety of things under the skin to fight the bacteria it can "starve the bacteria out" by hiding the circulating iron. The article also talks about how the harmful pathogen has also evolved, and in certain cases can find where the iron is being hidden and take it causing diseases such as meningitis, gonorrhea, and sepsis. The main point of the article is that evolution is constant and continues to happen in the body over generations as pathogen and host evolve to fight off the other one, and by observing these changes over time scientists can take successful things that have happened and apply them to different situations.
This article talks about how studies of many primate species (including humans) has shown us how we have evolved to fight infectious bacteria in the bloodstream. The bacteria feeds off of the iron in the bloodstream. It talks about how scientists have only been aware of nutritional immunity for 40 years, but over the past 40 million years of primate evolution, this battle for iron between bacteria and primates has been a determining factor in our survival as a species. The human body has evolved to have a runny nose, sneeze, become inflamed in order to rid the body of the bacteria. The body also does a variety of things under the skin to fight the bacteria it can "starve the bacteria out" by hiding the circulating iron. The article also talks about how the harmful pathogen has also evolved, and in certain cases can find where the iron is being hidden and take it causing diseases such as meningitis, gonorrhea, and sepsis. The main point of the article is that evolution is constant and continues to happen in the body over generations as pathogen and host evolve to fight off the other one, and by observing these changes over time scientists can take successful things that have happened and apply them to different situations.
Did Violence Shape the Human Face?
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2014/06/09/did-violence-shape-evolution-of-the-human-face
New research shows that the human (primarily male) face may have evolved to regulate injury from punches from other humans. Males who were able to survive and win fights were more likely to reproduce than those who did not. Human's ancestors, called australopiths, evolved so that their hands were able to form fists. If these changes in the formation of our hands were due to frequent fighting among males, then it is thought that the current male human face was selected for so that it minimized damage from punches. Another study has shown that the greatest difference in the structure of male and female faces is that the parts of the face that are most likely to be broken in a fight are larger and stronger in males opposed to females . Further research in this topic revealed that male hand proportions, bipedal posture, and facial structure all actually do help in fighting. This evidence points to frequent male combat among human' ancestors, which is quite possibly the reason for why our body, and especially our face, is built how it is.
This relates to the current unit because it has to do with natural selection and evolution. The current structure of our face and hands were selected for because they helped males to survive and reproduce.
New research shows that the human (primarily male) face may have evolved to regulate injury from punches from other humans. Males who were able to survive and win fights were more likely to reproduce than those who did not. Human's ancestors, called australopiths, evolved so that their hands were able to form fists. If these changes in the formation of our hands were due to frequent fighting among males, then it is thought that the current male human face was selected for so that it minimized damage from punches. Another study has shown that the greatest difference in the structure of male and female faces is that the parts of the face that are most likely to be broken in a fight are larger and stronger in males opposed to females . Further research in this topic revealed that male hand proportions, bipedal posture, and facial structure all actually do help in fighting. This evidence points to frequent male combat among human' ancestors, which is quite possibly the reason for why our body, and especially our face, is built how it is.
This relates to the current unit because it has to do with natural selection and evolution. The current structure of our face and hands were selected for because they helped males to survive and reproduce.
Evolutionary biologists observe parallel, repeated evolution of cichlid fish in Nicaragua
Evolutionary biologists observe parallel, repeated evolution of cichlid fish in Nicaragua
Date: October 28, 2014
Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141028082353.htm
Famous Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once asked the question, "If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome?". The University of Konstanz conducted a study on evolution, specifically the evolution of the cichlid fish in Nicaraguan lakes that suggested the evolutionary trajectory would have been similar. They found that in the isolated new crater lakes of Nicaragua, which are perfect settings for evolution, isolated from the other lakes, the cichlid fish evolved differently from the fish in the nearby great lakes of Nicaragua. In the two totally separate crater lakes Apoyo and Xiloa, the cichlid fish evolved similar elongated bodies to adapt to their deep, clear lakes that differ from the ancestral population's shallow murky lakes. This phenotype is not typically found in the ancestral population but is found in both Apoyo and Xiloa, two completely separate populations which suggests evolution would have happened similarly if we "rewinded the tape of life". However, they also found that while the phenotype ended similarly, the evolutionary route between start to finish differed between the two lakes, which indicated that parallel adaptation to similar environments may lead to the same results by natural selection but it can happen by different evolutionary genetic routes.
This article tied to our unit on evolution because it discussed how these cichlid fish, when faced with an environment different from their ancestral environment, adapted by natural selection to become best suited to thrive and reproduce in said environment. It also touched on the chance of evolution, that evolution happens by chance and that while natural selection might point evolution in one way, the route it takes is still up to luck.
Famous Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once asked the question, "If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome?". The University of Konstanz conducted a study on evolution, specifically the evolution of the cichlid fish in Nicaraguan lakes that suggested the evolutionary trajectory would have been similar. They found that in the isolated new crater lakes of Nicaragua, which are perfect settings for evolution, isolated from the other lakes, the cichlid fish evolved differently from the fish in the nearby great lakes of Nicaragua. In the two totally separate crater lakes Apoyo and Xiloa, the cichlid fish evolved similar elongated bodies to adapt to their deep, clear lakes that differ from the ancestral population's shallow murky lakes. This phenotype is not typically found in the ancestral population but is found in both Apoyo and Xiloa, two completely separate populations which suggests evolution would have happened similarly if we "rewinded the tape of life". However, they also found that while the phenotype ended similarly, the evolutionary route between start to finish differed between the two lakes, which indicated that parallel adaptation to similar environments may lead to the same results by natural selection but it can happen by different evolutionary genetic routes.
This article tied to our unit on evolution because it discussed how these cichlid fish, when faced with an environment different from their ancestral environment, adapted by natural selection to become best suited to thrive and reproduce in said environment. It also touched on the chance of evolution, that evolution happens by chance and that while natural selection might point evolution in one way, the route it takes is still up to luck.
USDA allows GM Grass
URL: http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20141230/usda-clears-gmo-tall-fescue
Published: December 30, 2014
Author: Mateusz Perkowski (Capital Press)
The USDA recently cleared a GM Fescue turfgrass for cultivation. The fescue was developed and released by Scott's Miracle-Gro, however, the USDA cleared it without any type of testing. The reason for this is because it was not under its regulatory control, as the fescue was modified using a different method, basically using a "gene gun" to shoot the genes into the plant. The GM fescue is resistant to glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, allowing growers to spray herbicides easily.
Some people are concerned about the grass's glyphosate resistance, which could make the grass a difficult weed to kill. This type of grass also commonly cross-pollinates with other grasses, which creates a concern that it may create "superweeds," or herbicide resistant plants. However, it is easy to contain this in a lab, but if homeowners use it, this is a major problem.
This connects to our recent study on GMOs and our debate on the use of GMOs. This fescue displays a new way to modify plants, and could spark more concern among GMO dislikers. It is a newer advance in the field of GMOs, shown by the USDA's inability to limit and regulate it. It will be interesting to see how this grass turns out and the response.
"Walking Fish" provides insight into Early Land-Based Animal Development
http://www.livescience.com/47582-unusual-fish-bichir-animal-evolution.html
This article outlines the evolutionary implications of the behavior of the Bichir, a fish with legs.
It begins by outlining the challenges faced by fish in an early environment, with many
species of fish competing for different resources. The stiff competition faced by the different fish species pushed the fish towards occupying a land-based niche.
The Bichir could reflect a modern-day intermediate step between a water and land based animal.
Scientists conducted an experiment in which they separated two groups of young Bichir, and had one group live on land, and one in water. The two Bichir groups developed differently, with the group raised on land adapting its behavior to make better use of its lungs and also its repurposed fins, and the group in the water relying on its gills and regular fins more.
These results show an approximation of how ocean-based life could have adapted to live on land. By slowly adapting its existing structures such as fins into legs, and also by relying less on its gills as a source of oxygen, an ocean-based animal can eventually adapt itself for life on land. This entire process is an example of adaptive radiation.
This article outlines the evolutionary implications of the behavior of the Bichir, a fish with legs.
It begins by outlining the challenges faced by fish in an early environment, with many
species of fish competing for different resources. The stiff competition faced by the different fish species pushed the fish towards occupying a land-based niche.
The Bichir could reflect a modern-day intermediate step between a water and land based animal.
Scientists conducted an experiment in which they separated two groups of young Bichir, and had one group live on land, and one in water. The two Bichir groups developed differently, with the group raised on land adapting its behavior to make better use of its lungs and also its repurposed fins, and the group in the water relying on its gills and regular fins more.
These results show an approximation of how ocean-based life could have adapted to live on land. By slowly adapting its existing structures such as fins into legs, and also by relying less on its gills as a source of oxygen, an ocean-based animal can eventually adapt itself for life on land. This entire process is an example of adaptive radiation.
GMO Super Bugs and Super Weeds
http://www.themindfulword.org/2012/gmo-genetically-engineered-food/
This article talks about the potential dangers of super weeds and super bugs that are emerging in our croplands. With the introduction of so many pesticides in our food multiple organisms have developed a natural resistance against the GM crops. Many species of weeds have developed forms of immunity against our weed killers and organisms such as the pink bull worm have also developed a immunity to the toxins originally developed to kill such bugs. In order to combat these new super weeds and super bugs Monsanto has developed new 2,4-D resistance. Essentially these new selection of traits kill both the original species and the new super breed. However, if this is their way of combating the bugs then we pose the question; Won't the super breed evolve to develop even more resistance? Monsanto is using a "battle fire with fire" mindset and could be setting out on a very dangerous road. These plats/bugs have already started to adapt to our original modification, why won't they do the same to 2,4-D?
This connects to our class because we had a very extensive unit on GMO's and modified organisms. This is a great article because it talks about very negative effects of Genetic modification. It's scary and fascinating to learn about how these leaps in science could have potential backlashes to us personally (in our food).
This article talks about the potential dangers of super weeds and super bugs that are emerging in our croplands. With the introduction of so many pesticides in our food multiple organisms have developed a natural resistance against the GM crops. Many species of weeds have developed forms of immunity against our weed killers and organisms such as the pink bull worm have also developed a immunity to the toxins originally developed to kill such bugs. In order to combat these new super weeds and super bugs Monsanto has developed new 2,4-D resistance. Essentially these new selection of traits kill both the original species and the new super breed. However, if this is their way of combating the bugs then we pose the question; Won't the super breed evolve to develop even more resistance? Monsanto is using a "battle fire with fire" mindset and could be setting out on a very dangerous road. These plats/bugs have already started to adapt to our original modification, why won't they do the same to 2,4-D?
This connects to our class because we had a very extensive unit on GMO's and modified organisms. This is a great article because it talks about very negative effects of Genetic modification. It's scary and fascinating to learn about how these leaps in science could have potential backlashes to us personally (in our food).
Un-Natural Selection: Human Evolution's Next Steps
URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129638953
Date Published: September 6, 2010
Source: NPR
For billions of years, species have evolved by natural selection. This process takes millions of years. However, humans have been on earth for only tens of thousands of years, and we are altering the world so much that genetic evolution is unable to keep up with the pace. Instead of the environment controlling the humans species, humans are creating their own environments.
For example, before humans developed a cure for malaria, people were dying throughout Africa. But through natural selection, the people who were able to develop a sickle-cell mutation were resistant against malaria. These people were then able to survive, and their offspring would have these malaria resistant traits too. With natural selection, the death rate of Africans would have decreased through a span of billions of years. But humans quickly made medicine that cured people with malaria. With this medicine, the people who were treated were able to survive. Natural selection didn't occur anymore because the medicine made it so that it didn't matter whether one had a sickle-cell mutation or not. After several years, malaria didn't have much impact on Africans because of the medicine. But there were still people with the sickle-cell mutation who survived before medicine intervened. Although this sickle-cell mutation is no longer useful, if a child inherits this mutation from both parents, it turns into a sickle-cell anemia.
In order to overcome bad mutations, humans have developed medicine. We want a cure for everything, such as eyesight. For instance, if a hunter was nearsighted, he would die of starvation pretty quickly because he would be unable to see any animals in the distance. But now there are glasses to counter this nearsightedness. Also, there are contact lenses that make the human vision sharper without wearing glasses,
Now, natural selection is very fast. What usually happens during the course of billions of years, happens in a course of several years nowadays. Nature isn't the only one that selects the genes, because humans are doing it too.
This article relates to the current unit which consists of natural selection. Specific traits of an individual helps it survive in its environment more than others. Then these traits are passed on through billions of years. Darwin's finches showed that a particular finch's beak made it able to eat certain foods and survive. But this slow process of natural selection is sped up by humans, and nature is no longer the only force.
Should GMO Products be Labelled?
Harry Cho
Dempsey - Period 6
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-gunlock/food-labeling-fatigue_b_6215052.html
Article Published: December 1st, 2014
Author: Julie Gunlock
Voters of both Oregon and Colorado voted "no" to labeling GMO products on shelves of markets. Many people want labels on their food to know if what they are buying is organic or genetically modified. Many GMO products' labels are unclear or unspecific. For example if chips are labeled "genetically modified", some labels will not show if the corn is modified or if the oil is modified. This will cause uncertainty of purchase and customers will most likely not purchase it. Another problem of labeling is some states might consider one food as a GMO, but another state might not consider it as a GMO. This can lead to confusion. Around 2/3 of foods that caused this confusion were freed from being labeled in those states. This leads to consumers being unaware of what they are eating which can lead to displeasure.
Another problem about labeling GMO products is the cost. According to the data, labeling GMO products will raise an average family's food cost by $500, which is ridiculously high for both food and the unnecessary food labels. This is a huge concern because it will not affect economically advanced people and residents, but many of the people living in the U.S are economically struggling and if this were to happen, then those needy people are in big trouble. If all GMO products were labeled, not only then people wouldn't feel like buying them after seeing what was modified, it the cost will increase as well. Although GMOs are tested and are proven to be 100% safe to eat, many people are ignorant of this fact and are only concerned about what is modified, whether it is good for them or not. This leads to the unnecessary arguments of labeling or even going back to producing GMO foods and products.
This article is relevant to Molecular Genetics, one of the topics we went over in our second term of biology class. This is specifically related to GMO products, a section our class went over. We specifically researched and even debated about the cons and pros about GMO foods and experimented to see which foods each group brought had GMOs or not. Although this article was not arguing about the effects of the use of GMO foods, it was still about GMO products and how people are debating to use them. It is amazing that just labeling GMO products can greatly affect the economy and that people are fighting over something that isn't really necessary to be fought over.
Dempsey - Period 6
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-gunlock/food-labeling-fatigue_b_6215052.html
Article Published: December 1st, 2014
Author: Julie Gunlock
Voters of both Oregon and Colorado voted "no" to labeling GMO products on shelves of markets. Many people want labels on their food to know if what they are buying is organic or genetically modified. Many GMO products' labels are unclear or unspecific. For example if chips are labeled "genetically modified", some labels will not show if the corn is modified or if the oil is modified. This will cause uncertainty of purchase and customers will most likely not purchase it. Another problem of labeling is some states might consider one food as a GMO, but another state might not consider it as a GMO. This can lead to confusion. Around 2/3 of foods that caused this confusion were freed from being labeled in those states. This leads to consumers being unaware of what they are eating which can lead to displeasure.
Another problem about labeling GMO products is the cost. According to the data, labeling GMO products will raise an average family's food cost by $500, which is ridiculously high for both food and the unnecessary food labels. This is a huge concern because it will not affect economically advanced people and residents, but many of the people living in the U.S are economically struggling and if this were to happen, then those needy people are in big trouble. If all GMO products were labeled, not only then people wouldn't feel like buying them after seeing what was modified, it the cost will increase as well. Although GMOs are tested and are proven to be 100% safe to eat, many people are ignorant of this fact and are only concerned about what is modified, whether it is good for them or not. This leads to the unnecessary arguments of labeling or even going back to producing GMO foods and products.
This article is relevant to Molecular Genetics, one of the topics we went over in our second term of biology class. This is specifically related to GMO products, a section our class went over. We specifically researched and even debated about the cons and pros about GMO foods and experimented to see which foods each group brought had GMOs or not. Although this article was not arguing about the effects of the use of GMO foods, it was still about GMO products and how people are debating to use them. It is amazing that just labeling GMO products can greatly affect the economy and that people are fighting over something that isn't really necessary to be fought over.
Salt Tolerance Gene in Soybean Found
Article:
Published: January 9th
2015
By: University of
Adelaide
“Soybean
is the fifth largest crop in the world in terms of both crop area planted and
amount harvested,” according to Associate Professor Matthew Gilliham, a
researcher at the University of Adelaide. “But many commercial crops are
sensitive to soil salinity and this can cause major losses to crop yields.” In
addition, “the area of salt-affected agricultural land is rapidly increasing
and is predicted to double in the next 35 years.”
After
examining the genetic sequences of many different soybean varieties, researchers
from the University of Adelaide have identified a specific gene in soybean that
can be bred to better tolerate soil salinity. This gene was lost when soybeans
were bred in areas without salinity. However, this has left the soybeans
susceptible to the increase of soil salinity over the years. By identifying the
gene, scientists are now able to use genetic markers to ensure that the salt
tolerance gene will be maintained in future soybean crops. This information can
also be used to find similar genes in other crops, such as wheat and grapevine,
in order to selectively breed them for their enhanced salt tolerance.
This
article relates to our study of genetics. In class for the GMO lab, we used
restriction enzymes to identify genetic sequences in the DNA of our food that
were genetically modified. The scientists at the University of Adelaide also
needed to identify the sequence for the salt tolerance gene. We also learned
about genetic markers, stretches of DNA that are variable among individuals, which
the scientists are using to selectively breed. This is an example of artificial
selection, as it is the selective breeding of domesticated soybeans to produce
the salt tolerance gene. This is in contrast with natural selection, a topic
discussed in this unit, since the traits that become more common in a
population are the ones humans choose.
Evolution of Wildlife in a City Environment
A group of scientists went to Highbridge Park in Washington Heights, New York to study wildlife in a city environment. Among them were biologist Jason Munshi-South, Stephan Harris, a PhD candidate in biology at CUNY, and Erin Dimech, a master's student in conservation biology at Columbia.
To carry on their research, they set up one hundred red flags in park and beside each there were rectangular boxes baited with bird seeds which were used as a trap to catch mice. Munshi-South and his colleagues caught many white-footed mice in NYC's remaining spots of greenery and took snips of their tails, from which they could extract DNA.
As part of their research, they knew that before the 1700s white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) roamed the vast woodlands that once covered NYC. But New York City's expansion sliced up that native habitat into scattered fragments of greenery, isolating numerous groups of mice. Such geographic isolation drives evolution and can even split a single species into two.
After their research, they found out that the geographic isolation and the environmental changes led mice in different part of the city to have different traits that enabled it to survive in its environment. Munshi-South and his colleagues found that the different groups of white-footed mice in the city varied a lot genetically.
They also found that the white-footed mice as a whole seem to be evolving new traits that mice from rural areas outside the city lack. For example, some mice had genetic mutations that help them neutralize toxic metals in polluted soil or speed up their sperm in response to the sexual competition in their overcrowded metropolitan homes.
Munshi-South predicted that these mice might not be the only ones that have been throught evolution in the city environment. Rats in NYC for example, have become more genetically distinct from one another on a block-by-block and seem to be resistant to rat poison used by people to kill rats.
Other scientists have also found evolution taking place in many cities around the world. At Bernard, Rebecca Calissi has found out the city life changes pigeon's brain and their immune system.Researchers in Australia have discovered that golden-orb weaving spiders living in cities have evolved bigger bodies and larger ovaries for increased reproductive capacity. And biologists in Netherlands have learned that birds in urban areas sing at a higher pitch to be heard.
This article relates to our unit of evolution in many ways. First, this article is about the evolution of wildlife in a city environment. We have learned that the result of natural selection is adaptation and natural selection in the cause of evolution. In the case of the white-footed mice in the article, the mice which traits that are better suited to the city environment survive and are able to reproduce more. This cause more mice with the certain trait to arise. The article also shows that during the process of evolution, species can divide into several groups by chance. As NYC expanded, the habitat of white-footed mice got split apart and this geographic isolation of mice is causing them to evolve separately. Therefore, the article shows an example of the process of evolution which we are studying this unit.
Work Cited
Jabr, Ferris. "Urban Ecologists Are Studying How Wildlife Have Evolved to Fit Their City Environment, Block by Block." Daily Intelligencer.
New York Media LLC., 07 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 Jan 2015.
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/uptown-mice-are-different-from-downtown-mice.html?mid=emailshare_dailyintel>.
Rats as big as sheep: Rodents could evolve to fill niches as larger mammals go extinct
Title: Rats
as big as sheep: Rodents could evolve to fill niches as larger mammals go
extinct
Author: Independent
Staff
Date: Tuesday
04 February 2014
Scientists hypothesize that rats could evolve to be as large
as sheep to fill vacant niches if large mammals become extinct. Rats a super
adaptable, so as large mammals become extinct over time, the rats could take
their places. For example, when dinosaurs lived, mammals were all tiny because
the large ecological niches were occupied. However, when the dinosaurs became
extinct, mammals evolved into many different, larger forms, including horses
and mammoths. Given time, rats could grow to be enormous rodents. The largest
extinct rodent known, Josephoartegasia monesi, was larger than a bull and
weighed over a ton, showing rodents have the potential to be incredibly large.
Also, there are “rat islands” where rats, introduced by humans, have become the
dominant species. They are also very hard to remove and outcompete other
species. Gigantism is when a small creature fills the ecological niche left by
a large species. Scientists also expect rats to evolve in many other ways
depending on the circumstances. They could be thin, fat, slow, fast, or even
aquatic. Rats are expected to produce a remarkable variety of descendants.
This article connects to what we are talking about in
class involving the finches evolving to fill the unoccupied niches of the
Galapagos Islands. Much like the size and shape of the finches’ beaks evolved,
the size of the rats’ bodies could evolve.
Gecko reasearch
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107204906.htm
Scientists found that some geckos which lost the ability to stick to surfaces through evolutionary processes gained adaptations in other methods of locomotion such as burrowing or running. The more elaborate grips were lost, but through that natural selection created more diversity. Although there are advantages to such complicated features, they can also get in the way and can be disabled by the same procedures that created them.
We are currently studying the driving forces behind evolution and diversification, and this research demonstrates how evolution is constantly in motion and how the natural variation in geckos (quality of sticky feet pads) can cause them to diversify to occupy new niches.
Scientists found that some geckos which lost the ability to stick to surfaces through evolutionary processes gained adaptations in other methods of locomotion such as burrowing or running. The more elaborate grips were lost, but through that natural selection created more diversity. Although there are advantages to such complicated features, they can also get in the way and can be disabled by the same procedures that created them.
We are currently studying the driving forces behind evolution and diversification, and this research demonstrates how evolution is constantly in motion and how the natural variation in geckos (quality of sticky feet pads) can cause them to diversify to occupy new niches.
Global Warming's Affect on Evolution in the Arctic
URL: http://www.designntrend.com/articles/30592/20141213/global-warming-impact-evolution-artic-animals.htm
Published: December 13, 2014
Author: Randall Mayes
As a result of the drastic temperature increase in the Arctic, many species are migrating into new habitats where similar species live, and these species are interbreeding. One example of this is grizzly bears moving to the polar bear's habitat. Although scientist aren't able to know exactly how many crosses between a polar bear and a grizzly bear there are, over the past couple years they have found several crosses. This new hybrid species could dominate the polar bear and grizzly bear species to the point where these original species become extinct.
This article relates to our unit of evolution that we are studying right now. We are learning about how many similar species evolved from one common ancestor long ago, and by the process of adaptation, the ancestor became many species, each one modified for their specific niche. This article shows evolution happening today, specifically a disruption that may change the future species living in the Arctic.
Published: December 13, 2014
Author: Randall Mayes
As a result of the drastic temperature increase in the Arctic, many species are migrating into new habitats where similar species live, and these species are interbreeding. One example of this is grizzly bears moving to the polar bear's habitat. Although scientist aren't able to know exactly how many crosses between a polar bear and a grizzly bear there are, over the past couple years they have found several crosses. This new hybrid species could dominate the polar bear and grizzly bear species to the point where these original species become extinct.
This article relates to our unit of evolution that we are studying right now. We are learning about how many similar species evolved from one common ancestor long ago, and by the process of adaptation, the ancestor became many species, each one modified for their specific niche. This article shows evolution happening today, specifically a disruption that may change the future species living in the Arctic.
The Evolution of Human Color Vision
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141218210100.htm
December 18, 2014
Emory Health Sciences
Scientists have spent two decades studying the evolution that resulted in the color vision humans have today. Our vision is the result of numerous mutations of five major opsin genes over millions of years to transform into the ability to see a spectrum of colors from the dim view our primate ancestors had.
This article directly relates to what we have learned because we have learned about Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.This article shows the mutations our ancient population experienced to ultimately result in our ability to see color. These mutations led to variation in the gene pool. Those with better vision had a higher survival rate and therefore the mutation was passed down.
December 18, 2014
Emory Health Sciences
Scientists have spent two decades studying the evolution that resulted in the color vision humans have today. Our vision is the result of numerous mutations of five major opsin genes over millions of years to transform into the ability to see a spectrum of colors from the dim view our primate ancestors had.
This article directly relates to what we have learned because we have learned about Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.This article shows the mutations our ancient population experienced to ultimately result in our ability to see color. These mutations led to variation in the gene pool. Those with better vision had a higher survival rate and therefore the mutation was passed down.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
USDA Approves a New, GM Potato
Grace Longwell
Dempsey - Period 7
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html?_r=0
Dempsey - Period 7
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html?_r=0
In this article, the practice and recent approval of genetically modified potatoes is the main topic. This new potato theoretically is resistant to bruising, and will not contain the chemical, acrylamide, when fried, which supposedly has been causing cancer in humans. Most genetically modified crops (i.e. soy, corn) have no benefit to the consumers, only the farmers. However, this newfangled potato can have positive effects on both those who produce it and those who eat it. There are lots of questions and uncomfort with genetically modified food and many people are against it. Before this potato, tomatoes, corn, alfalfa and beets were all genetically modified and approved between 1994 and 2010. These crops seem to be good, but lots of people are against popular food companies (mainly McDonald’s) using them for their products, especially french fries. One of things that this potato has going for it is that Monsanto did not genetically modify it, Simplot did. Simplot is a well known and well regarded name in the potato industry, and many people trust them when they say that this potato is good for us.
All of the discussion and debate about genetically modified foods (potatoes in particular) has a large connection to our past unit in biology. We learned about PCR and how the scientists replicate a desired gene to help and modify the food. We also were given the task of researching many different pros and cons of genetically modified food and debating about it against our classmates.
This article further represents the split between people who support the use/production of genetically modified food and those who do not. There is an evident benefit of less acrylamide when the potato is fried. Anti-GMO people will say that this needs to be clearly marked as a genetically modified product so we know what we are ingesting, but the supporters do not see the point in that if it is only benefitting people. People who are against the use of GMOs think that big companies like McDonald’s (who goes through a lot of potatoes making french fries) should not use these new potatoes because then they will be so more mainstream and hard to escape. The genetically modified food debate is a long one, and scientists only keep extending it more.
Geckos Without Sticky Feet Seem To Evolve Faster
Article
Published: January 10, 2015
By: The Staff of Science 2.0
Evolution is typically thought of as an organism developing a useful trait, however a recent sudy with geckos shows that evolution can also downgrade and remove seemingly useful traits. When the adhesive system in gecko's feet was lost, there were in fact higher rates of evolution rather than lower rates. The absence of sticky feet allowed them to run faster and burrow into the ground. This means that the geckos can occupy a different niche, leading to diversification.
Although the lack of adhesive feet may seem like a disadvantage, geckos living in a terrestrial environment with sticky feet ran much slower than the ones without them. They could not escape from predators as quickly and they could not burrow for a hiding place, making them easy targets. Therefore, losing this trait of adhesive feet is actually beneficial and not harmful for to geckos since geckos without adhesive feet have higher mobility. Geckos without the trait experience higher levels of evolution related to morphology and locomotion.
This article relates to our study in class of evolution and adaptation. The gecko loses its adhesive system in order to adapt to terrestrial environments. The geckos with the trait soon are eaten or killed due to the process of natural selection, since the geckos without the trait can run faster and therefore escape predators. It loses and gains this trait many times throughout history, showing that the trait's appearance is relevant to the gecko's enivronment and current needs.
Published: January 10, 2015
By: The Staff of Science 2.0
Evolution is typically thought of as an organism developing a useful trait, however a recent sudy with geckos shows that evolution can also downgrade and remove seemingly useful traits. When the adhesive system in gecko's feet was lost, there were in fact higher rates of evolution rather than lower rates. The absence of sticky feet allowed them to run faster and burrow into the ground. This means that the geckos can occupy a different niche, leading to diversification.
Although the lack of adhesive feet may seem like a disadvantage, geckos living in a terrestrial environment with sticky feet ran much slower than the ones without them. They could not escape from predators as quickly and they could not burrow for a hiding place, making them easy targets. Therefore, losing this trait of adhesive feet is actually beneficial and not harmful for to geckos since geckos without adhesive feet have higher mobility. Geckos without the trait experience higher levels of evolution related to morphology and locomotion.
This article relates to our study in class of evolution and adaptation. The gecko loses its adhesive system in order to adapt to terrestrial environments. The geckos with the trait soon are eaten or killed due to the process of natural selection, since the geckos without the trait can run faster and therefore escape predators. It loses and gains this trait many times throughout history, showing that the trait's appearance is relevant to the gecko's enivronment and current needs.
Sequencing Testse fly genome reveals surprises that may save lives
URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140424-tsetse-fly-genome-sequenced-sleeping-sickness-science/
Date Published: April 24, 2014
Source: National Geographic
The tsetse fly is a large, bloodsucking insect that resides in regions of Africa. They are extremely harmful and cause serious diseases to the human body and other livestock. A common disease is called sleeping sickness( or more scientifically known as, trypanosomias) and for animals a disease called nagana (animal trypanosomias).
**More information about sleeping sickness can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/sleeping-sickness/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier
A team of 146 scientists decoded the genome of this fly, and revealed that the sequence could allay the human losses caused by the trypanosomic parasite the fly spreads for sleeping sickness. They discovered that the tsetse are very mammal like, where the females nourish young with milk inside a womb. This new genome could potentially give new ways to prevent sleeping sickness and nagana. For example in humans, the tsetse sequence contained a single regulatory protein that conducts milk production in the fly. If scientists could target that protein with inhibitory chemicals, then it would reduce the amount of milk the fly produces, eventually leading to population control of the flies.
The tsetse genome consists of 366 million base pairs compared to the 300 billion in humans. It also has 12,308 protein encoding genes to 20,000 human encoding genes. Scientist, Sercep Aksoy, professor of Epidemiology at Yale University, noticed that the genome reflects the tsetse's feeding strategy- bloodsucking. Aksoy says that knowing the genes involved in color sensing, smell, taste and vision of these flies can lead to repellents "that capitalize on particular genes." She also hopes that vaccines can be given to livestock that would keep the flies from digesting their blood.
This discovery has been well renowned over this past year and is considered a "landmark in the molecular genetics of neglected tropical diseases." With this new genome sequence, better control options for the flies are possible.
This article relates to our past study of molecular genetics, specifically genome sequences and the function of proteins in the body. By sequencing the entire genome of the flies, scientists have determined ways to reduce the genes coding for specific functions in the fly. It is quite fascinating how an insect that is harmful to humans and animals, can actually benefit them as well.
Date Published: April 24, 2014
Source: National Geographic
The tsetse fly is a large, bloodsucking insect that resides in regions of Africa. They are extremely harmful and cause serious diseases to the human body and other livestock. A common disease is called sleeping sickness( or more scientifically known as, trypanosomias) and for animals a disease called nagana (animal trypanosomias).
**More information about sleeping sickness can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/sleeping-sickness/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier
A team of 146 scientists decoded the genome of this fly, and revealed that the sequence could allay the human losses caused by the trypanosomic parasite the fly spreads for sleeping sickness. They discovered that the tsetse are very mammal like, where the females nourish young with milk inside a womb. This new genome could potentially give new ways to prevent sleeping sickness and nagana. For example in humans, the tsetse sequence contained a single regulatory protein that conducts milk production in the fly. If scientists could target that protein with inhibitory chemicals, then it would reduce the amount of milk the fly produces, eventually leading to population control of the flies.
The tsetse genome consists of 366 million base pairs compared to the 300 billion in humans. It also has 12,308 protein encoding genes to 20,000 human encoding genes. Scientist, Sercep Aksoy, professor of Epidemiology at Yale University, noticed that the genome reflects the tsetse's feeding strategy- bloodsucking. Aksoy says that knowing the genes involved in color sensing, smell, taste and vision of these flies can lead to repellents "that capitalize on particular genes." She also hopes that vaccines can be given to livestock that would keep the flies from digesting their blood.
This discovery has been well renowned over this past year and is considered a "landmark in the molecular genetics of neglected tropical diseases." With this new genome sequence, better control options for the flies are possible.
This article relates to our past study of molecular genetics, specifically genome sequences and the function of proteins in the body. By sequencing the entire genome of the flies, scientists have determined ways to reduce the genes coding for specific functions in the fly. It is quite fascinating how an insect that is harmful to humans and animals, can actually benefit them as well.
Biologists Map Crocodilian Genomes
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211141837.htm
Date Published: December 11, 2014
Source: Texas Tech University
Recently scientists have succeeded in mapping the entire genomes of an American alligator, a saltwater crocodile, and an Indian gharial. By using this new information, they were able to compare the DNA of each crocodilian species with each other, as well as with the DNA of other animals.
They found that crocodilians evolve extremely slowly. For example, an alligator and a crocodile share about 93% of the same genetic information. In comparison, that is the same percentage of identical DNA between a human and a macaque. However, the common ancestor between an alligator and a crocodile lived more than 90 million years ago, while the common ancestor between a human and a macaque is more recent, only 23 million years. This means that over the generations, crocodilians have evolved at 1/4 the speed of primates.
Now, scientists are trying to use this data to not only to understand more about crocodilians, but to reconstruct the genomes of their ancient relatives. By finding similarities in DNA between crocodilians and birds, their closet living relatives, they have been able to piece together almost half the genome of their common ancestor. Using this new information, scientists hope not only to learn more about crocodilians, but also about evolution and the connections between different species.
This article relates to our current unit about evolution. By sequencing the entire genome of three crocodilians, scientists have learned that they evolve relatively slowly, barely changing over many generations. This story also brings up the idea of a common ancestor, another aspect of evolution that we are studying in class. For example, it explains that birds are the closest living relative of crocodilians, meaning that starting long ago, crocodilians and birds both stemmed from the same species.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Vermont is the first state to pass a law to make labeling genetically modified foods required
Website:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/29/how-vermont-plans-to-defend-the-nations-first-gmo-law/
Author:
Vermont was the first state in the US to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Governer Peter Shumlin completed the law and said, “We believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy.” This is a victory for the people who advocate for the labeling of GM foods. However, the state was preparing for a likely lawsuit. Attorney General Bill Sorrell said he would be "very suprised" if the state wasn't sued. Other states have pursued similar ideas, but Vermont's is still the first. For example, Connecticut and Maine have passed laws that make labels required, but these requirements need other states to agree as well before the law takes effect.
Industry groups say that these laws are costly and bad for consumers. A report created by professors from the universities of California, Illinois, and Missouri, had no scientific reason for why GM food should be labeled. They argued that such requirements could cause trade problems--in other countries, many of the labeling requirements violate World Trade Organization agreements. Also, the professors said food prices could rise if companies decide to use non-GM foods instead of choosing to label GM foods. Prices would be less if they chose to sell and label GM foods since they generally cost less to produce.
On the other hand, people argue that labeling GM foods is beneficial since the science of GM foods is far from conclusive. They say that consumers should not take unnecessary risks without knowing what they are eating. These people think that if companies believe in the safety of GM foods, then they shouldn't worry about needing to label them.
People believed the food industry may fight back with certain arguments. First, the food industry could say that this law violates the right of commercial free speech under the First Amendment. In other words, this says the law violates the fact that the food industry can say what it wants to say-- it forces them to say that their product is a GM food if it is. The second argument is that this law might violate federal law. This argument is based on whether the federal law overpowers the state law, or the other way around. Finally, the last argument is that it interferes with interstate commerce, any work requiring the movement of people or things across states or from foreign countries. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but also allows the state to regulate it also. This means GM foods must be labeled if they are to be imported into Vermont. These are three arguments against the state, but the food industry is still likely to lose since the details favor the new GM food labeling law.
This relates to biology class since it is about GMOs, a topic we studied. It also describes the controversy of GMOs-- whether they are good or bad, which is similar to our debate in class.
Author:
Kristy Condon
Kristy Condon
Date of Publication: May 9, 2014
Kristy Condon
Vermont was the first state in the US to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Governer Peter Shumlin completed the law and said, “We believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy.” This is a victory for the people who advocate for the labeling of GM foods. However, the state was preparing for a likely lawsuit. Attorney General Bill Sorrell said he would be "very suprised" if the state wasn't sued. Other states have pursued similar ideas, but Vermont's is still the first. For example, Connecticut and Maine have passed laws that make labels required, but these requirements need other states to agree as well before the law takes effect.
Industry groups say that these laws are costly and bad for consumers. A report created by professors from the universities of California, Illinois, and Missouri, had no scientific reason for why GM food should be labeled. They argued that such requirements could cause trade problems--in other countries, many of the labeling requirements violate World Trade Organization agreements. Also, the professors said food prices could rise if companies decide to use non-GM foods instead of choosing to label GM foods. Prices would be less if they chose to sell and label GM foods since they generally cost less to produce.
On the other hand, people argue that labeling GM foods is beneficial since the science of GM foods is far from conclusive. They say that consumers should not take unnecessary risks without knowing what they are eating. These people think that if companies believe in the safety of GM foods, then they shouldn't worry about needing to label them.
People believed the food industry may fight back with certain arguments. First, the food industry could say that this law violates the right of commercial free speech under the First Amendment. In other words, this says the law violates the fact that the food industry can say what it wants to say-- it forces them to say that their product is a GM food if it is. The second argument is that this law might violate federal law. This argument is based on whether the federal law overpowers the state law, or the other way around. Finally, the last argument is that it interferes with interstate commerce, any work requiring the movement of people or things across states or from foreign countries. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but also allows the state to regulate it also. This means GM foods must be labeled if they are to be imported into Vermont. These are three arguments against the state, but the food industry is still likely to lose since the details favor the new GM food labeling law.
This relates to biology class since it is about GMOs, a topic we studied. It also describes the controversy of GMOs-- whether they are good or bad, which is similar to our debate in class.
eubrachyurans
Telamonocarcinus antiquus
avier Luquea
avier Luquea
avier Luque
avier Luque
The Genetics of Eusocial Insects
The Genetics of Society
Claire Asher and Seirian Sumner
1 January 2015
Link to Article: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41704/title/The-Genetics-of-Society/
Link to Eusocial Insects explained: http://es.rice.edu/projects/Bios321/eusocial.insect.html
Eusocial insects are recognized by three defining characteristics:
1) The mother conducts care of the young
2) Insects from sterile castes aid the reproducing organism
3) There are overlapping generations. This allows for older generations of offspring to help younger generations.
While Darwin was developing his theory of natural selection, he encountered altruistic insects. Darwin wondered how different behavioral traits were expressed through genes and why some insects were subordinate to others of the same species. He also wondered how a single ancestor led to the development of "social" castes in eusocial insects.
One hypothesis proposed was that a solitary insect lived as a single mother. This mother then laid eggs and foraged for food to feed her offspring. Upon reaching maturity, offspring would forage and reproduce on their own, resulting in the conventional non-eusocial insect. Eusociality developed when offspring remained at the nest with their mother past adulthood. When the mother reproduced again, the first generation of offspring would help their mother raise the newer generation. As the helper insects began to take on specific roles in the nest, the mother, not having to provide food for the new generation, would focus solely on reproduction while the other generations would forage for food and subsequently become workers. The newly evolved phenotype, "the queen", had the exclusive responsibility of reproduction while foraging and laborious behavior was taken on by workers. Thus, creating a eusocial insect society with social castes.
.
The hypothesis is supported by the recent discovery of shared genes between "queen" and "worker" insects across all species. These genes have been shown to code for behavioral traits which explains the shared eusocial behavior traits: queens reproduce while workers complete laborious tasks of the nest.
Shared genes are further expressed through phenotypic differences; for example, a queen ant is over 10 times the size of a leaf-cutter ant. Scientists believe that sometime during the evolution of eusocial insects, regulatory elements called microRNAs controlled the genotypes of organisms through gene regulation and protein production and from these genotypes, the ensuing phenotypes. Researchers have concluded that this phenomenon was not entirely a product of natural selection as there are many molecular level happenings that affect the regulation of genes and the production of proteins. However, one reason eusocial insects exist is because the division of labor results in a more efficient society. This is interesting because eusocial societies resemble primitive human societies with the basic division of labor and social hierarchy.
This article relates to both the last unit on molecular biology as well as the current unit on evolution. Through evolution, eusocial insects are prevalent because the micro-societies they created were more efficient than those of other insects. This development might have resulted in more offspring (higher fitness) and led to the social structure becoming widely seen. Additionally, the article relates to molecular biology because it addresses regulatory elements that control gene expression. This ultimately results in different insect social castes.
Snake Evolution happens to have another way
Snake evolution happens to have another way
January 5,2015
Previously, people thought that snakes have developed from snakes into a more simplified form. But, paleontologists Jason Head and David Polly found out that snakes didn't necessarily evolved from lizards. They have found new ways of how they developed through finding out that that there were distinctions in the snakes vertebral bones and the backbone of the four legged lizards. In the concept of hox genes which govern the boundaries of the neck, trunk, lumbar, sacral and tail regions of limbed animals, they were thought of disrupting the snakes body forms causing them to have no limbs and a simplified structure. But actually, if the hox genes which only control a small part of the gene or else the structures of the snake and lizard would be identical which is not true. Polly said, "It isn't that snakes have lost regions and Hox expression; it is that mammals and birds have independently gained distinct regions by augmenting the ordinary Hox expression shared by early amniotes." This means that it doesn't mean snakes are simplified, its that animals have gained more distinctness in their body which makes it more complex possibly for better adaptation to their environment like better maneuverability and prey catching. Additionally through combining snake vertebrae information with fossils, snake evolution was very unsimilar to what was concluded from developmental genetics alone. Through this study, the direction of how we thought of evoution is opposite of what we have thought as before.
This relates to our current unit in the sense of right now that we are learning about evolution and how many species evolved overtime. Scientists are now beginning to take in new perspectives of how reptiles have evolve based on this scientific study. Originally, it would be thought by us that snakes have evolved from lizards which makes some sense because they are part of the same reptile family. But what is unique is that snakes were discovered to be different from their lizard ancestors unlike birds and mammals which most of them have the same vestigial structures of their ancestors. It very likely could be for the snakes to take in better ability to catch prey or protect themselves from natural disasters or something similar to that. In short, this begins to gain scientists a new perspective on how reptiles and possibly many species evolved over time and why they might change some structures from their ancestors.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Scientists Discover the First Protein That Can Edit Other Proteins
Links: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/grawk-proteins-making-proteins/
Scientists Discover the First Protein That Can Edit Other Proteins
Nick Stockton
1 January 2015
As we learned during our last unit, protein synthesis occurs in ribosomes and is coded for by mRNA. This, however, may not be the only way for proteins to be formed. Recently, scientists have discovered that some specific types of proteins can actually create new polypeptide sequences, without the use of mRNA. One such protein is Rqc2. Rqc2 is a protein involved in a recycling process that takes place when an error happens in translation. When such an error occurs, the ribosome essentially stalls and is unusable, until a group of proteins come in and break apart the ribsome, mRNA, and the partially made protein. Rqc2's role in this clean-up process is to attach a random sequence of the amino acids threonine and alanine to the partially made protein before it is recycled. This newly added sequence will not fix the ribosome, or complete the protein. It will instead act as a signal to other destructive proteins to take the faulty one apart. What is surprising about this process is that a protein, not mRNA, decides which amino acids will be added.
Diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Lou Gehrig's are caused by defective quality control proteins. Knowing the exact conditions that trigger Rqc2 could help lead to new treatments for such
conditions.
This article directly relates to our last unit on molecular biology. Although the article describes a different process than we discussed in class, it is still about protein synthesis, which was an important part of our last topic.
Scientists Discover the First Protein That Can Edit Other Proteins
Nick Stockton
1 January 2015
As we learned during our last unit, protein synthesis occurs in ribosomes and is coded for by mRNA. This, however, may not be the only way for proteins to be formed. Recently, scientists have discovered that some specific types of proteins can actually create new polypeptide sequences, without the use of mRNA. One such protein is Rqc2. Rqc2 is a protein involved in a recycling process that takes place when an error happens in translation. When such an error occurs, the ribosome essentially stalls and is unusable, until a group of proteins come in and break apart the ribsome, mRNA, and the partially made protein. Rqc2's role in this clean-up process is to attach a random sequence of the amino acids threonine and alanine to the partially made protein before it is recycled. This newly added sequence will not fix the ribosome, or complete the protein. It will instead act as a signal to other destructive proteins to take the faulty one apart. What is surprising about this process is that a protein, not mRNA, decides which amino acids will be added.
Diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Lou Gehrig's are caused by defective quality control proteins. Knowing the exact conditions that trigger Rqc2 could help lead to new treatments for such
conditions.
This article directly relates to our last unit on molecular biology. Although the article describes a different process than we discussed in class, it is still about protein synthesis, which was an important part of our last topic.
Stem Cells Engineered
This article, by Jayalakshmi K., discusses expanding genome
technologies for engineering stem cells. Scientists are hoping for treatments
for diseases and to be applied in new/improved medications. Certain methods,
such as CRISPR and TALEN can modify DNA by adding, taking away, substituting,
or shortening DNA’s gene sequences. However, there is now a new technique
(named iPCS) developed at John Hopkins that causes adult cells to preform
similar to embryonic stem cells. This allows the adult cells to evolve into
certain needed cells. To perform this new technique, the genome editing process
uses DNA and RNA bound together by an enzyme to allow scientists to know where
to modify.
This article relates to what we have been learning in class
about genetic modification and the process taken to insert the desired genes
and change DNA sequences. Though the process used in this case is different
from the techniques we have studied, scientists edit the DNA sequence to
produce the organism with the wanted additional traits in both. We have also
studied stem cells; mostly found in the embryo, the cells are able to develop
into other cells (Campbell, Neil A., Brad
Williamson, and Robin J. Heyden. Biology: Exploring Life). Adults have few stem cells that can make
limited new materials (such as tissues), so the development of iPCS will
further expand and improve health.
K., Jayalakshmi.
"Stem Cells Engineered Using Genome Editing Technology." International Business
Times RSS. N.p., 7 Jan.
2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2015.
Most Cancers Due to Bad Luck, Not Heredity or Lifestyle
Title: Most Cancers Due to Bad Luck, Not Heredity or Lifestyle
Author: Kevin Mayor
Published: 2 January 2015
Source: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/most-cancers-due-to-bad-luck-not-heredity-or-lifestyle/81250759/
Author: Kevin Mayor
Published: 2 January 2015
Source: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/most-cancers-due-to-bad-luck-not-heredity-or-lifestyle/81250759/
Cancers are all caused by environment, heredity, and bad luck. However, most people with cancer are just unlucky. Cancer is caused by a mutation in DNA. The lifestyle and heredity of a person only influence the probability of the mutation and not the disease itself. Using tobacco and exposure to radiation only add the "bad luck" factor. DNA mutations are completely random. As a result, more resources should be focused on detecting cancer at an early stage. This is the most effective way to eradicate cancer.
This article relates to "Inherited" Cancer. The article says that cancer most likely won't be inherited from a parent. This is because the mutations passed onto children will only increase the risk of cancer. If a child receives a mutation, they will not necessarily develop cancer. Cancer is caused by mutations in DNA and influenced by genes and other mutagens.
Why are Most of us right handed?
Link: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141215-why-are-most-of-us-right-handed
by Jason G. Goldman BBC
Published: December 16, 2014
Summary:
Around 85% of humans have a right hand dominance over left handedness, in no instances is left-handedness more prevalent than right handedness. A bias of one side chosen over the other in the use of our limbs begins in the brain, with the left hemisphere controlling the right side of the body, where most large tasks are controlled. The division of neurological labor over hemispheres of the brain is a feature that evolved in most animals over time as a way to carry out multiple tasks at the same time. For instance, it is possible that the left hemisphere became responsible through evolution to carry out routine tasks, such as foraging for food and react to changes in the environment. It has been suggested that when homo sapiens evolved to stand on two legs, their hands became free to develop different sets of skills, resulting in a "strengthening asymmetry" for using tools and performing tasks. This is supported by the fact that when chimps stand on all fours, they show no hand preference. Also, stone tools made 1.5 million years ago, show species wide right-handedness.
This article connects directly to the study of evolution and certain traits evolving to become dominant over others as species adapt to their environment. As human evolution progressed, we began to stand on two legs, which freed up our hands for specified tasks. Through this evolutionary trait, the dominance of one hand over the other evolved in a clear pattern of right-handedness over left-handedness. This particular trait is very interesting because the evolution of the trait is mostly unknown because left-handedness has been shown to not be a drawback in an individuals ability to function. This brings up the question of why right hand dominance has emerged to be much more prevalent than left hand dominance.
by Jason G. Goldman BBC
Published: December 16, 2014
Summary:
Around 85% of humans have a right hand dominance over left handedness, in no instances is left-handedness more prevalent than right handedness. A bias of one side chosen over the other in the use of our limbs begins in the brain, with the left hemisphere controlling the right side of the body, where most large tasks are controlled. The division of neurological labor over hemispheres of the brain is a feature that evolved in most animals over time as a way to carry out multiple tasks at the same time. For instance, it is possible that the left hemisphere became responsible through evolution to carry out routine tasks, such as foraging for food and react to changes in the environment. It has been suggested that when homo sapiens evolved to stand on two legs, their hands became free to develop different sets of skills, resulting in a "strengthening asymmetry" for using tools and performing tasks. This is supported by the fact that when chimps stand on all fours, they show no hand preference. Also, stone tools made 1.5 million years ago, show species wide right-handedness.
This article connects directly to the study of evolution and certain traits evolving to become dominant over others as species adapt to their environment. As human evolution progressed, we began to stand on two legs, which freed up our hands for specified tasks. Through this evolutionary trait, the dominance of one hand over the other evolved in a clear pattern of right-handedness over left-handedness. This particular trait is very interesting because the evolution of the trait is mostly unknown because left-handedness has been shown to not be a drawback in an individuals ability to function. This brings up the question of why right hand dominance has emerged to be much more prevalent than left hand dominance.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Scientists Discover New Mechanism of Protein Synthesis
Scientists Discover New Mechanism of Protein Synthesis
by Sci-News.com
Published: Jan 4, 2015
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-new-mechanism-protein-synthesis-02381.html
Summary by Alice Zorn
A group of researchers from Stanford University and University of California discovered that amino acids can be assembled without "blueprints" (DNA and mRNA). The scientists said that the "ribosomes are machines on a protein assembly line, linking together amino acids in an order specified by the genetic code. When something goes wrong the ribosome can stall, and a quality control crew is summoned to the site," the ribosome is then disassembled in order to "clean up the mess" and the blueprint is discarded. The partially-made protein, however, is recycled, and this new study discovered that just before the protein is recycled, Rqc2 (a protein conserved from yeast to man) makes the ribosome add alanine and threonine (two amino acids) repeatedly, and randomly. This new protein might not be what it was intended to be, but it may have a code that signals that it must be destroyed.
This new discovery relates directly to our studies of molecular genetics. During that unit we learned how protein synthesizes with the help of mRNA and the genetic code, and this new information will further our understanding of the importance of ribosomes in the process, and the difference between successful synthesis and unsuccessful synthesis. This study also shows how much biologists still have to learn about biology, and how science is always changing.
by Sci-News.com
Published: Jan 4, 2015
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-new-mechanism-protein-synthesis-02381.html
Summary by Alice Zorn
A group of researchers from Stanford University and University of California discovered that amino acids can be assembled without "blueprints" (DNA and mRNA). The scientists said that the "ribosomes are machines on a protein assembly line, linking together amino acids in an order specified by the genetic code. When something goes wrong the ribosome can stall, and a quality control crew is summoned to the site," the ribosome is then disassembled in order to "clean up the mess" and the blueprint is discarded. The partially-made protein, however, is recycled, and this new study discovered that just before the protein is recycled, Rqc2 (a protein conserved from yeast to man) makes the ribosome add alanine and threonine (two amino acids) repeatedly, and randomly. This new protein might not be what it was intended to be, but it may have a code that signals that it must be destroyed.
This new discovery relates directly to our studies of molecular genetics. During that unit we learned how protein synthesizes with the help of mRNA and the genetic code, and this new information will further our understanding of the importance of ribosomes in the process, and the difference between successful synthesis and unsuccessful synthesis. This study also shows how much biologists still have to learn about biology, and how science is always changing.
New Perspective on Snake Evolution
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-perspective-snake-evolution.html
Nature Journal
January 5, 2015
Jason Head's and P. David Polly's recent study of the snake skeleton has revealed new information on how they may have evolved. We previously believed that snakes evolved from their lizard ancestors to a more simplified form. Now, it is becoming considered that other animals and lizards gained a more complex skeleton instead. This is due to the finding of distinctions among vertebral bones in the snake's skeleton identical to those of four-legged lizards. This ties to the function of Hox genes in the snakes. Hox genes regulate growth of the neck, trunk, lumbar, sacral and tail regions of limbed animals. Before, it was thought that the function of these genes was disrupted in snakes, resulting in no limbs and a simplified skeleton. It was then thought that the absence of limbs resulted in the loss of the distinction between the shape of the vertebrae in their backbones and neck, trunk, and lumbar regions. However, Head's and Polly's study revealed distinctions in the snake skeleton's vertebrae similar to the ones in lizards and mice. If the Hox genes were really disrupted in snakes, then their vertebrae would all be similar shapes and sizes, but they were not. Further investigation showed that the regions with Hox genes in snakes matched those in lizards, revealing that these genes in snakes simply control more simple and gradient changes in shape instead of the complex patterned ones in mice and lizard skeletons. It isn't that snakes simplified, it's that mammals and birds have gained more complex skeletal and Hox regions. This completely contrasts what was originally believed about snake evolution.
This new discovery is very important to science and directly relates to what we have been learning in the evolution unit. Scientists now have a better understanding of how reptiles may have evolved, which could lead to further investigation and discovery of the evolution of different animals and/or species. Although their evolution isn't what we had expected and originally predicted, snakes did change over the course of a long time from their lizard ancestors. This evolution was likely due to the need to survive in a different environment from the one lizards lived in. This new body shape for the snakes could help them catch food, escape predators, and blend in to different surroundings, and has evidently been working for them, as they have thrived in many areas. This also relates to how the study of bones and fossils can lead to great evolutionary discoveries, as we have learned in class. Overall, it is a great new point of view that helps us as students as well as other scientists learn more about evolution.
Nature Journal
January 5, 2015
Jason Head's and P. David Polly's recent study of the snake skeleton has revealed new information on how they may have evolved. We previously believed that snakes evolved from their lizard ancestors to a more simplified form. Now, it is becoming considered that other animals and lizards gained a more complex skeleton instead. This is due to the finding of distinctions among vertebral bones in the snake's skeleton identical to those of four-legged lizards. This ties to the function of Hox genes in the snakes. Hox genes regulate growth of the neck, trunk, lumbar, sacral and tail regions of limbed animals. Before, it was thought that the function of these genes was disrupted in snakes, resulting in no limbs and a simplified skeleton. It was then thought that the absence of limbs resulted in the loss of the distinction between the shape of the vertebrae in their backbones and neck, trunk, and lumbar regions. However, Head's and Polly's study revealed distinctions in the snake skeleton's vertebrae similar to the ones in lizards and mice. If the Hox genes were really disrupted in snakes, then their vertebrae would all be similar shapes and sizes, but they were not. Further investigation showed that the regions with Hox genes in snakes matched those in lizards, revealing that these genes in snakes simply control more simple and gradient changes in shape instead of the complex patterned ones in mice and lizard skeletons. It isn't that snakes simplified, it's that mammals and birds have gained more complex skeletal and Hox regions. This completely contrasts what was originally believed about snake evolution.
This new discovery is very important to science and directly relates to what we have been learning in the evolution unit. Scientists now have a better understanding of how reptiles may have evolved, which could lead to further investigation and discovery of the evolution of different animals and/or species. Although their evolution isn't what we had expected and originally predicted, snakes did change over the course of a long time from their lizard ancestors. This evolution was likely due to the need to survive in a different environment from the one lizards lived in. This new body shape for the snakes could help them catch food, escape predators, and blend in to different surroundings, and has evidently been working for them, as they have thrived in many areas. This also relates to how the study of bones and fossils can lead to great evolutionary discoveries, as we have learned in class. Overall, it is a great new point of view that helps us as students as well as other scientists learn more about evolution.
Cancer-Preventing GM Potato Approved
Genetically Modified Potato Approved Anna Rychlik P6
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html?_r=0
Date: November 7, 2014
Author: Andrew Pollack
This article is explaining that a new variety of genetically modified potato has been approved by the U.S.D.A. This potato has been altered so that when it is fried, poteientally dangerous amounts of a (cancer causing) chemical called acrylamide, are not created by the potato. In addition, this new type of potato can also resist bruising. Later in the article, it is questioned wether or not these new potatoes will actually sell. It is argued that in the past, GM potatoes have caused great contraversy with consumers in the US, but these GM potatoes could potentially flourish because of the fact that they are genetically modified to not only help the growers, but the people eating them.
This relates to what we have been learning in class in the GMO lab we did and the report we wrote up after. This also relates directly to the video we watched about how GM potatoes were not recived well by the general public.
Monday, January 5, 2015
A Second Miller-Urry Experiment
Article: The Origins of Life, by Helen Fields. Published by Smithsonian Magazine
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-origins-of-life-60437133/?all
The Miller-Urry experiment was widely hailed as a milestone in origin of life research, for it showed a verifiable way for the generation of amino acids and other required biological building blocks to be generated by natural phenomena. However, the two assumed energy sources, ultraviolet light and lightning, only act on the surface of the planet, which, at the time life evolved, was most likely not a hospitable place. Due to the lack of free oxygen, there was no ozone layer to prevent the damaging ultraviolet rays from making it to the surface and smashing up the slowly accumulating (or so is hypothesized) fragile complex organic molecules. However, this article presents an alternative way: the building blocks of life could have been formed at the high heats and pressures around geothermal vents, deep under the ocean, protected from ultraviolet radiation (and the asteroids of the LHB) by kilometers of water. With a much less volatile environment, the complex molecules would have had a chance to form protected.
The article also gives insights into how those basic molecules could have bumped into each other enough to form the polymers of life. The prebiotic soup that was the starting point of life could not have been very concentrated, so much so that randomly floating monomers forming polymers has been described as "infinitesimally small." However, if the molecules were sliding along a surface, all of a sudden this becomes a two-dimensional instead of three-dimensional problem, making an interaction much more likely. It would also reduce the amount of space the molecules had to work in from the whole ocean to just the surface itself, reducing the search space. These researchers are investigating to see if certain rocks might have been able to do that with amino acids or other monomers. If so, that's another lot of improbability in the origin of life accounted for.
Yet, like all articles on the origin of life I have seen, it does not address the real issue with the RNA world hypothesis, the one currently accepted by most researchers. Despite there being plausible hypothesis for the generation of basic biological monomers, there remains the problem: How do we get this first replicating molecule? According to this article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7527/pdf/nature13900.pdf, the best that has been done that had a limited capacity to self-replicate when given the proper starting components (those components is another moderately improbable "if"), is 83 bases in length. It requires 1 ribozyme (enzyme made of RNA) and 1 template strand, which is the same thing as the enzyme. Probability-wise, if there are 8 possible bases (U, A, G, C in both left-handed and right-handed forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality), and a specific sequence of 83 bases to follow, the number of possible sequences is 8^83, which is approximately 10^75. Taking in mind that we need 2 of these, one as ribozyme and one as template, we need to multiply again for the two sequences: 10^75*10^75=10^150. This is the same as the number of actions the universe could have taken in its entire lifetime, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound) of 10^150 possible actions. In other words, if the whole universe attempted to find, by random processes, two specific sequences of 83 bases each, it could, if if every possible action it took searched one possible combination. Note that this is, of course, a wild overestimation on the probabilistic resources that could be brought to bear on the problem of the origin of life, and the estimate of 10^150 possible actions assumes a search time of about 1 billion times longer that the age of the universe. That, it seems to me, is the real problem with our current understanding of the origin of life.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-origins-of-life-60437133/?all
The Miller-Urry experiment was widely hailed as a milestone in origin of life research, for it showed a verifiable way for the generation of amino acids and other required biological building blocks to be generated by natural phenomena. However, the two assumed energy sources, ultraviolet light and lightning, only act on the surface of the planet, which, at the time life evolved, was most likely not a hospitable place. Due to the lack of free oxygen, there was no ozone layer to prevent the damaging ultraviolet rays from making it to the surface and smashing up the slowly accumulating (or so is hypothesized) fragile complex organic molecules. However, this article presents an alternative way: the building blocks of life could have been formed at the high heats and pressures around geothermal vents, deep under the ocean, protected from ultraviolet radiation (and the asteroids of the LHB) by kilometers of water. With a much less volatile environment, the complex molecules would have had a chance to form protected.
The article also gives insights into how those basic molecules could have bumped into each other enough to form the polymers of life. The prebiotic soup that was the starting point of life could not have been very concentrated, so much so that randomly floating monomers forming polymers has been described as "infinitesimally small." However, if the molecules were sliding along a surface, all of a sudden this becomes a two-dimensional instead of three-dimensional problem, making an interaction much more likely. It would also reduce the amount of space the molecules had to work in from the whole ocean to just the surface itself, reducing the search space. These researchers are investigating to see if certain rocks might have been able to do that with amino acids or other monomers. If so, that's another lot of improbability in the origin of life accounted for.
Yet, like all articles on the origin of life I have seen, it does not address the real issue with the RNA world hypothesis, the one currently accepted by most researchers. Despite there being plausible hypothesis for the generation of basic biological monomers, there remains the problem: How do we get this first replicating molecule? According to this article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7527/pdf/nature13900.pdf, the best that has been done that had a limited capacity to self-replicate when given the proper starting components (those components is another moderately improbable "if"), is 83 bases in length. It requires 1 ribozyme (enzyme made of RNA) and 1 template strand, which is the same thing as the enzyme. Probability-wise, if there are 8 possible bases (U, A, G, C in both left-handed and right-handed forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality), and a specific sequence of 83 bases to follow, the number of possible sequences is 8^83, which is approximately 10^75. Taking in mind that we need 2 of these, one as ribozyme and one as template, we need to multiply again for the two sequences: 10^75*10^75=10^150. This is the same as the number of actions the universe could have taken in its entire lifetime, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound) of 10^150 possible actions. In other words, if the whole universe attempted to find, by random processes, two specific sequences of 83 bases each, it could, if if every possible action it took searched one possible combination. Note that this is, of course, a wild overestimation on the probabilistic resources that could be brought to bear on the problem of the origin of life, and the estimate of 10^150 possible actions assumes a search time of about 1 billion times longer that the age of the universe. That, it seems to me, is the real problem with our current understanding of the origin of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)