You've probably read Carl and Ed's posts, but the paper is finally out, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli:
The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that "replayed" evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
- Log in to post comments
31,500 generations since 1988. Wow.
I was hoping someone was doing this kind of experiment. I even had one sketched out on my head, though it's pretty obvious to anyone. (My plan was to stress generation after generation with some constant stressor up to the 90% fatality rate, multiplying the survivors under neutral conditions).
interesting experiment, but even so, I'd hate to be the guy crunching the sequencing data on that for 20 years.
John - You forgot to add an evil-sounding BWA-HA-HAA! to the end of your plan!