SciAm explains hothead

You may have heard about that odd hothead mutation in Arabidopsis that seemed to be violating a few principles of basic genetics—there was an unexpectedly high frequency of revertants that suggested there might be a reservoir of conserved genetic information outside the genome. Reed Cartwright proposed an alternative explanation, that gamete selection could skew the results. Now the latest reports suggest that the bias was an artifact of foreign pollenization (which I think is interesting in itself. Life is damned good at sneaking its genes in wherever it can.)

Anyway, if that's all gobbledygook to you, Scientific American has put up a lucid summary of the hothead affair. It's an example of good science, where the observations and hypotheses are hammered out and refined to get a best explanation.

More like this

Back in March I described a provocative paper that suggested that plants might be able to get around Mendel's laws of heredity. Reed Cartwright, the grad student behind De Rerum Natura, left a comment expressing some deep skepticism. Now he reports that he and Luca Comai of the University of…
There's a new paper in Nature (OPEN ACCESS), Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project: ...First, our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome is pervasively transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found in…
In a laboratory at Aberystwyth University, Wales, a scientist called Adam is doing some experiments. He is trying to find the genes responsible for producing some important enzymes in yeast, and he is going about it in a very familiar way. Based on existing knowledge, Adam is coming up with new…
This week, Science published two papers about the genetics of Neandertals from a team of scientists based at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. The first (which is the only one anyone seems to really care about) gives a draft version of the entire Neandertal genome - a whopping…

Bah. All this really proves is that all you Evilutionists don't have a clue how genes and mutations work, and refuse to see the Designer's hand at work in repairing these poor, afflicted plants.

Until, of course, you do solve the problem. But don't worry. We'll have latched onto the next gap by then.

(just getting the obligatory blather out of the way.)

"Arabidopsis does seem to have a proclivity for mutating. My colleague David Biello recently wrote about a finding that the plant kicks up its mutation rate when stressed and passes down the trait for several generations."

I don`t think this is an outstanding claim, given that we know for quite some time now that epigenetics - so more or less the histone modifications plays a major role in most of eukarya.

From an evolutionary standpoint i don`t like the cache hypothetisis, there is a good reason why nature hasn`t introduced caches but rather only outsourced functionality - just like software engineers do, nature uses plasmids, microcircles or heck one might even say virions.

Transposons could account for this phenomenon as well if there are some special transcription factors that act specifically on the transposons in such a way that they are in fact silenced and switched back in such a way that it would mimic a cache like system....hmmm....but given that the A. thaliana genome is fully sequenced one could actually check this out at BLAST level, which of course certainly has already been done.....and i should have come to that conclusion before i wrote all that :(

But the simplest explanation was already given and as we all know the simplest logical explanation is often the right one.

Life is damned good at sneaking its genes in wherever it can.

PZ, this sounds like something from panspermia. Is your belief waning?

By NatureSelectedMe (not verified) on 05 Oct 2006 #permalink

There was a link in the SciAm story about bacteria thought to be similar.

Introducing a mutation into the lactose-digesting enzyme cripples it, they argue, but doesn't completely destroy it. On its own, this crippled enzyme can't provide enough food for E. coli to stay alive. But every now and then genes get accidentally duplicated.

It seems they should be able to show this duplication with the technology today. The article this story points to is hard to read. Does this say whether they've actually seen this? That would be pretty compelling.

By NatureSelectedMe (not verified) on 05 Oct 2006 #permalink

It seems they should be able to show this duplication with the technology today. The article this story points to is hard to read. Does this say whether they've actually seen this? That would be pretty compelling.

Certainly.

The article says

EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT FOR AM
...
(iii) These unstable lac+ cells carry multiple copies of the lac operon (2, 21).

Looking at reference number 2, we find:

Andersson, D. I., E. S. Slechta, and J. R. Roth. 1998. Evidence that gene amplification underlies adaptive mutability of the bacterial lac operon. Science 282:1133-1135.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5391/1133?ijkey=f29e…

and this article delivers the evidence, as the title promises:

The predicted amplification of the lac region in unstably Lac+ revertants was tested by quantitative Southern (DNA) hybridizations (14) (Fig. 3D). The unstably Lac+ isolates (TT20562 through TT20565) showed (21- to 35-fold) more lac DNA than the unselected parent strain TT18302. The highest level of amplification observed was 50-fold (8).

Thanks, windy.

By NatureSelectedMe (not verified) on 06 Oct 2006 #permalink