• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Convergent Evolution

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
See here.

A gene in Asian monkeys that may have evolved as protection against a group of viruses that includes HIV has been identified by Harvard Medical School researchers, who add that their finding suggests the current AIDS epidemic is not a new kind of scourge.

....This is the second time a TRIM5-CypA hybrid gene has been identified in monkeys. The other one -- TRIMCyp -- was found in South American owl monkeys in 2004. But it's not likely that these two gene combinations arose from a single common ancestor, the Harvard researchers said...

This sort of thing is discussed all the time in the lab -- examples of convergent evolution, where a particular type of gene mutation is so beneficial that it arises (or very similar genes arise in separate unrelated species.

The eye is a similar process... where many eyes as we know them are wired in a backwards manner (the optic nerve runs into the eyeball on its way out, rather than just being affixed to the outside)... but a few unconnected marine species exist where the eye is wired in a "sensible way" -- suggesting that the eye structure evolved concurrently on parallel tracks, and the variation between attributable to the original random mutations.

Thoughts? Comments?
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yep, cool isn't it? :) It's remarkably common, actually...one of the many cool things about evolution.

That monkeys have already evolved some form of protection against AIDS though, that's pretty interesting. Although it sounds like it's more like protection against a whole family of less recent viruses (I don't remember exactly what lentiviruses are) that just happens to include AIDS.
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
from the viewpoint of one who majored in microbiology:

convergent evolution is hardly a surprise. Because by Darwinian principle: Only the fittest survive, and adaptability is the key to survival. Hence, in all species, the genes that code for a specific trait that ensures survival will live on, whilst weaker members possessing 'undesirable traits' will die off. This ensures that the strongest live on to pass on their genes.

So if there was a virus that could target more than one species, for instance, then naturally, all the species which the virus targets will inevitably possess same/similar genes that confer protection against the virus. Because those species that did not, would have died out. Hence different species would posses the same/similar genes that confer a desirable trait.

Point of information: Monkeys developing genes against HIV. It has been postulated, but never proven, that AIDS (more specifically, the HIV virus) came about due to bestiality, originating from Africa, and transported throughout the world by sailors. The monkey equivalent is SIV--simian immunodeficiency virus. That has been around and acknowledged for decades, if not centuries.

HIV, however, only came into light in 1978, when a sailor was warded with a 'strange disease' in San Francisco. Subsequently, the cases exploded, and today, you have the AIDS pandemic.

So the possibility is that the virus simply mutated so as to be better virulent in humans, as compared to simians (ie, monkeys). Hence the parallel genes that protect against HIV--and SIV--exist in other species.

Additional information: (yes, a digression)
HIV is interesting in that it is a retrovirus--unique amongst the viruses in that it can survive both in DNA and RNA form: with the DNA form being a latent stage, explaining one of the reasons why HIV is so difficult to target in medical treatment.

Most living species possess only DNA, with RNA being a short phase when cells are reproducing. However, certain viruses genomes are made of RNA only. These are more rapidly mutating, as they lack what is known as a proof-reading function, which the DNA replicase enzyme possesses. Hence, there is less fidelity to the 'original script', which allows for greater species variation. Therein the second 'advantage' the HIV virus has: rapid RNA mutation.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
from the viewpoint of one who majored in microbiology:

Neat, thanks!

convergent evolution is hardly a surprise. Because by Darwinian principle: Only the fittest survive, and adaptability is the key to survival. Hence, in all species, the genes that code for a specific trait that ensures survival long enough to reproduce will live on, whilst weaker members possessing 'undesirable traits' will die off before they can reproduce. This ensures that the strongest live on to pass on their genes.

Small tweak just to clarify it for others. (see bold)

I think one of the points where people get confused (and why I enjoyed this article) is that they are operating under the notion that almost all mutation will be bad mutations, therefore a "good change" doesn't seem believable to them.

Not only are good changes possible, but they are replicated in various species and actually do occur.
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
Neat, thanks!



Small tweak just to clarify it for others. (see bold)

I think one of the points where people get confused (and why I enjoyed this article) is that they are operating under the notion that almost all mutation will be bad mutations, therefore a "good change" doesn't seem believable to them.

Not only are good changes possible, but they are replicated in various species and actually do occur.

No problem about the tweaking, thanks! I sometimes type stream-of-consciousness. So editing is much appreciated. :)

And yes. Mutations by themselves are never good or bad per se. It is what nature dictates for survival, that says if it is a good or bad mutation.

Using HIV again as the example (since it's quoted already), there are some people around who are naturally more resistant to the virus than others, due to some genes which they possess. In effect, this can be considered a good mutation, handed down from generations, and showing itself only when HIV surfaced in the human population.

H5N1 (bird flu) is the other example. There are some people, as well as birds, and other animal reservoirs, which have evolved/possessed immunity to this deadly disease. This is again due to genetic mutation--or more precisely, genetic variation. Sometimes it's rapid, sometimes it's not. All depends on the species, and the rate of the disease spreading.

note: because of the DNA/RNA thing---genetic mutation tends to occur much, much more slowly in animals, including humans, than in bacteria and viruses. In that sense, the microbes have one-up on us. Plus, one generation in humans is about 25 years, whilst for bacteria/viruses, it may be as short as a few hours. So generational mutation occurs much more swiftly in a same time frame for bugs than for us.
 

Jasz

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
276
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
thanks for the interesting discussion guys. now lunch is over.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
See here.



This sort of thing is discussed all the time in the lab -- examples of convergent evolution, where a particular type of gene mutation is so beneficial that it arises (or very similar genes arise in separate unrelated species.

The eye is a similar process... where many eyes as we know them are wired in a backwards manner (the optic nerve runs into the eyeball on its way out, rather than just being affixed to the outside)... but a few unconnected marine species exist where the eye is wired in a "sensible way" -- suggesting that the eye structure evolved concurrently on parallel tracks, and the variation between attributable to the original random mutations.

Thoughts? Comments?
I'm not sure I understand: You're saying that the eye was two separate entities which eventually became one, to, presumably, serve a stronger or at least more important function? And that this is parallel (not timewise) to the way the anti-aids gene in those asian monkeys developed?

If that's the case then ears are largely the same way are they not?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm not sure I understand: You're saying that the eye was two separate entities which eventually became one, to, presumably, serve a stronger or at least more important function? And that this is parallel (not timewise) to the way the anti-aids gene in those asian monkeys developed?

If that's the case then ears are largely the same way are they not?

No. I'm saying the structure of the eye did not evolve just once. It looks like two separate strands of organisms separately developed it, as a response to environmental needs. But in the one strand, the optic nerve wired one way, and in the other, the strand wired backwards. Both work and are similar... but the specifics differ. (I think I read this in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker.")

Just like with these monkeys, two different strands developed the same sort of useful protein separately.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I'm afraid I didn't garner much from this. It seems like all I can infer is that similar environmental pressures can cause unrelated organisms to develop similar adaptations independently, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. What's strange about that?

Two scientists independently invented semiconductors around the same time, with the main difference being that one was produced with Germanium, and the other with Silicon... seems like a similar scenario in a way.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
No one said anything about strange. It's cool though.

Also, eyes are pretty complex. For them to be as similar as it sounds, without being an influence on one another is pretty phenomenal.

Maybe it implies that what they have in common are the only ways (or one of them) carbon life can use light energy for information.

Either that or, the groundwork was already mostly laid down, and eyes were inevitable (using the term loosely) thanks to what evolutionary steps came before them, but the two incarnations being shaped differently and such were the responses to the environment.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
For the biology majors here (and other knowledgeable individuals), I have a lot of questions about biological evolution in general. I think, it is still on-topic.

What is a "gene?" I have never quite gotten it's definition from it's usage. Is it a protien? Is it a small sequence of half a DNA-molecule that is known to be responsible for a certain function in an organism? What is it really? In specific/concrete terms?

What does it mean for a gene to be "expressed?" Is it that the through RNA (or whatever comparable mechanism there is in the organism), the identified "gene" creates the phenotype (or rather the little section of it) from the genotype (or rather the little section of it)?

Are there quantitative measures of "selection pressure"? IOW, are there somethings analogous to a "fitness functions" used by computer scientists in synthetic (computerized) genetic algorithms? If so how does one determine such functions?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
For the biology majors here (and other knowledgeable individuals), I have a lot of questions about biological evolution in general. I think, it is still on-topic.

What is a "gene?" I have never quite gotten it's definition from it's usage. Is it a protien? Is it a small sequence of half a DNA-molecule that is known to be responsible for a certain function in an organism? What is it really? In specific/concrete terms?
I'm not entirely sure (so someone who is should piggyback / correct me) but I think you're kind of right.

It's any combination of the segments of one's DNA that decides a characteristic. That is, the order of the chemistry provides groundwork for growth, which turns into distinctive attributes.

Again, I'm unsure if that's the full exact definition. I basically pieced that together from parts beginning physical anthropology class, so I could have easily left something out.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
A gene is the DNA sequence that codes for a protein (or sometimes multiple proteins, or parts of proteins...but that's not important here). It is a blueprint, basically. Proteins are really what cause the eventual effects of the gene, for the most part.

A gene is said to be expressed when its protein is being produced...in other words, the gene is actually doing something.

I'm pretty sure there are quantitative measures of selection pressure, at least in models, but it's really not my area so I can't speculate.

HTH :)
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
And yes. Mutations by themselves are never good or bad per se. It is what nature dictates for survival, that says if it is a good or bad mutation.

Using HIV again as the example (since it's quoted already), there are some people around who are naturally more resistant to the virus than others, due to some genes which they possess. In effect, this can be considered a good mutation, handed down from generations, and showing itself only when HIV surfaced in the human population.

H5N1 (bird flu) is the other example. There are some people, as well as birds, and other animal reservoirs, which have evolved/possessed immunity to this deadly disease. This is again due to genetic mutation--or more precisely, genetic variation. Sometimes it's rapid, sometimes it's not. All depends on the species, and the rate of the disease spreading.

note: because of the DNA/RNA thing---genetic mutation tends to occur much, much more slowly in animals, including humans, than in bacteria and viruses. In that sense, the microbes have one-up on us. Plus, one generation in humans is about 25 years, whilst for bacteria/viruses, it may be as short as a few hours. So generational mutation occurs much more swiftly in a same time frame for bugs than for us.
Much agreed! :thumbup:

Stickle cell anemia can be deadly... so why do some many African Americans carry the gene? Because it's a beneficial mutation... For the heterogeneous carrier, 1 normal allele (copy of the gene) & 1 mutant allele, they are less susceptible of catching malaria. It's only when you have 2 copies of the mutant allele that you get the disease.

Mutation is just mutation... random changes. If you have a working system... there are more chances that random changes will impair the system rather than improve it. Perhaps that is why people associate mutation as being a bad thing. It really isn't... it's just RANDOM! Randomly good or bad.

Convergent evolution and evolution in general is always an interesting thing to see... The eye wiring is neat. :yes:

Another example would be the opposable "thumb" on the giant panda. They have 6 "fingers"... The ancestorial bears have evolved forward facing digits for running on the ground. The panda developed an appendage to help grip bamboo. Instead of relocating the first digit, the thumb is actually modified bone from their wrist. That's the power of random mutations for you.

There's always more than one way of solving a problem... convergent evolution nicely demonstrates that. :D

What is a "gene?" I have never quite gotten it's definition from it's usage. Is it a protien? Is it a small sequence of half a DNA-molecule that is known to be responsible for a certain function in an organism? What is it really? In specific/concrete terms?
A gene is a sequence of DNA. With the exception of viruses (they're technically not living) and bacteria, gene sequences are stored together in chromosomes, which are long long strands of DNA all coiled up together. Chromosomes are found within the nucleus (center) of every cell. As it's been said before, it's not a protein. It's the sequence of the DNA that allows for creating specific proteins. And it is the expression of these proteins that forms the phenotype of the individual (phenotype = what the individual looks like, eg hair color, eye color, height etc).

Technically one gene codes for one protein. This is known as the one gene/one enzyme hypothesis. Although multiple genes can produce multiple proteins that can influence a single attribute. Take hair color for example. Textbooks usually tell you that blond hair is recessive (needing 2 copies of blond) and dark color hair is dominant (1 copy of dark is sufficient). But what about the multitude of shades of blond or brunette... what about red heads? Hair color is controlled by multiple genes... However there's a main one that gives you the overall color. The interaction with the rest of them gives you the exact shade.

What does it mean for a gene to be "expressed?" Is it that the through RNA (or whatever comparable mechanism there is in the organism), the identified "gene" creates the phenotype (or rather the little section of it) from the genotype (or rather the little section of it)?
Gene is "expressed" into proteins (mostly enzymes). The exact process is like this:

DNA sequence (gene)-> translated (copied) to messanger RNA -> messanger RNA is processed and sent out of the nucleus -> mRNA is transcribed into (directs synthesis) proteins

Proteins are what makes up cells or acts as enzymes to influence parts of the cell.

Genotype = what gene alleles (copies) you have in your DNA
Phenotype = what is actually expressed... you can see it visibly

Are there quantitative measures of "selection pressure"? IOW, are there somethings analogous to a "fitness functions" used by computer scientists in synthetic (computerized) genetic algorithms? If so how does one determine such functions?

I skimmed the wiki articles...
Genetic algorithm appears to be a computer model of evolution... taking factors like selection, chromosome crossover rate, mutation rate etc. The fitness function just tries to describe the selection forces. What might be beneficial for survival.

These parameters are difficult to pin point.

Take the rate of mutation... The rate is affected by the rate of cell division. Every time a cell divides into two, its genomic DNA needs to be replicated (copied). Mistake in the copying gives raise to mutations. So a fast dividing (in the case of bacteria) or fast reproducing (sexual reproduction) organism will have a higher rate of mutation than a slower dividing/reproducing one. Also the error rate of replication is not constant. A cell under stress will mutate faster (hence the use of UV radiation for mutation studies... or UV causing skin cancer). Different species also have different enzymes to copy DNA. Some enzymes have less "proof-reading" abilities than others. RNA retro viruses have an enzyme to copy RNA into DNA for insertion into the host. That enzyme is notoriously error prone and probably have been evolutionary selected to be that way. Afterall, the more mutations it makes... the more difficult it is for humans to come up with vaccines and drugs to stop them. ;)

Selection forces... it's something to keep in mind. Evolution happens far too slowly to be looked at much in real life (with the exception on bacteria, viruses, yeast). So evolutionary studies are based mostly on fossil records and on genomic and protein data we can extract from species that are still alive today. You can't say definitively what the environment thousands of years ago look like. Therefore there's no way to determine what factors are important for survival... Even for current times, you can only guess.

So they can't tell what exactly the selection forces are... but they can tell whether there are sudden changes in selection forces. Sudden change will be indicated in the fossil (DNA) record. With more changes in the DNA genome in the descendant species. (Age can be determined by carbon dating). It's also important to note that much of our genome (90 odd %) consists of non-coding DNA (what's known as junk DNA). Some sections might be necessary... but the sequence of these are not. The amount of random mutation arising in these segments can also be used to track time.

Uhhhh please excuse my rambliness. :blush:
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
For the biology majors here (and other knowledgeable individuals), I have a lot of questions about biological evolution in general. I think, it is still on-topic.

What is a "gene?" I have never quite gotten it's definition from it's usage. Is it a protien? Is it a small sequence of half a DNA-molecule that is known to be responsible for a certain function in an organism? What is it really? In specific/concrete terms?

What does it mean for a gene to be "expressed?" Is it that the through RNA (or whatever comparable mechanism there is in the organism), the identified "gene" creates the phenotype (or rather the little section of it) from the genotype (or rather the little section of it)?

Are there quantitative measures of "selection pressure"? IOW, are there somethings analogous to a "fitness functions" used by computer scientists in synthetic (computerized) genetic algorithms? If so how does one determine such functions?

*applause for the mousie*

i was going to answer your questions, ygolo, but then nightning and randomnity have said it all already. espcially nightning. :D hey, i perceive i have other bio people here! :holy:

was going to raise sickle cell anemia as an example, but thought better leave it out as it was late, and i didn't want to go into the details of sickle-cell shaped red blood cells vs regular shaped ones, and malaria. :nice: mousie.

just to give the poetic answer though, since what is life if it is only prose:

genes: from latin, genesis, meaning: creation.

that is why the standard defintion of DNA is "the blueprint of life". Because genes are essentially bases (A, T, C, G.) which code for all the functions of life.

In that sense, a singular gene can be defined as that particular sequence of DNA which codes for a sense function. i.e., a function that has utility and can potentially be expressed. (as opposed to non-sense DNA, which are bits of DNA that are all about a genome, which do not code for any function.)

note that a DNA 'molecule' is a complex structure. It is made of hundreds of thousands of bases linked together, then twisted together into a double-helix formation, which is THEN wound around what are known as histones. This is to compact the structure to save space in cells.

to get an idea of its complexity, here's a double helix image:

image


2) when a gene is expressed, it means it produces a protein (via the DNA->RNA->protein process described by nightning) that is phenotypically seen in the person. Eg, if you talk about eye colour, then all people possess the alleles (different forms of the same gene) for every eye colour. But what is EXPRESSED, depends on which allele is dominant. (refer to mendelian genetics if you're interested in this). Hence an expressed gene is one whose function is seen in the person/animal. Be it for behaviour, or skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, etcetc. Even height, voice and all things.

3) quantitative measures of selection pressure. biostatistics. You use the chi-squared test, mainly.

hope this helps!
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I think it is clearer now what a gene and and what it means for it to be expressed. I don't think I was far off in my own conception.

However,...

3) quantitative measures of selection pressure. biostatistics. You use the chi-squared test, mainly.

Do you basically use chi-squared statistic to see if the relative frequecies of certain features/genes deviate significantly from expected (thereby indicating selection pressure for/against that feature/gene)?
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
Do you basically use chi-squared statistic to see if the relative frequecies of certain features/genes deviate significantly from expected (thereby indicating selection pressure for/against that feature/gene)?

Chi-squared is just an example. THere are others you can use, as well. It depends a lot on your sample size, and all the other parameters that have to be fulfilled before hte results can be considered significant.

But yes, you use it to see for deviations as you said.

You can also use it to prove the links between genes and expressed phenotypes.

So versus a standard population, say testing to see if NPC (nasopharyngeal carcinoma, otherwise know as ear/nose cancer) and the EBV (epstein barr virus) are linked, you'd take populations with NPC+EBV, NPC alone, EBV alone, and another group without both.

Then apply whichever stats test is applicable, to see if there is significant deviation. the use of null hypothesis applies. So it all depends on the definition of hte criteria at the start.

need to note that for microbes, it's a lot easier to use biostats, as their lifespans are shorter, so you can get generations of information in a day/month. whereas for humans, it becomes pretty much an extrapolation process, since we've in essence not changed for at least 5,000 years. (the span of civilisation as we know it).
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Comming back to convergent evolution, doesn't convergent evolution indicate strong selection pressure (almost by definition--as defined by a chi-square comparisons using expected frequencies of all options)?
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
Comming back to convergent evolution, doesn't convergent evolution indicate strong selection pressure (almost by definition--as defined by a chi-square comparisons using expected frequencies of all options)?


Yes. Athenian pointed out rightly. It shouldn't be a surprise at all. Life selects for the best; so the selection pressure will always be on the genes that confer survivability, across all species.

Hence convergent evolution.

Where you get divergent evolution, would be in a scenario of chaos. eg, different bugs specifically targetting different species, so that each species targetted needs to evolve different mechanisms for survival.

It's what is known as immunology: host-pathogen interactions. one of the most interesting of the bio-fields to study, because it is dynamic interactions we're talkign about; a constant process of evolution, as the bugs try to outsmart us, and we try to outsmart them in return. Cat and mouse game.

Alternatively, if there are more than one ways of beating the microbe, such that different paths evolve in different species (ie, different genes expressed, but all for the same function of beating the microbe, just in different ways). However, the end is the same: continued survival of the species. Selection pressure will always be for the best possible combination that best confers the ability to survive.
 
Top