Expression and form: Arash Kianianmomeni on gene regulation

Kianianmomeni Figure 1

Figure 1 from Kianianmomeni 2015. Gene regulatory mechanisms behind the evolution of multicellularity. Model illustrating the role of gene regulatory mechanisms in the evolution of multicellular Volvox from a Chlamydomonas-like ancestor.

Arash Kianianmomeni’s latest paper in Communicative & Integrative Biology addresses the possible roles of gene regulation and alternative splicing in the evolution of multicellularity and cellular differentiation (Kianianmomeni, A. 2015. Potential impact of gene regulatory mechanisms on the evolution of multicellularity in the volvocine algae. Commun. Integr. Biol., 37–41. doi 10.1080/19420889.2015.1017175). The article is an ‘Addendum’ to a 2014 study by Kianianmomeni and colleagues in BMC Genomics. Communicative & Integrative Biology often invites authors to write these addenda after they have published a (usually high impact) paper elsewhere, providing authors the opportunity to publish material that was not included in the original paper due to space limitations or because it was opinionated or speculative. I may address the BMC Genomics article in a future post, but right now there is more new volvocine research than I have time to write about (it should be an exciting Volvox meeting this summer!).

[Read more…]

Pierrick Bourrat on levels, time, and fitness, part 2: collective fitness

Last week, I posted some thoughts on Pierrick Bourrat’s new paper in Philosophy and Theory in Biology, focusing on his criticism of Rick Michod’s ‘export of fitness’ framework. This week, I’ll take a look at the second of Bourrat’s criticisms, regarding the transition from MLS1 to MLS2, as first defined by Damuth & Heisler, during a transition in individuality.
MLS1 and MLS2 refer to two different versions of MultiLevel Selection. As Bourrat describes it (and this is pretty much in line with other authors), fitness in MLS1 is defined in terms of the number of particles (or lower-level units, or cells) produced, while in MLS2 the fitnesses of the particles and collectives (or cells and multicellular organisms) are measured in different units. Cell-level fitness (for example) is defined in terms of the number of daughter cells, organism-level fitness is based on the number of daughter organisms. (As with last week’s post, I’ll generally stick to cells and organisms, though the principles apply equally to any two adjacent levels.

[Read more…]

Pierrick Bourrat on levels, time, and fitness, part 1: zero fitness?

Pierrick Bourrat’s new paper in Philosophy and Theory in Biology criticizes aspects of the influential ‘export of fitness’ framework developed by Rick Michod and colleagues and extended by Samir Okasha (Bourrat, P. 2015. Levels, time and fitness in evolutionary transitions in individuality. Philos. Theory Biol., 7: e601. doi: 10.3998/ptb.6959004.0007.001). According to this view, an evolutionary transition in individuality, for example from unicellular to multicellular life, involves a transfer of fitness from the lower level units (e.g. cells) to the higher level unit (e.g. nascent multicellular organism). Fitness is defined as the product of viability and fecundity, and the emergence of a division of labor between reproductive (germ) and non-reproductive (somatic) units at the lower level exports fitness to the higher level. Full disclosure: Rick Michod was my Ph.D. co-advisor, and he has had a huge influence on my thinking about this topic.

[Read more…]

Friday Golden Fleece: Strike a Smile

This was a guest post by Gwendolyn Nix.

In a recent article, FierceRoller tackled the notorious Golden Fleece Awards and the Wastebook, two award projects created and given by United States Senators decrying research proposals they deem silly and wasteful.

Naturally, as scientists, we nurse a certain outrage towards those without scientific training (or the determination to fully read a scientific paper) who assert that certain studies are worthless. I don’t go around the House of Representatives telling the Speaker of the House how to do his job. I wouldn’t even go to MacDonald’s and tell the fry cook that I could make better fries without the gumption prove it. Because I am excited to put my money where my mouth is, I’m going to analyze the Golden Fleece Award given to Robert E. Kraut and Robert E. Johnston on their study of why bowlers smile.

[Read more…]

Friday Golden Fleece

Blue monkey

Blue monkey, Cercopithecus mitas stuhlmanni

Dating back to at least the 1970s, Washington politicians have a tradition of decrying scientific funding that they deem wasteful. From Senator William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award to Sarah Palin’s “fruit fly research in Paris, France” to Senator Tom Coburn‘s annual “Wastebook,” particular research projects that can be made to sound silly are singled out for ridicule. The politicians, of course, have every right to make these criticisms, but scientists often see them as unwelcome intrusions by elected officials who (almost always) lack the scientific background to understand the research they mock.
So how have the politicians done? Have the projects singled out for ridicule indeed been ridiculous wastes of taxpayer money? I (and hopefully some guest bloggers) will be taking a look at some of the criticized projects to understand just how insightful politicians are at identifying useless research.

[Read more…]