An old pal of mine, the splendiferously morphogenetical Don Kane, has brought to my attention a curious juxtaposition. It’s two articles from the old, old days, both published in Nature in 1981, both relevant to my current interests, but each reflecting different outcomes. One is on zebrafish, the other on creationism.
I mentioned before that IDEA clubs insist that expertise is optional; well, it’s clear that that is definitely true. Casey Luskin, the IDEA club coordinator and president, has written an utterly awful article “rebutting” part of Ken Miller’s testimony in the Dover trial. It is embarrassingly bad, a piece of dreck written by a lawyer that demonstrates that he knows nothing at all about genetics, evolution, biology, or basic logic. I’ll explain a few of his misconceptions about genetics, errors in the reproductive consequences of individuals with Robertsonian fusions, and how he has completely misrepresented the significance of the ape:human chromosome comparisons.
We just had one of these!
Well, just to flesh it out a little more with some random links, here are some photos. I was told the second one made someone think of me (warning: body modification!). And, jebus help me, for some reason I thought this photo was very sexy. Or appetizing. I don’t know, something in the midbrain flickered.
Oh, and several of us sciencebloggers were interviewed for an article by Eva Amsen on “Who benefits from science blogging?” It doesn’t mention the benefit of people sending you pictures that tickle the cingulate.
A few carnivals have popped up:
Also, Mendel’s Garden #6 is looking for submissions — it will be hosted at The Voltage Gate tomorrow!
I’m a little surprised at the convergence of interest in this news report of a conserved mechanism of organizing the nervous system—I’ve gotten a half-dozen requests to explain what it all means. Is there a rising consciousness about evo-devo issues? What’s caused the sudden focus on this one paper?
It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. It’s an interesting observation about how both arthropods and vertebrates seem to partition regions along the dorso-ventral axis of the nervous system using exactly the same set of molecules, a remarkable degree of similarity that supports the idea of a common origin. Gradients of a molecule called Bmp may be the primitive mechanism for establishing dorso-ventral polarity in animals.
Perusable blogaliciousness for your Friday morning:
The Hairy Museum of Natural History has put out a call for submissions to the Tangled Bank, with an early deadline. If you want a shot at maybe seeing your link with a custom illustration, send it in by Sunday evening. He’ll try to accept stuff up through Tuesday, but make life easy on the guy, OK?
I was reading a review paper that was frustrating because I wanted to know more—it’s on the evolution of complex brains, and briefly summarizes some of the current confusion about what, exactly, is involved in building a brain with complex problem solving ability. It’s not as simple as “size matters”—we have to jigger the formulae a fair bit to take into account brain:body size ratios, for instance, to get humans to come out on top, and maybe bulk is an inaccurate proxy for more significant matters, such as the number of synapses and nerve conduction velocities.
There’s also a growing amount of literature that takes genomic approaches, searching for sequences that show the signatures of selection, and plucking those out for analysis. There have been some provocative results from that kind of work, finding some candidate genes like ASPM, but another of the lessons of that kind of work seems to be that evolution has been working harder on our testis-specific genes than on our brains.
The encouraging part of the paper is that the authors advocate expanding our search for the correlates of intelligence with another group of organisms with a reputation for big brains, but brains that have evolved independently of vertebrates’. You know what I’m talking about: cephalopods!
The Cephalopoda are an ancient group of mollusks originating in the late Cambrian. Ancestors of modern coleoid cephalopods (octopus and squid) diverged from the externally-shelled nautiloids in the Ordovician, with approximately 600 million years of separate evolution between the cephalopod and the vertebrate lineages. The evolution of modern coleoids has been strongly influenced by competition and predatory pressures from fish, to a degree that the behavior of squid and octopus are more akin to that of fast-moving aquatic vertebrates than to other mollusks. Squid and octopuses are agile and active animals with sophisticated sensory and motor capabilities. Their central nervous systems are much larger than those of other mollusks, with the main ganglia fused into a brain that surrounds the esophagus with additional lateral optic lobes. The number of neurons in an adult cephalopod brain can reach 200 million, approximately four orders of magnitude higher than the 20-30,000 neurons found in model mollusks such as Aplysia or Lymnaea. Cephalopods exhibit sophisticated behaviors a number of studies have presented evidence for diverse modes of learning and memory in Octopus and cuttlefish models. This learning capacity is reflected in a sophisticated circuitry of neural networks in the cephalopod nervous system. Moreover, electrophysiological studies have revealed vertebrate-like properties in the cephalopod brain, such as compound field potentials and long-term potentiation. Thus cephalopods exhibit all the attributes of complex nervous systems on the anatomical, cellular, functional and behavioral levels.
Unfortunately, the purpose of the paper is to highlight an unfortunate deficiency in our modern research program: there is no cephalopod genome project. The closest thing to it is an effort to sequence the genome of another mollusc, Aplysia, which is a very good thing—Aplysia is a famous and indispensable subject of much research in learning and memory—but it’s no squid. The authors are advocating additional work on another animal, one with a more elaborate brain.
A parallel effort on a well-studied octopus or squid should provide insights on the evolutionary processes that allowed development of the sophisticated cephalopod nervous system. For example, have cephalopods undergone accelerated evolution in specific nervous system genes, as has been suggested for primates? Have specific gene families undergone expansion in the cephalopod lineage and are these expressed in the nervous system? Are there clear parallels in accelerated evolution, gene family expansion, and other evolutionary processes between cephalopods and vertebrates? Answers to these and related questions will provide useful perspectives for evaluation of the processes thought to be involved in the evolution of the vertebrate brain.
I’m all for it—let’s see a Euprymna genome project!
Jaaro H, Fainzilber M (2006) Building complex brains—missing pieces in an evolutionary puzzle. Brain Behav Evol 68(3):191-195.
The Inoculated Mind twists a Calvin and Hobbes comic to make a point about debates with creationists…I don’t know if I should endorse that kind of tinkering with Holy Writ.
Well, there I am again, mentioned in an article in Nature (Nature Reviews Genetics, actually), but I have to agree with RPM: it’s an awfully thin article that draws unwarranted and hasty conclusions from a tiny sample. It would have been better to actually talk to some of the people blogging about genes and genetics—we tend to be a voluble bunch, I think, and would have given her plenty of material to work with—rather than glancing at a few sites and trying to draw grand generalizations from them.
Skipper M (2006) Would Mendel have been a blogger? Nature Reviews Genetics 7:664.
I’ve been getting swamped with links to this hot article, “Evolution reversed in mice,” including one from my brother (hi, Mike!). It really is excellent and provocative and interesting work from Tvrdik and Capecchi, but the news slant is simply weird—they didn’t take “a mouse back in time,” nor did they “reverse evolution.” They restored the regulatory state of one of the Hox genes to a condition like that found half a billion years ago, and got a viable mouse; it gives us information about the specializations that occurred in these genes after their duplication early in chordate history. I am rather amused at the photos the news stories are all running of a mutant mouse, as if it has become a primeval creature. It’s two similar genes out of a few tens of thousands, operating in a modern mammal! The ancestral state the authors are studying would have been present in a fish in the Cambrian.
I can see where what they’ve actually accomplished is difficult to explain to a readership that doesn’t even know what the Hox genes are. I’ve written an overview of Hox genes previously, so if you want to bone up real quick, go ahead; otherwise, though, I’ll summarize the basics and tell you what the experiment really did.
