Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, May 5, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Regulating Evolution: How Gene Switches Make Life

by Scientific American

Thanks to SPS for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution

Switches within DNA that govern when and where genes are turned on enable genomes to generate the great diversity of animal forms from very similar sets of genes

KEY CONCEPTS

- Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.

- Mutations in DNA "switches" that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.

- If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.


At first glance, the list of animals could suggest any zoo. There's an elephant, an armadillo, an opossum, a dolphin, a sloth, a hedgehog, big and small bats, a couple of shrews, some fish, a macaque, an orangutan, a chimpanzee and a gorilla—to name a few of the more familiar creatures. But this menagerie is not at all like any zoo that has been constructed before. There are no cages, no concession stands and, in fact, no animals. It is a "virtual" zoo that contains only the DNA sequences of those animals—the hundreds of millions to billions of letters of DNA code that make up the genetic recipe for each species.

The most excited visitors to this new molecular zoo are evolutionary biologists, because within it lies a massive and detailed record of evolution. For many decades, scientists have longed to understand how the great diversity of species has arisen. We have known for half a century that changes in physical traits, from body color to brain size, stem from changes in DNA. Determining precisely what changes to the vast expanse of DNA sequences are responsible for giving animals their unique appearance was out of reach until recently, however.

Biologists are now deciphering the DNA record to locate the instructions that make assorted species of flies, fish or finches look different from one another and that make us humans different from chimpanzees. This quest has led to a profound change in our perspective. For most of the past 40 years or so, researchers have focused most of their attention on genes—the nucleotide sequences in DNA that encode the amino acid chains that form proteins. But to our surprise, it has turned out that differences in appearance are deceiving: very different animals have very similar sets of genes. By following the trail of evolution, devices are being found within DNA—genetic "switches"—that do not encode any proteins but that regulate when and where genes are used. Changes in these switches are crucial to the evolution of anatomy and provide new insights into how the seemingly endless forms of the animal kingdom have evolved.

Click here to continue:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution


Comments 1 - 10 of 10 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #175722 by JamesDB on May 5, 2008 at 11:51 pm

 avatarInteresting article, does this mean they might be able to figure out how to change these "switches" on humans to change our physical appearance one day. No more plastic surgeons purhaps, just gene altering for sexiness. Sounds good to me but i probably just don't know what im talking about.

Other Comments by JamesDB

2. Comment #175790 by jeremynel on May 6, 2008 at 3:28 am

Regretfully, the word "gene" is used in many different senses by various disciplines. This doesn't hinder the experts, but laymen can be misled.

The authors here use "gene" to mean that part of the DNA that is transcribed into mRNA and thus a protein. This is often how the word is used by molecular biologists.

However, the word "gene" in Williams'/Dawkins' sense refers to that part of the genetic code that acts as a unit for long enough to by effectively selected for by natural selection. It is not limited to those parts of the genome that happen to be transcribed.

Thus, while it is certainly true in the molecular biologists' sense that "[i]f humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes", this would not be true if "gene" were being used in Dawkins' sense. Since the things regulating the transcription of genes are THEMSELVES heritable (they're also DNA!), stable, and have phenotypic effects, they are genes to Dawkins (and many others).

Nice article, by the way.

Other Comments by jeremynel

3. Comment #175798 by rod-the-farmer on May 6, 2008 at 4:04 am

 avatarAm I reading too much into this ? It almost sounds like they are saying they could take the DNA of animal X, change a few switches from on or off to something different, plant the revised DNA into a host embryo, and presto changeo, we have a different animal, Y. Now wouldn't THAT cause the fundies to panic. Dog plus mods equals cat.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

4. Comment #175910 by Partisan on May 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

 avatarDoes this mean all life forms have very similar DNA, except only certain parts are activated in certain animals? So a scientist could take a rat, activate the right genes, make it yellow and able to produce electricity Ă  la a pikachu, assuming it shared some of these traits with its ancestors? I remember seeing something similar to this in one of potholer54's youtube video, I think "evolution made easy," where he showed an example of a gene unused in modern day chickens but present in their ancestry for teeth, which could be activated. So...how far back does this go? Do we all have the DNA of our amphibian ancestors? This article's given me alot of questions.

Other Comments by Partisan

5. Comment #175945 by JFHalsey on May 6, 2008 at 9:09 am

A while back, there was an excellent article about the difference between genes and switches and proteins and all that lingo that means a whole lot of nothing to an amateur like me... does anyone remember what it was called? I searched through the archives but I wasn't even sure what to be looking for.
I remember it compared some parts of the DNA to LEGOs or something like that... does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Other Comments by JFHalsey

6. Comment #175981 by kintaro_crab on May 6, 2008 at 10:10 am

 avatar@ #2, yes I too do not understand why there is such a wide range in definitions of what a gene is. It makes total sense to me to include the regulation factors as a part of a gene. Not to mention why does their definition of a gene not include non-coding regions of the DNA?

Perhaps someone knows a good answer to these questions. Is it just out of convenience?

Would love to know.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

7. Comment #176151 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 5:18 pm

 avatarI don't see much new in this, unless I'm missing something (which wouldn't be the first time).

Cancer researchers, for example, have been studying this concept for years. It seems to me simply an extension of the "Hox" gene concept, which we've known about since the early 80's, and of Pax6 genes (responsible for eye development), known since the mid-90's.

Other Comments by Geoff

8. Comment #176167 by chuckgoecke on May 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm

 avatarI have to second what jeremynel said, but add that the evo/devo folks like PZ might want to further complicate it. PZ recently had a good article about the developmental "Toolbox" full of reusable development control molecules that, in amazingly complicated ways, guide development(in his article about teeth development). Timing, proximity, concentration gradients, promoter/antagonistic combinations, others all work to guide the reading of the genetic code. Evolution has been amazingly frugal in the creation of new species using these varied techniques... sometimes. Then there's always the other extremes, of reinvented wheels, and unused appendices. Natural selection's undesigned development processes seem to be able to solve problems both with far greater elegance and simplicity and in some situations much more clunkiness than any designer could or would.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

9. Comment #177454 by magic_bullets on May 9, 2008 at 5:54 am

As I'm a molecular geneticist I'll try to say something about the definition of the word gene: I think it's just out of convenience that molecular biologist define gene as more or less the "open reading frame" (=ORF), i.e. the region between the start and the stop codons. This is because when you're studying a particular DNA sequence, the gene part (=ORF) is the easy part to spot (because it is defined by the start and the stop codons). All other parts that might "belong" to a gene, such as promoters, enhancers etc. is much more difficult to figure out. It therefore makes sense to define them separately.

To Partisan: Our DNA is of course not identical to the DNA of our amphibian ancestors, but we do have genes of which the counterpart can be found in our amphibian ancestors as well as in fruit flies and even fungi and bacteria. For example the Hox genes, which was mentioned by Geoff, was first discovered in the fruit fly. Imagine the suprise when scientists later found those same genes in humans!

For anybody who would like a nice introduction to evo devo I recommend the book "Endless forms most beautiful" by Sean B. Carroll (one of the authors of this article).

Other Comments by magic_bullets

10. Comment #178534 by Divineosaur on May 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm

 avatarThis recalls to my mind punctuated equilibrium. Would this allow for a more rapid than typical (whatever that means!) adaptation to a sudden environmental change? Or would it all still be subject to whatever useful mutations happen to occur and not necessarily speed things up? From my limited perspective I think I can see how either may be true. On the one hand it would be less time consuming to flip a few switches and alter the expression of relatively more necessary genes and on the other hand the mutations still have to occur. But the probability of the necessary useful mutation occurring in the relatively less essential switches would be greater due to the indispensability of the genes for body building. Any mutation to the body building gene would have more implications for the rest of the body, right? I am SO confused right now I don't even know if I just said or asked anything at all.

Other Comments by Divineosaur
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: