Reversible Evolution

Saturnine Pariah

Hell is other people
Valued Senior Member
Genetic Study of House Dust Mites Demonstrates Reversible Evolution
Mar. 8, 2013 — In evolutionary biology, there is a deeply rooted supposition that you can't go home again: Once an organism has evolved specialized traits, it can't return to the lifestyle of its ancestors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's even a name for this pervasive idea. Dollo's law states that evolution is unidirectional and irreversible. But this "law" is not universally accepted and is the topic of heated debate among biologists.

Now a research team led by two University of Michigan biologists has used a large-scale genetic study of the lowly house dust mite to uncover an example of reversible evolution that appears to violate Dollo's law.

The study shows that tiny free-living house dust mites, which thrive in the mattresses, sofas and carpets of even the cleanest homes, evolved from parasites, which in turn evolved from free-living organisms millions of years ago.

"All our analyses conclusively demonstrated that house dust mites have abandoned a parasitic lifestyle, secondarily becoming free-living, and then speciated in several habitats, including human habitations," according to Pavel Klimov and Barry OConnor of the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Their paper, "Is permanent parasitism reversible? -- Critical evidence from early evolution of house dust mites," is scheduled to be published online March 8 in the journal Systematic Biology.

Mites are arachnids related to spiders (both have eight legs) and are among the most diverse animals on Earth. House dust mites, members of the family Pyroglyphidae, are the most common cause of allergic symptoms in humans, affecting up to 1.2 billion people worldwide.

Despite their huge impact on human health, the evolutionary relationships between these speck-sized creatures are poorly understood. According to Klimov and OConnor, there are 62 different published hypotheses arguing about whether today's free-living dust mites originated from a free-living ancestor or from a parasite -- an organism that lives on or in a host species and damages its host.

In their study, Klimov and OConnor evaluated all 62 hypotheses. Their project used large-scale DNA sequencing, the construction of detailed evolutionary trees called phylogenies, and sophisticated statistical analyses to test the hypotheses about the ancestral ecology of house dust mites.

On the phylogenetic tree they produced, house dust mites appear within a large lineage of parasitic mites, the Psoroptidia. These mites are full-time parasites of birds and mammals that never leave the bodies of their hosts. The U-M analysis shows that the immediate parasitic ancestors of house dust mites include skin mites, such as the psoroptic mange mites of livestock and the dog and cat ear mite.

"This result was so surprising that we decided to contact our colleagues to obtain their feedback prior to sending these data for publication," said Klimov, the first author of the paper and an assistant research scientist in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

The result was so surprising largely because it runs counter to the entrenched idea that highly specialized parasites cannot return to the free-living lifestyle of their ancestors.

"Parasites can quickly evolve highly sophisticated mechanisms for host exploitation and can lose their ability to function away from the host body," Klimov said. "They often experience degradation or loss of many genes because their functions are no longer required in a rich environment where hosts provide both living space and nutrients. Many researchers in the field perceive such specialization as evolutionarily irreversible."

The U-M findings also have human-health implications, said OConnor, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and a curator of insects and arachnids at the U-M Museum of Zoology.

"Our study is an example of how asking a purely academic question may result in broad practical applications," he said. "Knowing phylogenetic relationships of house dust mites may provide insights into allergenic properties of their immune-response-triggering proteins and the evolution of genes encoding allergens."

The project started in 2006 with a grant from the National Science Foundation. The first step was to obtain specimens of many free-living and parasitic mites -- no simple task given that some mite species are associated with rare mammal or bird species around the world.

The research team relied on a network of 64 biologists in 19 countries to obtain specimens. In addition, Klimov and OConnor conducted field trips to North and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. On one occasion, it took two years to obtain samples of an important species parasitizing African birds.

A total of around 700 mite species were collected for the study. For the genetic analysis, the same five nuclear genes were sequenced in each species.

How might the ecological shift from parasite to free-living state have occurred?

There is little doubt that early free-living dust mites were nest inhabitants -- the nests of birds and mammals are the principal habitat of all modern free-living species in the family Pyroglyphidae. Klimov and OConnor propose that a combination of several characteristics of their parasitic ancestors played an important role in allowing them to abandon permanent parasitism: tolerance of low humidity, development of powerful digestive enzymes that allowed them to feed on skin and keratinous (containing the protein keratin, which is found in human hair and fingernails) materials, and low host specificity with frequent shifts to unrelated hosts.

These features, which occur in almost all parasitic mites, were likely important precursors that enabled mite populations to thrive in host nests despite low humidity and scarce, low-quality food resources, according to Klimov and OConnor. For example, powerful enzymes allowed these mites to consume hard-to-digest feather and skin flakes composed of keratin.

With the advent of human civilization, nest-inhabiting pyroglyphids could have shifted to human dwellings from the nests of birds and rodents living in or around human homes. Once the mites moved indoors, the potent digestive enzymes and other immune-response-triggering molecules they carry made them a major source of human allergies.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation and also benefited, in part, from specimens collected by the Field Museum's Emerging Pathogens Project, funded by the Davee Foundation and the Dr. Ralph and Marian Falk Medical Research Trust. The molecular work was conducted in the Genomic Diversity Laboratory of the U-M Museum of Zoology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Source:


The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Michigan.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
 
If a creature migrates to a different environment, one would expect evolution to make him better suited to the new environment. If that creature then migrated back to his original habitat, why would it not evolve back to an approximation of the original form?
 
If a creature migrates to a different environment, one would expect evolution to make him better suited to the new environment. If that creature then migrated back to his original habitat, why would it not evolve back to an approximation of the original form?

He explained in the article why it's surprising.
 
I'm sure the experts know more than me, but it seems like those who didn't adapt back, the ones without the ones genes, wouldn't be around. So aren't we just seeing evolution in action, period? In other words, there's no such thing as de-evolution, it's just that conditions are favorable for going back to similar characteristics as before.

My first thought was about whales or other land creatures that went back to the water. The biggest difference is probably that the longer the time between the transition and the more complex the creature, the less the similarities, but as Dinosaur said, the environment acts as a pressure, so why not have a repeat, especially if the genes used before are still present to reactivate? Doesn't seem all that surprising.
 
My first thought was about whales or other land creatures that went back to the water.
The cetaceans appear to be descended from ancestral hippopotamuses. Hippos spend a lot of time in the water; apparently these swam until they reached the mouth of the river, kept going into the sea and liked it there.

The biggest difference is probably that the longer the time between the transition and the more complex the creature, the less the similarities, but as Dinosaur said, the environment acts as a pressure, so why not have a repeat, especially if the genes used before are still present to reactivate? Doesn't seem all that surprising.
Some genetic changes create new traits that are as advantageous in the old environment as the new one.

Warm-blooded, air-breathing animals (birds and mammals) absolutely rule their ecological niche in aquatic environments. Their metabolism generates much more energy than a cold-blooded air-breather (reptiles and amphibians), and especially more than a cold-blooded gill-breather (true fish, cartilaginous fish, and all the invertebrates). So they're faster, stronger and smarter than predators, prey or competitors of their own size.

This would explain why once a mammal becomes adapted to the water, it is rather successful and continues to adapt further. Even semi-aquatic mammals like polar bears, otters and seals are hard to beat in the water. It takes a really big predator to catch and kill one, and really big prey to avoid being eaten.
 
The notion that the organism is "going back" probably misleads. The newly evolved organism almost certainly varies considerably, genetically and morphologically, from all of its ancestors - even if they inhabited the exact same environment, which is also unlikely.
 
Picking a bone with an otherwise fine explication of the situation, this:
A modern understanding of the principle, informed by the underlying genetics, would instead say that a complex character involving multiple genetic changes and relying on a particular background for its expression is statistically unlikely to be reconstituted by stochastic changes in a different genetic background, in exactly the same way. It’s not a ‘law’, it’s a consequence of probability.
A good many Laws in the sciences, including the master of them all, the grand and all-dominating Second Law of Thermodynamics, are consequences of probability. That is a firm foundation for a law. That is not a reason to remove the label of "law", but to maybe capitalize it.

How about: Evolution does not retrace. (That would cover not only the near impossiblity of reversal, but the even less likely duplication)
 
A good many Laws in the sciences, including the master of them all, the grand and all-dominating Second Law of Thermodynamics, are consequences of probability. That is a firm foundation for a law. That is not a reason to remove the label of "law", but to maybe capitalize it.

There is also the entropic force, which is a force based on entropy. One example, is osmosis, where the entropy increase due to water diffusing into the solute rich side of the device, is expressed at the macro-level as a directed force. In the case of osmosis, the force is directed opposite gravity, not in a random way. One can do this over and over and the same directed result will occur. This directed force is generated by the entropy increase.

Reverse osmosis, allows one to apply a directed pressure=force/area to lower the entropy back into purify water. If selective pressure was a pressure, it is theoretically possible to use this selective directed pressure, to lower the entropy in the direction of a previous state. There are other considerations based on parallel entropy/force.

Biology and evolution does not take into consideration the entropic force and left this out of the theory of evolution, even though membranes are everywhere in life, all the way to the nuclear membrane. Biology does not fully take into account the impact of water on life, which drives the entropic force. If you leave out a main variable life appears, random. But once you add the second part or entropic force, we have a sense of vector direction.
 
Forward & back are probably not good terms in the context of evolution. They merely seem to be the best available in the context of this Thread. Perhaps a phrase would be better, but more clumsly: Evolve the development of a characteristic previously lost due to evolutionary pressure.

I would not expect evolution to result in even a close approximation to a previous species. I would expect evolution to result in a very close approximation to a specific characteristic previously lost due to evolutionary pressure if the environment changed to make the previous characteristic favorable.

BTW: Evolution & genetics has some interesting anomalies.

Sickle Cell anemia is recessive. There are (or were) African populations for which almost all adults had one Sickle Cell gene. Most of those with two such genes died of Sickle Cell anema. Most of those with no Sickle Cell gene died of a lethal form of Malaria. One Sickle Cell gene conferred resistance to the Malaria.

There are other examples of this type of anomaly. I think that one Tay Sachs gene confers immunity to some disease prevalent in Middle Age Ghettos.
 
Back
Top