What Mi­cro­bi­o­log­i­cal Dis­cov­ery in 2008 Did You Find Es­pe­cially...

...In­ter­est­ing?

Here is one an­swer to our query. We in­vite you to send us yours to add to this post.

by Mark Mar­tin
Mark is as­so­ciate pro­fes­sor in the De­part­ment of Bi­ol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of Puget Sound, and a pas­sion­ate ad­vo­cate for the Small Things.
 

When I teach mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy, I try to ca­jole the stu­dents into dis­cussing very re­cent jour­nal ar­ti­cles as well as those "golden oldies" we all love to re­view with stu­dents. Re­mem­ber, at my in­sti­tu­tion the stu­dents only have one shot to take mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy (I am ag­i­tat­ing to work more mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy into lower di­vi­sion courses, but that takes time and has a large en­ergy of ac­ti­va­tion.) Thus, I need to pas­sion­ately preach the mi­cro­bial gospel to stu­dents who of­ten tell me that "...bac­te­ria are sim­ple..." or that the ar­chaea are just like bac­te­ria, for that mat­ter.

One thing that has be­come a pri­or­ity to me is demon­strating to stu­dents (and col­leagues) that mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy is truly in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary, and has his­tor­i­cally trans­formed many other sub­fields in bi­ol­ogy, such as bio­chem­istry, ge­net­ics, and mol­e­c­u­lar bi­ol­ogy. And I think the trend will con­tinue with more "big bi­ol­ogy" top­ics, in­clud­ing the study of evo­lu­tion. C.P. Snow wrote in the 1950s about the "Two Cul­tures" of sci­ence and the hu­man­i­ties: I find that the gap be­tween "big bi­ol­ogy" (or­gan­is­mal and pop­u­la­tion bi­ol­ogy) and "small bi­ol­ogy" (cel­lu­lar and subcel­lular bi­ol­ogy) can seem just as broad in its own fash­ion. Forg­ing in­ter­con­nec­tions be­tween these ar­eas should be a pri­or­ity, given how in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary bi­ol­ogy has be­come.

Fre­quency-de­pen­dent se­lec­tion al­lows sta­ble co­ex­is­tence of Cit− and Cit+ clones. Each tra­jec­tory shows the mean of five re­plicate cul­tures for seven dif­fer­ent ini­tial ra­tios of Cit− and Cit+ clones from ge­neration 33,000. Er­ror bars are 95% con­fidence in­ter­vals. Source

To that end, among the many fas­ci­nat­ing find­ings from 2008, I rec­om­mend this ar­ti­cle from the great Rich Lenski's lab­o­ra­tory at Michi­gan State Uni­ver­sity:

Blount, ZD, Bor­land, CZ, and RE Lenski (2008). His­tor­i­cal con­tin­gency and the evo­lu­tion of a key in­no­va­tion in an ex­per­i­men­tal pop­u­la­tion of Es­cherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 105, 7899–7906. PMID 18524956

This ar­ti­cle show­cases the util­ity of mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy in ap­proach­ing ar­eas of broad in­ter­est in bi­ol­ogy, in this case a very in­ter­est­ing con­cept in evo­lu­tion­ary the­ory: the role of the "his­tory" of a species in its evo­lu­tion. Stephen Jay Gould fa­mously sug­gested that "run­ning back the tape of life" and re­play­ing it would cre­ate a very dif­fer­ent re­sult in terms of evo­lu­tion. This is a won­der­ful thought ex­per­i­ment, but dif­fi­cult to prove with­out a time ma­chine (and a lack of fear of time para­doxes from sci­ence fic­tion).

En­ter the mighty mi­crobe! Rich Lenski's re­search has al­lowed cowork­ers to pre­serve "snap­shots" of evolv­ing pop­u­la­tions of E. coli at var­i­ous times, so that the ge­net­ics of an evolv­ing species can be in­ves­ti­gated at 5,000 gen­er­a­tions, 20,000 gen­er­a­tions, and so forth. With­out spoil­ing the plea­sure of the great prose and won­der­ful fig­ures in this ar­ti­cle, suf­fice it to say that Rich Lenski, Zachary Blount, and Christina Bor­land were able to show that "his­tor­i­cal con­tin­gency" is in­deed im­por­tant in the evo­lu­tion of a spe­cific trait in E. coli, just as the Stephen Jay Gould ar­gued more gen­er­ally. This is truly a fine ar­ti­cle to demon­strate to "big bi­ol­ogy" stu­dents, steeped in ecol­ogy and evo­lu­tion, that mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy can find com­mon ground with their in­ter­ests, in and out of the class­room.

Rich Lenski's web­site is a won­der­ful re­source in this area, as well.

Here are more re­sponses...

by Fer­ric Fang
Fer­ric Fang is Pro­fes­sor of Lab­o­ra­tory Med­i­cine and Mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy at the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton in Seat­tle.

One of the most in­ter­est­ing mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy pa­pers I read in 2008 is by Isalan et al. These au­thors found tran­scrip­tional reg­u­la­tory net­works in E. coli to be un­ex­pect­edly ro­bust in re­sponse to per­turbations from the con­struc­tion of novel ar­ti­fi­cial con­nec­tions. Most changes were com­pen­sated for and had no ef­fect on growth, and some even ap­peared to en­hance fit­ness. The au­thors con­cluded that reg­u­la­tory net­works are highly plas­tic and evolv­able. (See the com­men­taries by Ideker and by Ben­nett and Hasty.) And yet, an equally in­ter­est­ing study by Lercher and Pál sug­gests that newly ac­quired genes take a very long time to be­come in­te­grated into ex­ist­ing reg­u­la­tory cir­cuits over evo­lu­tion­ary time. If reg­u­la­tory net­works are so read­ily mod­i­fied, why does the ad­di­tion of new com­po­nents take so long?

Mar­tin Lercher will be speak­ing along with Howard Ochman, Miroslav Rad­man, Pas­cal Si­monet and Rotem Sorek at a col­lo­quium I have or­ga­nized for this year's ASM meet­ing called Lat­eral Gene Trans­fer and Bac­te­r­ial Evo­lu­tion – Mech­a­nisms and Lim­its.

by Mercè Pi­queras
Mercè hosts a de­light­ful eclec­tic blog in Cata­lan where she shares her pas­sion for words, sci­ence, and writ­ing.

I found of spe­cial in­ter­est the dis­cov­ery of a sin­gle-species ecosys­tem at the Earth deep subsur­face. At least, this seems to be the re­sult of an en­vi­ron­men­tal ge­nomics study of sam­ples col­lected at 2.8 km depth in a South African gold mine. The work was de­scribed in Sci­ence, and a post was also pub­lished in Small Things Con­sid­ered.

by Manuel Sánchez
Manuel hosts one of our fa­vorite mi­cro­bi­o­log­i­cal blogs. Some of his posts, trans­lated from the Span­ish to Eng­lish, have also graced our pages.

My vote goes to Richard Lenski's group and his pa­per about his­tor­i­cal con­tin­gency and evo­lu­tion in Es­cherichia coli. I re­ally like it.

 

Other Posts