Cel­e­brat­ing Woese

Forty Years and En­tirely New Views of the Mi­cro­bial World

by Roberto and Elio

Ex­actly forty years ago to the day (as we sit down to write this post on No­vem­ber 3, 2017) the front page of the New York Times dis­play­ed a lar­ge pho­to­graph of Carl Woe­se fol­low­ed by a full length ar­tic­le de­scrib­ing his dis­co­ve­ry that "li­ving sys­tems re­pre­sent one of three ab­ori­gi­nal li­nes of des­cent."  The press co­ver­age in this and many other news­pa­pers around the world had stem­med from the pub­li­ca­tion in PNAS, two days ear­lier, of the land­mark pa­per by Woe­se and Fox, "Phy­lo­ge­ne­tic struc­ture of the pro­kar­yo­tic do­main: The pri­ma­ry king­doms." But de­spi­te the pub­li­ci­ty and the mo­men­tous na­ture of the pub­li­ca­tion, most scien­tists – mi­cro­bio­lo­gists in­clu­ded – ini­tial­ly ig­nor­ed this tri­par­ti­te view of the tree of life.

Carl Woese 1928 – 2012. Source (er­ror 404 in 2026)

Woese ex­plained this ini­ti­al lack of in­ter­est in his work with the­se words: "Peo­ple didn't un­der­stand the size of my con­tri­bu­tion. They had no ap­pre­ci­a­tion for what not hav­ing a mi­cro­bi­al phy­lo­ge­ny meant and the­re­fore no ap­pre­ci­a­tion for what hav­ing one would mean." (From a 1997 in­ter­view with Vir­ginia Morell).

To many mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists to­day, it is dif­fi­cult to ima­gine how it could have been that Woe­se's dis­co­ve­ry and its im­pli­ca­tions to our un­der­stand­ing of evo­lu­tion were ini­ti­al­ly ig­nor­ed. Look­ing back for­ty years and ana­ly­zing both the sta­te of mo­le­cu­lar bio­lo­gy at the time and the me­tho­do­lo­gies avai­lab­le, in part helps ex­plain the ini­tial re­act­ion that Woe­se's find­ings re­ceiv­ed. For one, mo­le­cu­lar bio­lo­gy had brought forth the re­mark­ab­le uni­ty in bio­lo­gy through the re­duct­ion­ist dis­co­ver­ies that lead to "the cen­tral dog­ma," best epi­to­miz­ed in Jacques Mo­nod's quo­te: "Tout ce qui est vrai pour E. coli est vrai pour l'éléphant." (All that is true for E. coli  is true for the ele­phant.) That phrase alone in­di­cat­es how many of us, deep­ly en­amor­ed with the uni­ver­sa­li­ty of DNA and its func­tions, had litt­le ap­pre­ci­a­tion for what it meant to not have a mi­cro­bi­al phy­lo­ge­ny. But there was more. A quick look at Woe­se's 1977 PNAS pa­per re­veals on­ly one ta­ble of re­sults, show­ing "as­so­ci­a­tion co­ef­fi­cients bet­ween re­pre­sen­ta­tive mem­bers of the three pri­ma­ry king­doms." The­se co­ef­fi­cients them­selv­es had been de­riv­ed from ex­ten­si­ve 16S or 18S rRNA oli­go­nuc­leo­ti­de ca­ta­logs. And the se­quen­ces of tho­se oli­go­nuc­leo­tid­es had been ob­tain­ed us­ing RNAse T1 di­gests of 32PO4-la­bel­ed rRNA that had been se­pa­ra­ted us­ing two-di­­men­­sio­­nal pa­per elec­tro­pho­re­sis. Woe­se and Fox were way, way ahead of the times; very few peo­ple knew how to car­ry out such ex­pe­ri­ments and ana­ly­ze the re­sults. In to­day's world of fast, in­ex­pen­si­ve and au­to­mat­ed deep DNA se­quen­cing, it is near­ly im­pos­sib­le to con­cei­ve just how in­cre­dib­ly dif­fi­cult and ti­me-con­­su­ming the work Woe­se and Fox car­ried out real­ly was. As a re­sult, re­la­ti­ve­ly few mi­cro­bio­lo­gists back in 1977 un­der­stood the me­tho­do­lo­gy and the mean­ing of tho­se ta­bles con­tain­ing as­so­ci­a­tion co­ef­fi­cients. But the sig­ni­fi­can­ce of Woe­se's dis­co­ve­ry is ig­nor­ed no more and the vast ma­jo­ri­ty of us to­day (though not all) ope­ra­te un­der the "Woe­si­an pa­ra­digm."

Fig­ure 2. Au­tora­di­ograph of a two-di­men­sional elec­trophore­sis sep­a­ra­tion of RNAse T1-di­ges­ted 16S rRNA. Source

There is lit­tle doubt that the mi­cro­bi­al sci­en­ces have evol­ved dra­ma­ti­cal­ly sin­ce Woe­se ini­ti­al­ly turn­ed our world­view up­side down with his dis­co­ve­ry of the three-do­­main uni­ver­sal phy­lo­ge­ny. As a way to ce­le­bra­te this for­tieth an­ni­ver­sa­ry, and to hon­or Woe­se and his con­tri­bu­tion, we have been dis­cus­sing bet­ween our­selv­es the many re­mark­able new in­sights that mi­cro­bio­lo­gy has con­tin­u­ed to pro­vide since 1977. We of­fer our list of what we con­si­der the three ma­jor chan­ges in world­view that have oc­cur­red since then. Clear­ly, this list of dra­ma­tic chan­ges is bas­ed on our per­so­nal opin­ions. We in­vite STC rea­ders to dis­cuss these and to add their items of choi­ce to the list.

A. Mi­crobes com­prise a huge pro­por­tion of the earth's bio­mass.

Had we been asked what pro­por­tion of the pla­net's bio­mass is bac­te­ri­al any time be­fore 1977, we might have gues­sed some­where around 1%. But in 1998 Whit­man et al.  pub­lish­ed the first cen­sus of the num­ber of bac­te­ria on Earth. They pro­pos­ed that the mi­cro­bi­al bio­mass con­sists of about 1030 cells, amount­ing to per­haps half of the to­tal weight of all liv­ing things on the pla­net. The num­ber of bac­te­ri­o­pha­ges in the oceans and ma­ri­ne se­di­ments is thought to ex­ceed that of bac­te­ria and ar­ch­aea by a fac­tor of 10 or so. The fi­gure for the to­tal mi­cro­bi­al mass be­comes sub­stant­ial­ly great­er when we in­clu­de the eu­kar­yo­tic mi­cro­bes, such as the pro­tists and small al­gae of the pi­co­plank­ton. In­deed, mi­cro­bes in the oceans ac­count for about 90% of the to­tal oce­an­ic bio­mass. Al­though the fi­gur­es are va­ri­able (wit­ness, for ex­am­ple, the gi­gant­ic but ephe­me­ral al­gal blooms of the coc­co­li­tho­pho­re Emil­ia­nia hux­leyi ), it is ge­ne­ral­ly agreed that a lar­ge pro­port­ion of the bio­sphe­re by weight is mi­cro­bi­al. Be­ing small, mi­cro­bes vast­ly ex­ceed the num­ber of all other liv­ing en­ti­ties.

Fig­ure 3. Emil­ia­nia hux­leyi  bloom. Source

Be­cause of their large num­bers, their di­ver­se me­ta­bo­lic ca­pa­ci­ties and their usu­al­ly fast me­ta­bo­lic ra­tes, mi­cro­bes car­ry out much of the me­ta­bo­lism of this pla­net, as is rea­di­ly re­veal­ed by their key role in the geo­che­mi­cal cyc­ling of car­bon, ni­tro­gen, oxy­gen, and sul­fur. Mi­cro­bes car­ry out the bulk of pho­to­syn­the­sis in the oce­ans and vir­tu­al­ly all of the non-in­­­dus­tr­ial fi­xa­tion of ni­tro­gen.

B. Mi­crobes are enor­mously di­verse

It has been known for some time that eve­ry in­ha­bi­table cor­ner of Earth is po­pu­la­ted by mi­cro­bes. This in­clu­de si­tes with ex­tre­mes of tem­pe­ra­tu­re, os­mo­tic and at­mo­sphe­ric pres­sur­es, and pH. But what was com­ple­te­ly un­ex­pec­ted what the gar­gan­tu­an sca­le of the ge­ne­tic di­ver­si­ty of mi­cro­bes. It was not un­til the pio­neer­ing work of Vig­dis Tors­vik, show­ing that the DNA pre­sent in a gram of soil was 10,000 ti­mes more com­plex than the ge­no­me of E. coli (in­ter­pre­ted loo­se­ly as con­tain­ing 10,000 dif­fe­rent spe­ci­es) and Nor­man Pace's ex­plor­ing of ge­ne­tic di­ver­si­ty us­ing cul­­tu­re-in­­de­pen­­dent me­tho­do­lo­gies that we got some ini­ti­al glimp­ses of the ex­tent of mi­cro­bi­al di­ver­si­ty. The dis­co­ve­ry of an en­ti­re­ly new huge clus­ter of phy­la just last year (the lar­ge­ly un­cul­tur­ed 'Can­di­da­te Phy­la Ra­di­a­tion' (CPR) cov­er­ed here in STC) is a sign that we still have not ful­ly as­ses­sed the ex­tent of the ge­ne­tic di­ver­si­ty of mi­cro­bes. The fact that most of the mem­bers of the can­di­da­te phy­la ra­di­a­tion may live in ex­tre­me­ly close as­so­ci­a­tions with other or­ga­nisms adds to the grow­ing sense that mu­tu­a­lis­tic sym­bio­sis as a way of life may be the rule rather than the ex­cept­ion in the mi­cro­bi­al world.

Fig­ure 4. The lat­est ver­sion of the mol­e­c­u­lar tree of life, show­ing the can­di­da­te phyla ra­di­a­tion (CPR). Source

It has been pro­posed that there are 1 tril­lion (1012 ) mi­cro­bi­al 'spe­ci­es' on Earth. Sin­ce the de­fi­ni­tion of what con­sti­tu­tes a mi­cro­bi­al spe­ci­es re­mains elu­si­ve, this fi­gu­re simp­ly re­flects dif­fe­ren­ces that can be per­ceiv­ed at a ge­no­mic lev­el. What­ever the deep­er mean­ing, the ac­tu­al num­ber of dis­tinct en­ti­ties is li­ke­ly to be gi­gan­tic and much lar­ger than sus­pect­ed be­fo­re the avai­la­bi­li­ty of deep se­quen­cing and me­ta­ge­no­mic ana­lys­es. Thus, the per­cep­tion of mi­cro­bi­al di­ver­si­ty has shift­ed from very lar­ge to co­los­sal.

C. Evo­lu­tion takes place by two mech­a­nisms

The two mech­a­nisms are gene mu­ta­tion and the trans­fer of pack­ets of in­for­ma­tion from one or­gan­ism to anoth­er via ho­ri­zon­tal ge­ne trans­fer (HGT). Al­though know­ledge that ge­ne­tic ma­te­ri­al could be trans­fer­red la­ter­al­ly among mi­cro­bes had been ob­tain­ed in the 1940s, its im­port­an­ce as like­ly the main dri­ver of mi­cro­bi­al evo­lu­tion came most­ly af­ter the ad­vent of full ge­no­me se­quen­cing. The amount of ge­ne­tic ma­te­ri­al trans­fer­red ran­ges from parts of a ge­ne to whole ope­rons or more, and, in the case of eu­kar­yo­ge­ne­sis, to the ge­nom­es of en­tire or­gan­isms. Be­cause HGT gene trans­fer va­ries quan­ti­ta­ti­ve­ly over such a vast ran­ge, its ef­fect on evo­lu­tion may be small, af­fect­ing a sin­gle trait, or huge, cre­a­ting new spe­ci­es across ta­xo­no­mic chasms. HGT is com­mon, if not ramp­ant (see STC's ex­cur­sion in­to this top­ic here). Many pa­tho­gens owe their vi­ru­len­ce to genes pre­sent in pha­ges, plas­mids or in chro­mo­so­msal frag­ments of chro­mo­so­mal DNA (is­lands) that ar­riv­ed via HGT.

Or­ganel­lo­ge­n­e­sis is cu­ri­ously limit­ed to two cas­es, mi­to­chon­dria and plas­tids, plus a few re­la­ted ones. Per­haps there may be yet oth­ers in the mak­ing (might rhi­zo­bia, which dif­fe­ren­ti­ate in­to bac­te­roids in plants, not be­come "nitro­plasts" in the dist­ant fu­ture?). Sym­bio­ses where the ge­no­me of the mi­cro­be is not in­cor­po­ra­ted in­to that of the host (at least not en mas­se ), oc­cur wi­de­ly, as in bac­te­ri­al en­do­sym­bionts of in­sects and clams. Al­though not wide­spread among ver­te­bra­tes and other groups, sym­bio­ses of this sort are yet anoth­er im­port­ant class of HGT events that are dri­ving evo­lu­tion.

D. Other ex­am­ples of leaps in under­stand­ing

Clearly, many ad­vances be­yond those three dis­cus­sed have chan­ged our view of the liv­es of mi­cro­bes. Take the ex­am­ple of mi­cro­bi­al so­ci­al­i­ty. While be­fore we lar­ge­ly saw mi­cro­bes as uni­cel­lu­lar en­ti­ties liv­ing se­pa­ra­te lives, we now re­cog­ni­ze mi­cro­bes as ge­ne­ral­ly liv­ing in or­ga­niz­ed com­mu­ni­ties where in­ter­cel­lu­lar com­mu­ni­ca­tion is com­mon. How­ever, much of the ground­work lead­ing to the con­cepts of mi­cro­bi­al mul­ti­cel­lu­la­ri­ty, so­ci­al­i­ty and com­mu­ni­ca­tion (now eve­ry­where re­fer­red to as quo­rum sens­ing) had al­ready been laid down prior to 1977. Take ano­th­er ex­am­ple, the cur­rent know­led­ge of the ex­tent of sub­cel­lu­lar or­ga­ni­za­tion among mi­cro­bes is astound­ing. And most of the tools to study this or­ga­ni­za­tion were cer­tain­ly de­ve­lop­ed af­ter 1977, the pri­me ex­ample per­haps be­ing the use of fluo­res­cent pro­teins. But, ar­gu­ab­ly, there were nu­me­rous in­di­ca­tions that mi­cro­bi­al cells con­tain­ed ela­bo­ra­te sub­cel­lu­lar or­ga­ni­za­tion prior to that time. But, as we said at the out­set, our list is based on our opin­ions and we would love to hear from you, our read­ers, what other chan­ges in world­view you per­cei­ve as hav­ing oc­cur­red in the for­ty years since Woe­se's se­mi­nal dis­co­ve­ry of the three do­mains of life. Re­gard­less of what we in­clude on the list, the ex­plo­sion of new know­led­ge about mi­cro­bes du­ring the last for­ty years makes the­se ar­gu­ab­ly the most ex­ci­ting times in the his­to­ry of mi­cro­bio­lo­gy.

 

Other Posts