Bu­tyrib­ac­terium, E. coli and the Ele­phant

A Snip­pet and an Ad­um­bra­tion

by Roberto

"All that is true for the Col­ibacille is true for the ele­phant."
Jacques Monod 1954

"From the ele­phant to bu­tyric acid bac­terium — it is all the same!"
—Al­bert Jan Kluyver 1926

I could not help my­self. As I be­gin an­other year of blog­ging at STC, I had to start with this re­cur­ring theme of ele­phants. It does have the feel­ing of a blogger's equiv­a­lent to a com­poser's os­ti­nato (think ob­sti­nate) – a mo­tif that per­sis­tently re­peats. Oh, but what wonder­fully al­lur­ing mo­tif, E. coli and Ele­phants! I first wanted to share this snip­pet when I men­tioned the apho­risms quoted above in my 2021 post on how E. coli rose to promi­nence. And then again, when Christoph brought up the same quotes just a few months ago, I felt I had to write this.

The Snip­pet

That Jacques Monod would choose E. coli to rep­re­sent bac­te­ria we can all un­der­stand. By 1954 the "Col­ibacille" was al­ready the cho­sen model or­gan­ism of most mol­e­c­u­lar geneti­cists. The fact that Kluyver did not choose E. coli makes com­plete sense since in 1926 our beloved bac­terium was just be­gin­ning its rise to promi­nence.

But why the ele­phant?? I can eas­ily see why Monod could have been charmed by the ele­phant. I can al­most hear him say­ing: "Ah, l'élégance de l'éléphant." Per­haps he had heard of Kluyver's phrase or some mod­i­fied ver­sion of it. But why did Kluyver choose the ele­phant from among all an­i­mals?

Fig. 1. Gane­sha. Plate pho­tographed by Roberto Kolter from The Hindu Pan­theon. Thanks to Prof. Sub­ra­mony Ma­hade­van from the In­dian In­sti­tute of Sci­ence. Fron­tispiece im­age by Roberto Kolter.

Her­bert Fried­man, an out­stand­ing bio­chemist, teacher, and his­to­rian of mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy (who, co­in­ci­den­tally died al­most ex­actly ten years ago so let this post be in his honor) wrote a "must-read" es­say that de­scribes Jan Kluyver's love for the "unity of bio­chem­istry" and pro­vides the best chron­i­cle of the evo­lu­tion of these ele­phant phrases. He pro­poses that Kluyver, hav­ing spent five years in the Dutch East In­dies, had vis­ited In­dia and Sri Lanka and thus "ele­phants were on his mind." In my wish­ful think­ing, I'd go one step fur­ther. Be­cause if I had vis­ited In­dia and Sri Lanka, I would have not only seen ele­phants but would have (as I have done even with­out trav­el­ing there) be­come en­am­ored with a key fig­ure in the Hindu pan­theon: the ele­phant-headed Gane­sha who is, among sev­eral other things, the pa­tron of the sci­ences and arts! Whether Gane­sha was in­stru­men­tal in Kluyver's choice, I can­not tell. But I can tell you, it is cer­tainly a rea­son I so much like the E. coli and Ele­phant mo­tif.

The Ad­um­bra­tion

Kluyver never used his phrase in any of his pub­li­ca­tions; we know about it from some of his lec­ture notes and it ap­pears to have been part of his "lab speak" (Laborge­spräch). In con­trast, Monod, along with Ja­cob, did make use of his phrase in a very in­flu­en­tial pub­li­ca­tion. It's their con­clu­sion es­say that closes the im­pres­sive col­lec­tion of pa­pers of the leg­endary 1961 Cold Spring Har­bor Sym­po­sium Vol­ume 26: Cel­lu­lar Reg­u­la­tory Mecha­nisms. Per­haps to con­nect from the uni­ver­sal­ity of bio­chem­istry to the pos­si­bil­ity of the uni­ver­sal­ity of the ge­netic code Ja­cob and Monod write:

"If the codes of Ser­ra­tia and Es­cherichia and per­haps a few other bac­te­r­ial gen­era turn out to be the same, the mi­cro­bial-chem­i­cal-ge­neti­cists will be sat­is­fied that it is in­deed uni­ver­sal, by virtue of the well-known ax­iom that "any­thing found to be true of E. coli must also be true of Ele­phants."

Here's food for thought. The ti­tle of this es­say is: "Teleo­nomic Mech­a­nisms in Cel­lu­lar Me­tabolism, Growth, and Dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion." Teleo­nomic? That's my ad­um­bra­tion of a fu­ture post. For now, I hope you en­joy the Ele­phants.
 

Other Posts