Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Mixing Mammals

Putting bat DNA into mice sheds light on how limbs evolved.

By Anna Davison

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

By outfitting mice with a chunk of DNA that directs wing development in bats, scientists have created rodents with abnormally long forelimbs, mimicking one of the steps in the evolution of the bat wing. Their work gives weight to the idea that variations in how genes are controlled, and not just mutations in the coding regions of genes, are a driving force in evolution.

Batmouse: Scientists gave mice the bat version of a piece of DNA that boosts activity of a gene involved in limb development. The mice had slightly longer limbs than their normal counterparts, demonstrating the subtle force of evolution.
Credit: Technology Review

The slightly longer forelimbs of the transgenic mice "make them more batlike," says Nipam Patel, a professor of molecular and cell biology and integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the work. "It seems like a subtle difference, but evolution works by these subtle differences."

The researchers focused on a gene, Prx1, that plays a part in the elongation of limb bones in mammals. The gene's expression is regulated by another sequence of DNA, called a Prx1 enhancer. To investigate how the enhancer shapes limb development, Richard Behringer, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and his colleagues around the country put the bat version of the Prx1 enhancer into mice so that it controlled the mouse Prx1 gene. These transgenic animals developed forelimbs that were on average 6 percent longer than normal by the time they were born. It was a significant difference, although "the mice look like mice," Behringer says. "They're not going to fly out of the cage." The researchers report their work in the latest issue of Genes and Development.

To have any chance of flying, mice would have to develop very different forelimbs, like those of bats, which are longer and have membranes stretched between the bones. Behringer says that he'd like to try replacing the limb enhancers in mice with those from other animals, such as whales or wallabies.

Charles Darwin contemplated the evolution of different kinds of limbs in On the Origin of Species. Starting with a basic limb pattern, "successive slight modifications," he wrote, eventually produce the various mammal limbs we see today: human hands, bat wings, whale fins.

"We think what we've done is made one of those slight modifications," Behringer says. "Maybe during evolution you'd have a lot of those and the limb would get a lot longer, and maybe some of the tissue would be retained between digits, ultimately leading to the structures that would allow a bat to fly."

"It's a very nice demonstration of something that people have been suspecting now for some time: that regulatory sequences rather than changes in protein sequences sort of drive evolution," says Susan Mackem, who heads the Developmental Biology Unit at the National Cancer Institute's Center for Cancer Research. Mackem was not involved in Behringer's research.

Story continues below


Behringer's team also found something unexpected. When the researchers created mutant mice that lacked the mouse Prx1 enhancer, the animals developed forelegs of a normal length. That suggests that more than one enhancer controls the expression of the Prx-1 gene in mice, ensuring what Behringer calls a "regulatory redundancy."

"As long as there is one copy to do the work, the other copy can be creative," says Ann Burke, an associate professor of biology at Wesleyan University.

Tags

DNA genomics

Comments

  • DNA in mice
    While I do believe that genectic altering may hold a key to some of the diseases humans have, I take you to account to say this mammal (mouse)didn't receive as much of the DNA as the other mammal (bat) and therefore you have two different mammals in evolution.  Even you said this was a thought, not a fact.

    I still contend if evolution was a viable theory, account, we would have primates who have been here on earth for a million or more years, evolving into a Human-like creature, I mean physical evidence.  And there hasn't been any concrete recorded evidence.
    Respectfully,
    Bob Cooper MD
    Rate this comment: 12345

    housedad1997
    01/22/2008
    Posts:1
    • Re: DNA in mice
      Primates have existed for about 60 million years, and higher primates for about 5 million. And there is truckloads of physical evidence. Don't be a stupid medieval - the Earth is not flat.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      01/22/2008
      Posts:418
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: DNA in mice
      Evolution occurs to fill available ecological niches. There is only room for one sapient on the planet. There is thought that man has killed off competitors in the ancient past.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mattclary
      01/22/2008
      Posts:2
  • Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
    The study seems to rely on the assumption that a single directed random-variation pathway exists between the particular mouse-bat species pair.  Only then could the laboratory creation of a conjectured transitional form provide some basis to speculate about supposed processes within Darwinian theory.

    Two other possibilities exist that were not dealt with in the article:

    1. No directed random-variation pathway exists between the species pair
    2. Multiple directed random-variation pathways exist between the pair

    If either of these propositions is true, the study results could be meaningless.

    The mere existence of a human-created hybrid combination of a pair of species does not by necessity mean that the hybrid was an evolutionary transitional form, just as human-created glow-in-the-dark pigs and tobacco plants should not suggest that these luminous species were evolutionary forms, either transitional or terminal.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wf
    01/22/2008
    Posts:14
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
      All they did was put the bat 'Prx1 enhancer' into mice, and show that this caused longer limbs. Cause and effect - as simple as that. The mouse and bat DNA are very close, and this shows that even a slight genetic variation can have serious morphological effects on the animal.

      You are basically just erecting a straw man, and then proceed to 'prove' that they are wrong.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      01/22/2008
      Posts:418
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
        If the conclusions of the article were limited to those of your summary, I would have had no objections to the article's content originally.

        However, the following statements from the article go much further than your summary:

          "Their work gives weight to the idea that variations in how genes are controlled, and not just mutations in the coding regions of genes, are a driving force in evolution."

          "We think what we've done is made one of those slight modifications," Behringer says. "Maybe during evolution you'd have a lot of those and the limb would get a lot longer, and maybe some of the tissue would be retained between digits, ultimately leading to the structures that would allow a bat to fly."

          "It's a very nice demonstration of something that people have been suspecting now for some time: that regulatory sequences rather than changes in protein sequences sort of drive evolution,"

        You stated that my argument was a straw man.  Yet, you did not provide details as to where you feel I mischaracterized the views of the study authors.

        At the risk of being accused of constructing a straw man about why you consider my argument to be a straw man, I will attempt to guess what your objection is.  The only concept that I can find in my argument that is based on an assumption about the position of the authors is that they believe the hybrid animal to be an evolutionary transitional form between the particular mouse and bat species (though I think the second quoted paragraph above does imply it.)  If this assumption is not the case, then the authors must necessarily either believe one of the other two points I originally enumerated, since the three propositions (i.e., 0, 1, or multiple directed random pathways) completely describe the range of possibilities.

        If my assumption was incorrect, and the authors do not necessarily believe they have created an evolutionary transitional form (because either 0 or multiple directed random pathways exist linking the two species), then the conclusions about evolution that I quoted above from the article become even more baseless than with my original assumption of a direct lineage.

        For example, comparing a cat to an elephant does not suggest an evolutionary process by which a small animal ear can evolve to a large one since no one claims that the elephant is a direct descendant of the cat.  Any attempt to speculate about evolutionary processes on the basis of such a comparison would not have merit, and creating a larger-eared cat through insertion of selected elephant genes would not alter the verdict.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        wf
        01/22/2008
        Posts:14
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
          Yes, you guessed what the straw man was - I should have been more clear. Equating this experimental hybrid with a 'transitional' species - this is far too sweeping a conclusion. And I don't think the authors claim such a far reaching conclusion. They rather just speculate and conjecture about this. They conjecture that if this process of minimal DNA changes was to happen numerous times, one could explain how the limbs would morph into a completely different set of limbs. Makes sense.

          As the molecular biology tools improve, one will be able to conduct such forced&accelerated evolution experiments on mammals in the lab. Say you work on a mouse colony, and in each generation you forcefully induce a small, but defined genetic change. After 20 mouse generations you will have arrived to a completely new mouse sub-species. And if you keep doing this long enough, you'll get a completely new species. But the main theoretical point would be that you could save the lines of each intermediate form, and line them up for a 'family picture'. Then in this picture snapshot you could document how you gradually went from species A to species B. However, we don't have the technical expertise to do such experiments yet (not on mammals anyway. perhaps only in bacteria).
          Rate this comment: 12345

          gabrielg01
          01/22/2008
          Posts:418
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
            I think you were a bit hasty to apply the "straw man" label.  A straw man argument not only entails assuming someone else's position, but also intentionally choosing that position to be weak, so that it is easily overcome.  I admittedly assumed the position of the study authors, and I made it evident it was an assumption.  However, I have already illustrated that the assumption itself was actually the strongest possible position that the authors could hold.  All other possible positions provide less basis for the article's statements concerning evolution.  The proposal that the authors are not yet at the stage to take a position on the issue, as you suggested in your latest post, actually would put the study authors in a far poorer light because they would then be speaking from the position of greatest ignorance.

            Unfortunately, the experiment you suggest falls into the same trap that I am complaining about in the original article.  All you are suggesting is to add 20 such incremental changes instead of 1 change, thus creating a discrete progression from one species to a new one.  However, unless your species progression replicates a supposed evolutionary lineage, your experiment ironically is only demonstrative of intelligent design rather than evolution!  This conclusion is true not just because the genetic changes are human-forced (which would indeed be necessary in an experiment), but because the changes themselves may not reflect evolutionary changes at all.  To illustrate the point hyperbolically, we could modify the genetic experiment that produced glowing pigs to include subsequent generations modified to metabolize hydrocarbons, generate pesticides, and any other humorous feature we could concoct, but this artificial lineage could not be used to extrapolate information regarding evolutionary processes, even though the incremental genetic changes are small. 

            Experiments that are not modeled after the actual question supposedly being answered yield only squishy anecdotes, and never amount to hard science.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            wf
            01/23/2008
            Posts:14
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
            • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
              You're jumping way ahead, and claiming things that were never said nor implied (again). Such mixing experiments do not recreate any past evolutionary lineage. Nobody has claimed the creation of a past intermediary species. All those intermediary species are gone, and we are not in the possession of their molecular details - so how would one go about exactly recreating their genetic composition? It would be impossible.

              The conclusion from the mixing experiments is: if we can shape&morph an organism, then the evolutionary forces can do the same thing. Exactly recreating an evolutionary path is not a requirement. In fact, the exact reproduction of an evolutionary path never happens in nature either (see whales/dolphins vs. fishes).

              Doing a controlled lab experiment obviously requires 'the designer' to design and carry out the experiment. But it does not follow from this that natural processes need a designer as well. Experiments are merely a way for us to learn about the world.

              PS - if there was some kind of evolutionary advantage to it, green-fluorescent pigs and cats with elephant ears could have evolved.
              Rate this comment: 12345

              gabrielg01
              01/23/2008
              Posts:418
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
                My point regarding intelligent design was not that results from your suggested experiment would somehow imply it, but rather that the setup of the experiment primarily models an intelligent design approach rather than an evolutionary one. As I alluded to before, if the experiment does not attempt to accommodate the following criteria in some fashion, it is not modeling evolution:

                1. Employs randomly-occurring processes rather than human-forced changes
                2. Models a conjectured evolutionary lineage

                I would certainly concur that both of these criteria would be impossible to exactly implement, so approximations must be employed.

                Random processes cannot be feasibly engaged, but likelihoods for a random process could be estimated or at least bounded.

                Concerning how exact a replication of a conjectured evolutionary lineage is required, likewise I would not suggest that a precise duplication is feasible, since such a lineage is a speculative enterprise to begin with. However, at the bare minimum, the species pair should represent an ancestor-descendant relationship as closely as possible. Again, if the experiment does not bear some resemblance to a supposed evolutionary lineage (at least at the terminal species), it cannot make a claim to be shedding light on evolution.

                I understand that you do not agree with this assessment of what constitutes a valid experimental modeling of evolution. Your latest post reveals our underlying difference of opinion that is causing our disagreement.

                You stated, "The conclusion from the mixing experiments is: if we can shape&morph an organism, then the evolutionary forces can do the same thing."

                In no way did the mixing experiments demonstrate that evolutionary forces are capable of the same thing! Human-forced genetic changes are not randomly-produced changes. Human-forced changes could use any conceivable means of modifying or combining DNA. Can evolution use any conceivable means of modifying or combining DNA, or produce the same results through some subset of processes? It would be sheer speculation to affirm such a proposition at this time.

                The only viability test that the experiment possibly employs is to verify that the hybrid creature survives as a living organism, and perhaps is able to reproduce. In no way would this result indicate that evolutionary processes can produce the organism in the first place, or do so with a likelihood consistent with conjectured evolutionary timelines with an assumed progenitor species population.

                Your statement "...if we can shape&morph an organism, then the evolutionary forces can do the same thing" is your belief, not proven scientific fact. This is why you are not concerned that an experiment tries to model what evolution did do or what evolution is able to do -- these are not particularly relevant since you believe evolution could produce anything that humans create in the laboratory.
                Rate this comment: 12345

                wf
                01/24/2008
                Posts:14
                Avg Rating:
                5/5
                • Re: Questionable Connect-the-Dots Logic
                  "...1. Employs randomly-occurring processes rather than human-forced changes..."
                  Many experiments have been done with random mutagenesis. However, it would take forever and an inordinate amount of money to conduct these on mammals. So these random mutagenesis studies were mostly done in bacteria. Plus, evolution is not random, only mutagenesis is. The selection force pushes the process into a specific direction. Then if you were to mimic something like this in the lab, you must artificially apply a selection force – which brings us back to your ‘designer’ accusation.

                  "...2. Models a conjectured evolutionary lineage..."
                  First, you would need to have a humongous amount of molecular level info about the past iterations of that lineage. Second, you’d need extremely precise and detailed, and affordable mol. biology technologies – which we don’t have yet. Rest assured we’ll get there, and such experiments will be done. The genome was only a dream in the ‘70s...
                  Rate this comment: 12345

                  gabrielg01
                  01/24/2008
                  Posts:418
                  Avg Rating:
                  3/5
  • Error reliance
    I am something of a laymen on the subject of Genetics. 
    I was sitting in an airport one day (before homeland security decided no one should do that, ever) and I was thinking about genes and books.  They are both just information bound up in an unreadable format unless you know how to open and decode them.
    DNA is like a book that gets opened and read repeatedly. If you had a favorite section in a text, or the bible, any book that you returned to on a regular basis it would get worn.  This wear and tear does not inhibit you reading the information, it assists you in finding the correct pages.  If this were true for DNA, it would mean the more a particular gene was accessed the easier it would be to access, and the more that attached itself to the open ends of the gene the harder it would be for it to close and the more cascade interactions could occur.  It creates a beneficial cycle, from the genes perspective, making it easier to access, and more likely to be available when needed.

    When you step away from the DNA as book metaphor, but apply the error reliance principle, you get an open sequence for a protein that might get copied by accident and have an additional copy of itself inserted someplace else in the chromosome or even more broadly in the genome. The longer it is open the more mistakes can happen in its favor, the more likely beneficial mutations can occur.

    Evolution of a specific trait could happen much faster in this context.

    Just some airport thoughts.  Made sense at the time.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jcworking
    01/22/2008
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.