Home > The Loom
A Blog About Life, Past and Future

Winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2004 Science Journalism Award

Scientific American Science and Technology Awards 2005

About this Author
Carl Zimmer Carl Zimmer is the author of several popular science books and writes frequently for the New York Times, as well as for magazines including The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Science, Newsweek, Popular Science, and Discover, where he is a contributing editor. Carl's books include Soul Made Flesh,, Parasite Rex and Evolution: The Triumph of An Idea. His latest book is Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins. Please send newsworthy items or feedback to blog-at-carlzimmer.com.
The Latest on Human Evolution!
Smithsonian%20small.jpg Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins
More on the book...
UPCOMING TALKS

Test calendar
Recent Newspaper & Magazine Articles
."Children Learn by Monkey See, Monkey Do. Chimps Don' t "
The New York Times, December 13, 2005


."A Pair of Wings Took Evolving Insects on a Nonstop Flight to Domination "

The New York Times, November 29, 2005


."From the Mouths of Lizards Spew Clues to the Origin of Snake Venom "
The New York Times, November 22, 2005


."In Give and Take of Evolution, a Surprising Contribution From Islands"
The New York Times, November 22, 2005


."Down For the Count "
The New York Times, November 8, 2005


."The Neurobiology of the Self "
Scientific American, November 2005


."Can Chimps Talk? "
Forbes.com, October 24, 2005


."DNA Studies Suggest Emperor Is Most Ancient of Penguins "
The New York Times, October 11, 2005


."The History of Chromosomes May Shape the Future of Diseases "
The New York Times, August 30, 2005


."Building a Virtual Microbe, Gene by Gene by Gene "
The New York Times, August 16, 2005




FULL-TEXT ARTICLE ARCHIVE

MORE BOOKS
Soul Made Flesh
A 2004 New York Times Notable Book of the Year


evocover.jpg Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (2001)

prexcover.jpg Parasite Rex (2000)

watercover.jpg At the Water's Edge (1998)
WHY "THE LOOM"?

"...among the joyous, heartless, ever-juvenile eternities, Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters, heaved the colossal orbs. He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad."
--Moby Dick

COMMENT POLICY

By submitting a comment, you grant Carl Zimmer permission to quote or republish this comment without restriction, notification, or compensation. Also, you acknowledge that you alone are fully responsible for (and bear full legal liability for) the content of this comment – including inaccuracies or potentially libelous statements. You certify that in this comment you have disclosed no proprietary or confidential information. This agreement applies even if you choose to post anonymously or supply false or incomplete identification.

Spirited debate is welcome, but comments that are spam, off-topic, seriously offensive, or otherwise inappropriate will be removed at my discretion. Comments may take up to a day to be posted, due to filtering, although usually they will be posted immediately. I do not fact-check, spell-check, or otherwise verify or correct comments.



RECENT ENTRIES
RECENT COMMENTS [xml]
Starting Points and Old Favorites
Eyes, Part One: Opening Up the Russian Doll

Eyes, Part Two: Fleas, Fish, and the Careful Art of Deconstruction

Florida, Where The Living Is Contradictory

The Chromosome Shuffle

Of Stem Cells and Neanderthals

Taking the Plunge

Your Loss is Your Gain

Divine Worms


Recent Trackbacks
› Chaotic Utopia:
Weird weather and bifurcations

› Watermark:
CUTE! Cats

› Critical Biomass:
Macskk

› MonkeyFilter:
Cat Family Tree

› Pharyngula:
It's good to know…

› 無修正動画の楽しみ方:
無修正 画像の楽しみ方





Subscribe with Bloglines

Creative Commons License
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline


The Loom

January 06, 2005
From Enemies to FriendsEmail This EntryPrint This Entry
Posted by Carl Zimmer

bacteriophage2.gifWhen you consider a tapeworm or an Ebola virus, it is easy think of them as being evil to their very core. That's a mistake. It's true that at this point in their evolutionary history these species have become well adapted to living inside of other organisms (us), and using our resources to help them reproduce themselves even if we get sick in the process. But one of the big lessons of modern biology is that there are no essences in nature--only the ongoing interplay of natural selection and the conditions in which it works. If the conditions change, organisms may evolve into drastically different things. Even the most ruthless parasite may discover the virtues of peace and harmony--if the conditions are right.

Joel Sachs and James Bull, two biologists at the University of Texas, have offered a vivid demonstration of this fact with the help of bacteria-infecting viruses, called bacteriophages. Bacteriophages, such as the one shown here, are wickedly elegant in the way they find hosts and inject their DNA, which then hijacks the bacteria's cellular machinery to make new bacteriophages. (For more of my praise of the bacteriophage, plus an excellent movie of the beast, go here.)

Bacteriophages fit the definition of parasite to a T. In many cases new viruses multiply inside a host until the bacterium simply rips apart. In other cases, they make bacteria sick, draining resources from their hosts that could otherwise be used for the hosts' own reproduction. But, as Bull and his colleagues have shown in a series of experiments, bacteriophages are not malicious in their very essence. Depending on the conditions in which bacteriophages find themselves, they can evolve into milder forms, or into meaner ones.

Bull and his colleagues took advantage of the fact that many bacteriophages can infect new hosts in one of two ways--by escaping one bacterium to invade another, or by getting passed down from one bacterium to its offspring. These two routes are called horizontal and vertical transmission. Bull's team experimentally created conditions that favored vertical transmission, and within a few dozen generations the viruses became much milder. If you rely on your host's survival for your own survival, it doesn't pay to be a brutal killer. (I wrote more about this evolutionary trade-off--and some of the debate surrounding it--in this article for Science.)

Now Bull and Sachs show that bacteriophages can even evolve to be nice to other bacteriophages. They describe the experiment in the January 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They started out with two bacteriophages, called f1 and IKe. Both viruses infect E. coli bacteria, but they enter in different ways. f1 only grabs onto one type of hair on the surface of E. coli (the F pilus), while IKe invades its hosts through another type (the N pilus). In the wild, f1 and IKe don't get along well. If they end up in the same host, they compete for the bacterium's cellular machinery. Also, because they are close relatives, sharing the same 10 genes, DNA-binding proteins of one bacteriophage can accidentally grab the DNA of the other species. As a result, bacteria infected with both f1 and IKe produce fewer copies of each virus than bacteria infected with only one species. It's the classic Darwinian scramble.

But Bull and Sachs wondered what would happen if the survival of both bacteriophages actually depended on their coexistence. Here's how they answered the question. First they engineered both bacteriophages, adding a gene that provides resistance to a different antibiotic (kanamycin for IKe and chloramphenicol for f1). Then they dumped billions of the engineered viruses into beakers full of E. coli. They allowed the viruses 16 minutes to find hosts, invade them, and start producing the proteins that confer antibiotic resistance. Then they added the two antibiotics to the beakers. Only the bacteria that had been infected with both bacteriophages could survive the assault. If a bacterium harbored only f1, for example, it would still die, because it remained susceptible to kanamycin.

Next, Bull and Sachs let the bacteriophages and their hosts alone for an hour. The bacteria divided, while the bacteriophages made copies of themselves. After an hour, the scientists dissolved away the bacteria, leaving behind the viruses. These new viruses were then added to a fresh batch of bacteria, and the cycle repeated itself.

Viruses are notoriously sloppy at replicating. The odds of a new virus winding up with a mutation is much higher than for organisms like ourselves, equipped as we are with enzymes that act like genetic proofreaders. As a result, with each round of Bull and Sachs' experiment, many variants emerged in both the f1 and IKe populations. The variants that were best suited for reproducing in the experimental conditions were favored by natural selection, and over time the viruses evolved. After 50 rounds, Bull and Sachs stopped the experiment and took a look at what the bacteriophages had become. Were they so selfish that they had driven themselves extinct? Or had they come to some sort of accommodation?

The bacteriophages clearly went through natural selection during just 50 rounds. By that point f1 was producing 50 times more copies of itself, and IKe was producing 1,000 times more. At the beginning of the experiment sharing a host was a bad thing for these viruses, but at the end it had become a very good thing. Bull and Sachs discovered that they had overcome their conflict of interest in an extraordinary way: they practically merged into a single organism. When Bull and Sachs opened up a bacteriophage shell, very often they found both the f1 and IKe genomes sitting side by side. They cold still find plenty of viruses with a single genome inside, but even in these cases, evolution had taken a dramatic turn. By about round 20, the IKe viruses had lost the ability to make their own protein coat. Instead, they borrowed f1 coats.

Bull and Sachs argue that the bacteriophages adapted to the experiment in a clever way. If you're a bacteriophage, successfully invading a host on your own is not enough to stave off death, because you may find yourself alone. If a mutation lets you bring along the other virus with you, then you are pretty much guaranteed survival. For some reason, f1 seems to have taken the lead in this cooperation, mutating in such a way that IKe genomes could slip easily inside f1's protein coats. As a result, IKe began to lose its own ability to survive as an independent virus, relying instead on the cooperation of f1. Once the viruses were packaged together, they no longer had a conflict of interest, and they could evolve an even greater level of cooperation.

Evolutionary biologists have long been fascinated by cooperation, whether the cooperators are chromosomes in a single cell, individual bacteria in a colony, or people in a village. What keeps individuals from cheating on others, from choosing the selfish strategy rather than the selfless one? Scientists have constructed sophisticated mathematical models in order to find the right sort of conditions where cooperation might evolve. But Bull and Sachs point out that it only took them 50 generations to turn uncooperative bacteriophages into intimate partners. When they sequenced the viruses, they found that f1 had acquired just eight mutations in its DNA, and IKe had acquired nine. Perhaps cooperation is not such a big deal after all. And perhaps parasites are not the essence of evil we tend to believe them to be.


Category: Evolution


COMMENTS
Aaron on January 6, 2005 04:51 PM writes...

A fantastic, fascinating post!!!!!!!

p.s. "They cold still find plenty of viruses..."? Because I'm sure you don't have to deal with enough persnickety editors already. ;)

Permalink to Comment
John S Bolton on January 7, 2005 05:44 AM writes...

That leads on to optimistic thoughts, yet the conditions forcing cooperation in the experiment are so stringent, that they resemble males and females of the same species.

Permalink to Comment
p on January 9, 2005 08:27 PM writes...

Very interesting findings!

Some question I have:
What really seperates the two entities as bacteriophages?

Do the new entities really consititute f1 and IKe or are they already something else, something new?

I guess where I am going is that the changes induced are signficant and speak to th epower of mutation and selection to drive categorical changes.

Permalink to Comment
David Govett on January 12, 2005 06:04 PM writes...

Why anthropomorphize virii, especially since there is question as to whether or not they live? Also, mitochondria once were extracytal bacteria, so should they now be considered malevolent symbiotes?

Permalink to Comment
David Govett on January 12, 2005 07:02 PM writes...

Re: "...within a few dozen generations the viruses became much milder. If you rely on your host's survival for your own survival, it doesn't pay to be a brutal killer."
Might not this explain the residence of mitochondria within our cells?

Permalink to Comment
Piers Young on January 13, 2005 11:33 AM writes...

I'm probably being slow, but why does the 50-generation benchmark mean that co-operation isn't such a big thing? I'd have thought that the speed of the "love match" served to highlight the importance of the co-operation?

Permalink to Comment
p on January 13, 2005 09:58 PM writes...

David, Interesting point.

Permalink to Comment
Pastor Bentonit on January 15, 2005 12:38 AM writes...

Well, how cool is that. I worked on those two phage strains (species?) a few years ago (physical studies on virion stability). Intrested parties may here note that both f1 and IKe are indeed "mild" parasites, persistently infecting E. coli, so that the bacterium does not lyse (burst) on the release of newly assembled phage. Instead, these are continuously set free at the cell surface as the bacteria divide (at a slightly lower rate than non-infected cells).

Permalink to Comment


TRACKBACKS
TrackBack URL: http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8021




POST A COMMENT
Name:

Email:

URL:

Comments:

Remember personal info?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES