In which a “living fossil’s” genome delights me

I promised myself I wouldn’t go on for thousands and thousands of words about the Lingula genome paper (I’ve got things to do, and there is a LOT of stuff in there), but I had to indulge myself a little bit. Four or five years ago when I was a final year undergrad trying to figure out things about Hox gene evolution, I would have killed for a complete brachiopod genome. Or even a complete brachiopod Hox cluster. A year or two ago, when I was trying to sweat out something resembling a PhD thesis, I would have killed for some information about the genetics of brachiopod shells that amounted to more than tables of amino acid abundances. Too late for my poor dissertations, but a brachiopod genome is finally sequenced! The paper is right here, completely free (Luo et al., 2015). Yay for labs who can afford open-access publishing!

In case you’re not familiar with Lingula, it’s this guy (image from Wikipedia):

In a classic case of looks being deceiving, it’s not a mollusc, although it does look a bit like one except for the weird white stalk sticking out of the back of its shell. Brachiopods, the phylum to which Lingula belongs, are one of those strange groups no one really knows where to place, although nowadays we are pretty sure they are somewhere in the general vicinity of molluscs, annelid worms and their ilk. Unlike bivalve molluscs, whose shell valves are on the left and right sides of the animal, the shells of brachiopods like Lingula have top and bottom valves. Lingula‘s shell is also made of different materials: while bivalve shells contain calcium carbonate deposited into a mesh of chitin and silk-like proteins,* the subgroup of brachiopods Lingula belongs to uses calcium phosphate, the same mineral that dominates our bones, and a lot of collagen (again like bone). But we’ll come back to that in a moment…

One of the reasons the Lingula genome is particularly interesting is that Lingula is a classic “living fossil”. In the Paleobiology Database, there’s even an entry for a Cambrian fossil classified as Lingula, and there are plenty of entries from the next geological period. If the database is to be believed, the genus Lingula has existed for something like 500 million years, which must be some kind of record for an animal.** Is its genome similarly conservative? Or did the DNA hiding under a deceptively conservative shell design evolve as quickly as anyone’s?

In a heroic feat of self-control, I’m not spending all night poring over the paper, but I did give a couple of interesting sections a look. Naturally, the first thing I dug out was the Hox cluster hiding in the rather large supplement. This was the first clue that Lingula‘s genome is definitely “living” and not at all a fossil in any sense of the word. If it were, we’d expect one neat string of Hox genes, all in the order we’re used to from other animals. Instead, what we find is two missing genes, one plucked from the middle of the cluster and tacked onto its “front” end, and two genes totally detached from the rest. It’s not too bad as Hox cluster disintegration goes – six out of nine genes are still neatly ordered – but it certainly doesn’t look like something left over from the dawn of animals.

The bigger clue that caught my eye, though, was this little family tree in Figure 2:


The red numbers on each branch indicate the number of gene families that expanded or first appeared in that lineage, and the green numbers are the families shrunk or lost. Note that our “living fossil” takes the lead in both. What I find funny is that it’s miles ahead of not only the animals generally considered “conservative” in terms of genome evolution, like the limpet Lottia and the lancelet Branchiostoma, but also the sea squirt (Ciona). Squirts are notorious for having incredibly fast-evolving genomes; then again, most of that notoriety was based on the crazily divergent sequences and often wildly scrambled order of its genes. A genome can be conservative in some ways and highly innovative in others. In fact, many of the genes involved in basic cellular functions are very slow-evolving in Lingula. (Note also: humans are pretty slow-evolving as far as gene content goes. This is not the first study to find that.)

So, Lingula, living fossil? Not so much.

The last bit I looked at was the section about shell genetics. Although it’s generally foolish to expect the shell-forming gene sets of two animals from different phyla to be similar (see my first footnote), if there are similarities, they could potentially go at least two different ways. First, brachiopods might be quite close to molluscs, which is the hypothesis Luo et al.‘s own treebuilding efforts support. Like molluscs, brachiopods also have a specialised mantle that secretes shell material, though having the same name doesn’t mean the two “mantles” actually share a common origin. So who knows, some molluscan shell proteins, or shell regulatory genes, might show up in Lingula, too.

On the other hand, the composition of Lingula’s shell is more similar to our skeletons’. So, since they have to capture the same mineral, could the brachiopods share some of our skeletal proteins? The answer to both questions seems to be “mostly no”.

Molluscan shell matrix proteins, those that are actually built into the structure of the shell, are quite variable even within Mollusca. It’s probably not surprising, then, that most of the relevant genes that are even present in Lingula are not specific to the mantle, and those that are are the kinds of genes that are generally involved in the handling of calcium or the building of the stuff around cells in all kinds of contexts. Some of the regulatory mechanisms might be shared – Luo et al. report that BMP signalling seems to be going on around the edge of the mantle in baby Lingula, and this cellular signalling system is also involved in molluscan shell formation. Then again, a handful of similar signalling systems “are involved” in bloody everything in animal development, so how much we can deduce from this similarity is anyone’s guess.

As for “bone genes” – the ones that are most characteristically tied to bone are missing (disappointingly or reassuringly, take your pick). The SCPP protein family is so far known only from vertebrates, and its various members are involved in the mineralisation of bones and teeth. SCPPs originate from an ancient protein called SPARC, which seems to be generally present wherever collagen is (IIRC, it’s thought to help collagen fibres arrange themselves correctly). Lingula has a gene for SPARC all right, but nothing remotely resembling an SCPP gene.

I mentioned that the shell of Lingula is built largely on collagen, but it turns out that it isn’t “our” kind of collagen. “Collagen” is just a protein with a particular kind of repetitive sequence. Three amino acids (glycine-proline-something else, in case you’re interested) are repeated ad nauseam in the collagen chain, and these repetitive regions let the protein twist into characteristic rope-like fibres that make collagen such a wonderfully tough basis for connective tissue. Aside from the repeats they all share, collagens are a large and diverse bunch. The ones that form most of the organic matrix in bone contain a non-repetitive and rather easily recognised domain at one end, but when Luo et al. analysed the genome and the proteins extracted from the Lingula shell, they found that none of the shell collagens possessed this domain. Instead, most of them had EGF domains, which are pretty widespread in all kinds of extracellular proteins. Based on the genome sequence, Lingula has a whole little cluster of these collagens-with-EGF-domains that probably originated from brachiopod-specific gene duplications.

So, to recap: Lingula is not as conservative as its looks would suggest (never judge a living fossil by its cover, right?) We also finally have actual sequences for lots of its shell proteins, which reveal that when it comes to building shells, Lingula does its own thing. Not much of a surprise, but still, knowing is a damn sight better than thinkin’ it’s probably so. We are scientists here, or what.

I am Very Pleased with this genome. (I just wish it was published five years ago 😛 )



*This, interestingly, doesn’t seem to be the general case for all molluscs. Jackson et al. (2010) compared the genes building the pearly layer of snail (abalone, to be precise) and bivalve (pearl oyster) shells, and found that the snail showed no sign of the chitin-making enzymes and silk type proteins that were so abundant in its bivalved cousins. It appears that even within molluscs, different groups have found different ways to make often very similar shell structures. However, all molluscs shells regardless of the underlying genetics are predominantly composed of calcium carbonate.

**You often hear about sharks, or crocodiles, or coelacanths, existing “unchanged” for 100 or 200 or whatever million years, but in reality, 200-million-year-old crocodiles aren’t even classified in the same families, let alone the same genera, as any of the living species. Again, the living coelacanth is distinct enough from its relatives in the Cretaceous, when they were last seen, to warrant its own genus in the eyes of taxonomists. I’ve no time to check up on sharks, but I’m willing to bet the situation is similar. Whether Lingula‘s jaw-dropping 500-million-year tenure on earth is a result of taxonomic lumping or the shells genuinely looking that similar, I don’t know. Anyway, rant over.



Jackson DJ et al. (2010) Parallel evolution of nacre building gene sets in molluscs. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27:591-608

Luo Y-J et al. (2015) The Lingula genome provides insights into brachiopod evolution and the origin of phosphate biomineralization. Nature Communications 6:8301

Precambrian muscles??? Oooooh!

Okay, consider this a cautious squee. I wish at least some of those Ediacaran fossils were a little more obvious. I mean, I might love fossils, but I’m trained to squirt nasty chemicals on bits of dead worm and play with protein sequences, not to look at faint impressions in rock and see an animal.

Most putative animals from the Ediacaran period, the “dark age” that preceded the Cambrian explosion, are confusing to the actual experts, not just to a lab/computer biologist with a fondness for long-dead things. The new paper by Liu et al. (2014) this post is about lists a “but see” for pretty much every interpretation they cite. The problem is twofold: one, as far as I can tell, most Ediacaran fossils don’t actually preserve that much interpretable detail. Two, Ediacaran organisms lived at a time when the kinds of animal body plans we’re familiar with today were just taking shape. The Ediacaran is the age of ancestors, and it would be more surprising to find a creature we can easily categorise (e.g. a snail) than a weird beastie that isn’t quite anything we know.

Having said that, Liu et al. think they are able to identify the new fossil they named Haootia quadriformis. Haootia comes from the well-known Fermeuse Formation of New Foundland, and is estimated to be about 560 million years old. The authors say its body plan – insofar as it can be made out on a flat image pressed into the rock – looks quite a lot like living staurozoan jellyfish, with a four-part symmetry and what appear to be branching arms or tentacles coming off the corners of its body. The most obvious difference is that Haootia seems to show the outline of a huge circular holdfast that’s much wider than usual for living staurozoans.

However, the most exciting thing about this fossil is not its shape, but the fact that most of it is made up of fine, highly organised parallelish lines – what the authors interpret as the impressions of muscle fibres. The fibres run in different directions according to their position in the body; for example, they seem to follow the long axes of the arms.

(Below: the type specimen of Haootia with some of the fibres visible, and various interpretive drawings of the same fossil. Liu et al. is a free paper, so anyone can go and look at the other pictures, which include close-ups of the fibres and an artistic reconstruction of the living animal.)

If the lines do indeed come from muscle fibres, then regardless of its precise affinities, Haootia is certainly an animal, and it is probably at least related to the group called eumetazoans, which includes cnidarians like jellyfish and bilaterians like ourselves (and maybe comb jellies, but let’s not open that can of jellies just now). Non-eumetazoans – sponges and Trichoplax – do not have muscles, and unless comb jellies really are what some people think they are, we can be almost certain that the earliest animals didn’t either.

Finding Ediacaran muscles is also interesting because it gives us further evidence that things capable of the kinds of movement attributed to some Ediacaran fossils really existed back then. Of course, it would have been nicer to find evidence of muscle and evidence of movement in the same fossils, but hey, this is the Precambrian. You take what you get.

(P.S.: Alex Liu is cool and I heart him. OK, I saw him give one short talk, interviewing for a job at my department that he didn’t get *sniffles*, so maybe I shouldn’t be pronouncing such fangirlish judgements, but that talk was awesome. As I’ve said before, my fangirlish affections are not very hard to win 🙂 )



Liu AG et al. (2014) Haootia quadriformis n. gen., n. sp., interpreted as a muscular cnidarian impression from the Late Ediacaran period (approx. 560 Ma). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:20141202

Ctenophore nervous systems redux

… and reasons I suddenly find myself liking Joseph Ryan.

Ryan was the first author on the first ctenophore genome paper, published last December, though I’d known his name long before that thanks to his developmental genetic work on jelly creatures of various kinds. As is clear from the genome study, he leans quite strongly towards the controversial idea that ctenophores represent the sister lineage to all other animals.

And here’s reason one that my eyes suddenly have little cartoon hearts pulsing in their irises upon reading his short perspective paper in Zoology (Ryan, 2014). Throughout the paper, not once does he refer to ctenophores as “the” basal animal lineage. Instead, he uses phrases like “most distant relative to all other animals” or “the sister group to the rest of the animals”.

In other words, he’s scrupulously avoiding my giantest pet peeve, and I’m sure he doesn’t do it to please an obscure blogger, but gods, that’s even better. I don’t want to be pleased, I want evolutionary biology to get rid of stupid anthropocentric ladder-thinking nonsense.

Anyway, the little paper isn’t actually about animal phylogeny, it’s about nervous systems.

Both ctenophore genome papers argued that the ancestors of these pretty beasties might have evolved nervous systems independently of ours. The second one seemed positively convinced of this, but, as Ryan’s review points out, there are other possibilities even assuming that the placement of ctenophores outside the rest of the animals is correct.

While it’s possible that nerve cells and nervous systems evolved twice among the animals – it is equally possible that they have been lost twice (i.e. in sponges and blobby little placozoans). Full-fledged nerve cells wouldn’t be the first things that sponges and blobs have lost.

And Ryan basically wrote this short piece just to point that out. The argument that ctenophore nervous systems are their own invention is based on the absence or strange behaviour of many “conserved” nervous system-related genes. Ctenophores appear to completely lack some common neurotransmitters such as dopamine, as well as a lot of genes/proteins that are necessary for nerve synapses to work in us. Other genes that are “neural” in other animals are present but not associated with the nervous system in ctenophores.

BUT, Ryan cautions, there are also commonalities that shouldn’t be dismissed. While ctenophores can’t make dopamine, they do possess several other messenger molecules common in animal nervous systems. Same goes for the proteins involved in making synapses. Likewise, while they completely lack some of the genes responsible for defining various types of nerve cells (see: Hox genes), other genes involved in the same kind of stuff are definitely there.

The key thing, he says, is to take a closer look at more of these genes and find out what they do by manipulating them. Since there are clearly both similarities and differences, we must assess their extent.

And that, my friends, is the question at the heart of every homology argument ever. How similar is similar enough? Greater minds than mine have struggled with the answer, and I imagine they’ll continue to struggle until we invent time machines or find fossils of every single stage in the evolution of everything.

Until then, I’ll leave you with the closing lines of Ryan’s paper. I may not agree that we’ve “revealed” the position of ctenophores, but I’m absolutely on board with the excitement 🙂

One thing is quite clear: something remarkable happened regarding the evolution of the nervous system very early in animal evolution. Either a nervous system existed in the ancestor and was lost in certain lineages, or ctenophores invented their own nervous system independently (Fig. 1). Either possibility is quite extraordinary. The revelation that ctenophores are the sister group to the rest of animals has sparked a truly exciting debate regarding the evolutionary origins of the nervous system, one that will continue as additional genomic and functional data come to the fore.


Ryan JF (2014) Did the ctenophore nervous system evolve independently? Zoology in press, available online 11/06/2014, doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2014.06.001

About X-frogs and failing at regeneration

Not the usual mad squee, but here’s a neat little system for studying regeneration that I quite liked today. I normally think about regeneration in terms of amputated limbs, mutilated hearts, decapitated flatworms. But you can induce a kind of “regeneration” in a less drastic and rather more tricksy way, at least in some animals. In newts and salamanders, you can create a small, superficial wound on the side of a limb, then manipulate a nearby nerve into it and add some skin from the other side of the limb.

The poor hurt limb then decides you’ve actually cut something off and tells the wound to grow a new limb. If you don’t add skin, regeneration begins but doesn’t progress very far; if you don’t add a nerve, nothing happens. IIRC you can also make extra heads in some worms in a similar way, but I digress. The figure below from Endo et al. (2004) illustrates just how well the procedure can work. The top row shows stages in the development of the extra limb, while D shows the stained skeletons of the original and new limbs. I’d say that’s a pretty good looking forearm and hand!



That this trick works is in itself a very interesting insight into the nature of regeneration, as it helps us figure out exactly what it is that triggers various steps of regeneration as opposed to a simple healing process (Endo et al., 2004).

Clawed frogs (Xenopus) have been staples of embryology for a long time, but they are also quite fascinating from a regeneration point of view. One, they can regrow their limbs while they are tadpoles, but mostly lose the ability as they mature. They also have a really weird thing going on with their tadpole tails, which they can regenerate early on, then can’t, then can again (Slack et al., 2004). Huh? O.o

Two, their adult limb regeneration ability is not totally absent: it’s somewhere between salamanders’ (oh, whatever, fine, I can do that!) and ours (uh… as long as I’m a baby and it’s just a fingertip?). In a frog, an amputated arm or leg doesn’t simply heal over, but the… thing that grows out of the stump is just a simple cartilaginous spike with no joints or muscles. It’s as if the system was trying very hard to remember how to form a limb but kind of got distracted.

We are obviously interested in creating superhumans with mad regeneration skillz, which also makes us interested in how and why animals lose this seemingly very useful ability*. (Bely (2010) wrote a lovely piece on this not at all simple question.) So: Xenopus yay!

Now, Mitogawa et al. (2014) have devised a skin wound + nerve deviation system to grow little extra limb buds in adult frogs. As you might expect, it doesn’t work nearly as well as it does in axolotls: you need three nerves rather than one, and it only induces a bud about half the time, but it works well enough for research purposes.

The bud (technically, a blastema when you’re talking about regeneration) looks like a good regeneration blastema: it’s got the seemingly undifferentiated cells inside, it’s got the thickened epidermis at the tip that teams up with the nerves to give developmental instructions to the rest of the thing, and it expresses a whole bunch of genes that are turned on in normal limb blastemas.

(Totally random aside: thanks to Chrome’s spell checker, I have discovered that “blastema” is an anagram for “lambaste”.)

One area where this blastema-by-trickery fails is making cartilage, which is one of the few proper limb things the defective spike regenerates in frogs do contain. There’s no simple way of coaxing a complete spike out of these blastemas. The researchers tried the skin graft thing from axolotls (which can already form cartilage without the skin graft), but they still only got a little blastema with no cartilage. To get a skeleton, however crappy,  you need to cut out muscles and crack the underlying bone, which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole exercise IMO. At that point, you might as well just chop off the arm.

Below: the best a frog can do. Development of blastema-like bumps and “spike limbs” on the upper arm from Mitogawa et al. (2014). Compared to the fully formed accessory limbs of axolotls, the things you can see in B-D here are not terribly impressive, but they may be just the “transitional form” we need!

The failure of skin grafts alone at inducing cartilage, however, does hint at the things that go wrong with regeneration in frogs. Mitogawa et al. speculate that newt and axolotl limbs produce factors that frogs can only get from damaged bone. Broken bones even in us form a cartilaginous callus as they begin to heal, and unlike the cartilage in the extra limbs of axolotls, the cartilage in frog spikes is directly attached to the underlying bone.

They also point out that if you add proteins called BMPs to amputated mouse arms, which are otherwise even shitter at regeneration than frog arms, a surprising amount of bone formation occurs. (“BMP” stands for bone morphogenetic protein, which is a big clue to their function.) So it looks like there may be a kind of regeneration gradient from mammals (need bone damage AND extra BMP), through frogs (need bone damage, take care of BMPs themselves) to salamanders (don’t need either).

I should point out that salamanders and frogs are equally closely related to us, so this isn’t a proper evolutionary gradient, but given all the ways in which we and amphibians are fundamentally similar, our loss of regenerative ability may well have evolved through a similar stage to where frogs are now. Neat!

(I just wish they stopped calling us “higher vertebrates”. That phrase annoys me right up the fucking wall, because, and I may have said this before, EVOLUTION IS NOT A GODDAMNED LADDER. The group they are referring to has a perfectly good name that doesn’t imply ladder thinking. Amniotes, people. Or mammals, if you mean mammals, but I think if they’d meant mammals they would have said mammals. End grump.)


*I mean “us” in a very general sense. I think regenerative medicine is the coolest thing in medicine since vaccines and antibiotics, but I personally don’t think that the evolution of regenerative ability needs medical considerations to make it interesting. Whatever. I’m not exactly a practically minded person 😛



Bely AE (2010) Evolutionary loss of animal regeneration: pattern and process. Integrative and Comparative Biology 50:515-527

Endo T et al. (2004) A stepwise model system for limb regeneration. Development 270:135-145

Mitogawa K et al. (2014) Ectopic blastema induction by nerve deviation and skin wounding: a new regeneration model in Xenopus laevis. Regeneration 2:11

Slack JMW et al. (2004) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of regeneration in Xenopus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 359:745-751

The ctenophore conundrum, by popular demand

So, a new ctenophore genome has just been published in Nature (Moroz et al., 2014), it makes some extraordinary claims, and my resident palaeontologist/web-buddy Dave Bapst wants my opinion 😉

Given that I already planned to have an opinion about the first ctenophore genome back in December (Ryan et al., 2013) and miserably failed to finish the post… the temptation is just too strong. (That thesis chapter draft in the other window of MS Word wasn’t going to be finished today anyway  >_>)

Whatever I might seem from words on the internet, I’m not some kind of expert on phylogenetics, so I’m going to use a crutch. I had this idea back when I first read Ryan et al. (2013), because I remember thinking that it was written almost as if Nosenko et al. (2013) had never happened, and I’d really liked Nosenko et al. (as you can guess from the word count of this post), so I was mildly indignant about that. The Nosenko paper is going to be my crutch. (No offence to Hervé Philippe and friends, but there are only so many papers I’m going to reread for an out of the blue blog post 😉 )

Although I’m obviously not writing a public post specifically for a phylogeny nut, I may get somewhat technical, and I’m definitely going to get verbose.


Ctenophores. Comb jellies, sea gooseberries, Venus girdles. They are floaty, ethereal, mesmerizingly beautiful creatures, and I have it on good authority that they are also complete pains in the arse.

Here’s some pretty pictures before it gets too painful 😉 Left: Mnemiopsis leidyi from Ryan et al. (2013); right: Pleurobrachia bachei from Moroz et al. (2014). And a bonus video of a Venus girdle making like an ancient nature spirit. I could watch these beasties all day.


Venus from Sandrine Ruitton on Vimeo.

The problem(s)

And now, the pain. Let’s pull out my trusty old animal phylogeny, because the question marks are once again highly appropriate. (Also, I’m hell-bent on breaking your bandwidth with PICTURES.)


Ryan et al. (2013) helpfully have a figure distilling the ideas people have had about those question marks so far:


Bi = bilaterians, Cn = cnidarians, Ct = ctenophores, Tr = Trichoplax, and Po = sponges (Porifera).

I say “helpfully,” but it’s not all that helpful after all, since pretty much every possible configuration has been proposed. Why is this such a difficult question? Here’s a quick rundown of the problems Nosenko et al.’s study found to affect the question marks:

  1. Fast-evolving protein sequences – these can cause artefacts because too much change overwrites informative changes and creates chance similarities. Excluding faster-evolving sequences from the analysis changes the tree.
  2. Sequence data that don’t conform to the simplifying assumptions of popular evolutionary models – again, this can result in chance similarities and artefacts, and using a poorer model replicates the effects of using less ideal sequences.
  3. Long-branched outgroups – these are the non-animal groups used to place the root of animals. The more distant from animals and less well-sampled the outgroup, the longer the branches it forms, which can attract fast-evolving animal lineages towards the root. In Nosenko et al.’s analyses, even the closest outgroup seemed to cause problems, and removing the outgroup altogether made the conflicts between different models and datasets disappear completely – but this isn’t exactly helpful when you’re looking for the root of the animal tree!

The problem with ctenophores in particular is illustrated by this one of Nosenko et al.’s trees, made from one of their less error-prone datasets:


The ctenophore branch is not only longer overall than pretty much any other in the tree; its length is also very unevenly distributed between the loooong history common to all species and the short unique lineage of each individual species. That is bad news. And it may stay that way forever, because the last common ancestor of living ctenophores may genuinely be very recent, so there’s no way to divide up that long-ass internal branch without a time machine.

Round 1: Nosenko vs. Ryan

In fairness, the Mnemiopsis genome team probably didn’t have a whole lot of time to specifically deal with Nosenko et al.’s points (OTOH, none of those individual points were truly new). The Nosenko paper came out in January 2013, and the Mnemiopsis genome paper was received by Science in July of the same year – I imagine most of the data had been generated way before then, and you can’t just redo all your data analysis and rewrite a paper on short notice.

I’m still going to view Ryan et al. (2013) in the light of Nosenko, because regardless of the genome team’s ability to answer them, some of Nosenko et al.’s points are very relevant to the claims they make. Their biggest claim, of course, being that ctenophores are the sister group to all other animals.

In Nosenko et al.’s experiments, this placement showed up in trees where faster-evolving genes, poorer models or more distant outgroups were used, but not when the slowest-evolving gene set was analysed with the best models and the closest outgroup.

Ryan et al. acknowledge that “supermatrix analyses of the publicly available data are sensitive to gene selection, taxon sampling, model selection, and other factors [cite Nosenko].” Their data are obviously sensitive to such factors. In fact, they behave rather similarly to what I saw in the Nosenko study.

Ryan et al. used two method/model combinations – one of the models was the preferred CAT model of Nosenko et al., and the other was the OK but not great GTR model that CAT beat by miles in terms of actually fitting Nosenko et al.’s data. (Caveat: in the genome paper, the CAT and GTR models were used with different treebuilding methods, so we can’t blame the models for different results with any certainty.) Also, they analysed the data with three different outgroups.

And guess what – the ctenophores-outside-everything tree was best supported with (1) the GTR model, (2) the more distant outgroups. There is not much testing of the effect of gene choice – there were two different data sets, but they were both these massive amalgamations of everything useable, and they also included totally different samples of species.

However, here comes another nod to Nosenko et al. and all the other people who advocated trying things other than “conventional” sequence comparisons through the years. Provided you can securely identify genes across different organisms, you can also try to deduce evolutionary history based on their presences and absences rather than their precise sequences. This is not a foolproof approach because genes can be (commonly) lost or (occasionally) picked up from other organisms, but it is often regarded as less artefact-prone than sequence-based trees.

But does it help with ctenophores? Like the GTR model-based sequence trees, the tree based on gene presence/absence (you obviously need complete genomes for this!) supports ctenophores being the outsider among animals:


My problem with this? Note what else it supports. The white circles indicate groupings that this method had absolutely no doubt about. And these groupings include things that frankly sound like abject nonsense. Here’s one annelid worm (the leech Helobdella) sitting next to a flatworm, while another annelid worm (Capitella) teams up with a limpet right next to a chordate. If anything, that is more controversial than the placement of ctenophores, because we thought we had it settled!

So if we’re concluding that ctenophores are basal to all other animals, why aren’t we also making a fuss about the explosion of phylum Annelida? Surely, if this method gives us strong enough conclusions to arbitrate between different sequence-based hypotheses about ctenophores, it’s strong enough to make those claims too. The cake can’t quite decide if it’s being eaten, I think.

I’m not sure what to think about the sequence trees. I’m far more confident about the presence/absence one. Maybe I’m just demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect here, but I’m not buying that tree for a second.

Overall verdict?

Not convinced. Not by a long shot.

Round 2: Nosenko vs. Moroz

The Pleurobrachia genome took me completely by surprise. I’d known Mnemiopsis was sequenced since Ryan et al. (2010). (Three years. Can you imagine the twitching?) I had no idea this other project was happening, so I nearly fell off my chair when Nature dropped it into my RSS reader yesterday. Another ctenophore genome – and another one that supports ctenophore separatism? (This hypothesis is becoming strangely popular…)

Bonus: it’s not just a genome paper, it also describes the transcriptomes of ten different ctenophores. Transcriptomes, the set of all active genes, are a little bit easier to sequence and assemble than genomes, and if you’re thorough they’ll catch most of the genes the organism has, so they can be almost as good for the analysis of gene content.

Which they kind of don’t do properly. There is a discussion of specific gene families that ctenophores lack – including many immune- and nervous system-related genes – but that’s not exactly saying much given that we know even “important” genes can be lost (case in point: the disappearing (Para)Hox genes of Trichoplax). The fact that ctenophores seem to completely lack microRNAs is interesting, but again, it doesn’t mean they never had them. Sponges do have microRNAs but don’t seem to be nearly as big on them as other animals.

As for the global analysis of gene content – I had to chase down a reference (Ptitsyn and Moroz, 2012) to understand what they actually did. As far as I can tell, there is no phylogenetic analysis involved – they just took a tree they already had, and used this method to map gene gains and losses onto that tree. Which is cool if you’re fairly sure about your tree, but pretty much meaningless when the tree is precisely the question. The Mammal is disappointed.

One of the problems with listing genes that aren’t there or don’t work in the “expected” way in ctenophores is that even if they’re not outside everything else, it’s still a distinct possibility that these guys branched off from our lineage before cnidarians did. For example, the Pleurobrachia paper spends a lot of time on “nervous system-specific” genes like elav missing or not being expressed in neurons, and common neurotransmitters like serotonin not being used by ctenophores.

But, assuming that the tree of animals looks something like (sponges + (ctenophores + (cnidarians + bilaterians))), we wouldn’t expect ctenophore nervous systems to share every property that cnidarians and bilaterians share. Remember: (1) sponges don’t have nervous systems, so they’re not much use as a comparison, (2) cnidarians + bilaterians had a longer common ancestry than either did with ctenophores. Genes possessed by sponges PLUS cnidarians and/or bilaterians but missing from ctenophores are more suggestive, but only if you can demonstrate that they weren’t lost. (We’re kind of going in circles here…)

The other problem is that pesky last common ctenophore ancestor. If it really is very recent, then taking even all living ctenophores to represent ctenophore diversity is like taking my close family to represent human diversity. Just like my family contains pale-skinned, lactose tolerant people, it is entirely possible that this lone surviving ctenophore lineage possesses (or lacks) important traits that aren’t at all typical of ctenophores as a whole. Ryan et al.’s supplementary data are clear that at least the Mnemiopsis genome is horribly scrambled, all trace of conserved gene neighbourhoods erased from it. That’s not exactly promising if you’re hoping for “trustworthy” animals.

The actual phylogenetic trees in Moroz et al. (2014) seem to follow an approach of throwing AAAALLL the genes at the problem. The biggest dataset contains 586 genes, compared to 122 in Nosenko et al.’s largest collection, and there is not much filtering by gene properties other than “we can tell what it is”. I have no idea how the CAT + WAG model they used compares to CAT or WAG or GTR on their own; unfortunately, the Nosenko paper doesn’t test that particular setup and this one doesn’t do any model testing. Moroz et al.’s supplementary methods claim it’s pretty good, cite something, and I’m not gonna chase down that reference. (Sorry, I’ve been poring over this for four hours at this point).

Interestingly, the support for ctenophores being apart from other animals increases when they start excluding distant outgroups. The only time it’s low is when they add all ten ctenophores and use fewer genes. Hmm. This is where I would like to hear some real experts’ opinions, because on the face of it, I can’t pinpoint anything obviously wrong. (Other than saying that chucking more genes at a problem tree is perfectly capable of making the problem worse)

TL;DR version: While I’m generally underwhelmed by the gene content stuff, I literally have no idea what to think about the trees.

I’m banking on the hope that someone will do.


And… I think that is all the opinion I’m going to have about ctenophores for a long time. Lunch was a long time ago, my brain is completely fried, and I’m not sure how much of the above actually makes sense. To be clear, I don’t really have a horse in this race, though I’d really like to know the truth. (Fat chance of that, by the looks of it…) I think I’m going to need a bit more convincing before I stop looking sideways at this idea that ctenophores are further from us than sponges. If anything is clear from recent phylogenomics papers, it’s that what data you analyse and how you analyse them makes a huge difference to the result you get, and this is happening with data and methods where it’s not necessarily easy to dismiss an approach as clearly inferior.

It’s a mess, damn it, and I’m not qualified to untangle it. Urgh.



Moroz LL et al. (2014) The ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origin of neural systems. Nature advance online publication, 21/05/2014; doi: 10.1038/nature13400

Nosenko T et al. (2013) Deep metazoan phylogeny: When different genes tell different stories. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 67:223-233

Ptitsyn A & Moroz LL (2012) Computational workflow for analysis of gain and loss of genes in distantly related genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 13:S5

Ryan JF et al. (2010) The homeodomain complement of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi suggests that Ctenophora and Porifera diverged prior to the ParaHoxozoa. EvoDevo 1:9

Ryan JF et al. (2013) The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution. Science 342:1242592


ETA: OK, technically it should be “suspension-feeding”, because there’s a good chance that its feeding mechanics involved more than simple filtering (see comments). I hate retconning, so I’ll leave the post as it is aside from this addendum. Thanks for the heads-up, Dave Bapst 🙂

This is when I put everything resembling work aside to squee madly over a fossil.

(Imagine me grinning like crazy and probably bouncing up and down a bit in my seat)

Tamisiocaris is a newly “updated” beast from the Cambrian, and the coolest thing I’ve seen since that helicoplacoid on a stalk (most cool things come from the Cambrian, right?). It is the Cambrian equivalent of a baleen whale.

Anomalocaridids were close relatives of arthropods and are among the most iconic creatures of the Cambrian. Most anomalocaridids we know of were large, swimming predators with large head appendages bearing sturdy spines to grab prey and bring it to that trilobite-crunching pineapple slice mouth. Going with the whale analogy, they were more like the killer whales of their time (although they would be easy snacks for an actual killer whale). In fact, when the putative head appendage of Tamisiocaris was originally described by Daley and Peel (2010), the only odd thing they noted about it was that it was not hardened or obviously segmented the way those of Anomalocaris were.*

Tamisiocaris was already cool back then, because it was the first animal of its kind found at Sirius Passet in Northern Greenland, one of the lesser known treasure troves of fabulous Cambrian fossils. However, since then, more appendages have been found, and it turns out that those long spines had been hiding a fascinating secret.

They were… kind of hairy.


Closer examination of the appendages shows that their long, slender spines bore closely spaced bristles, making each spine look like a fine comb (whole appendage and close-up of a spine above from Vinther et al. [2014]). With all the spines next to each other, the bristles would have formed a fine mesh suitable for catching prey smaller than a millimetre. Compared with modern filter-feeding animals, Tamisiocaris fits right in – it would have “fished” in a similar size range as a greater flamingo. Vinther et al. (2014) suggest that Tamisiocaris would have brought its appendages to its mouth (which isn’t among the known fossils) one at a time to suck all the yummies off.

These guys are tremendously interesting for more than one reason, as the new study points out. First, HOLY SHIT FILTER FEEDING ANOMALOCARIDIDS! (Sorry. I’m kind of excited about this.) Second, the mere existence of large**  filter feeders implies a richness of plankton people hadn’t thought existed at the time. Third, there is some remarkable convergent evolution going on here.

Often, really big plankton eaters evolve from really big predators – see baleen whales, basking sharks, and these humongous fish for example. It’s not an already filter-feeding animal growing bigger and bigger, it’s an already big animal taking up filter-feeding. The interrelationships of anomalocaridids suggest the same story played out among them – ferocious hunters begetting “gentle giants” in a group with a totally different body plan from big vertebrates. For all the dazzling variety evolution can produce, sometimes, it really rhymes.

And finally, Vinther et al. did something really cool that tickles my geeky side in a most pleasant way. In their phylogenetic analysis that they did to find out where in anomalocaridid evolution this plankton-eating habit came along, they found that Tamisiocaris was closely related to another anomalocaridid with (on a second look) not dissimilar appendages. They named the group formed by the two the cetiocarids – after an imaginary filter-feeding anomalocaridid created by artist John Meszaros for the awesome All Your Yesterdays project.

Man. That’s definitely worth some squee.


*Disclaimer: I’m basing this on the abstract only, since palaeontological journals are one of the unfortunate holes in my university library’s otherwise extensive subscriptions.

**For Cambrian values of “large” – based on the size of the appendages, this creature would have been something like two feet long.



Daley AC & Peel JS (2010) A possible anomalocaridid from the Cambrian Sirius Passet Lagerstätte, North Greenland. Journal of Palaeontology 84:352-355

Vinther J et al. (2014) A suspension-feeding anomalocarid from the Early Cambrian. Nature 507:496-499

Protocells YAY!

I’m briefly surfacing from the stress ocean that is paper writing to do a little dance of joy about the latest mind-blowing development in origin-of-life research.

(With my ability to go on endlessly about random scientific subjects, you’d think I’d love writing papers. No, no, no, hell no. I wish I could just upload my methods and figures to some database and be done with it. >.<)

My latest great squeal about abiogenesis research was due to an RNA enzyme that could copy long RNA strands. Well, that’s still bloody amazing, but maybe massive RNA enzymes are not how the thing we call life started. Jack Szostak’s group works witn a model of early life in which enzymes aren’t needed at all.

They’ve been working for years and years on their protocells (illustration above by Janet Iwasa via These are basically little fat bubbles floating around in a watery solution, with a bit of nucleic acid inside. The fatty membranes of protocells are made of much simpler materials than modern cell membranes. Protocells haven’t got any proteins, and contain just a tiny “genome” that doesn’t encode anything meaningful. Yet they can, under the right circumstances, grow and divide and pass on that genome to their descendants through ordinary physical forces.

And now, they can also copy it.

The problem so far was magnesium. RNA can be replicated by an enzyme, or it can, to an extent, copy itself using base pairing. Magnesium is necessary for both kinds of replication. However, the Szostak group’s fatty protocells quickly fall apart in the presence of magnesium, spilling all their RNA content.

Adamala and Szostak (2013) tested a bunch of small molecules that bind magnesium to see if they could help. Many of them could protect the protocells, but only one, citrate, could do this without also stopping RNA replication. As a bonus, citrate prevented the degradation of RNA that, under normal circumstances, eventually happens at high magnesium levels.

Like other research toward RNA replication, this study isn’t quite there yet. For one thing, the “genomes” of these protocells are very limited – they are tiny, and they are just runs of a single RNA building block, so it’s hard to imagine how they could be precursors to more “meaningful” genomes. Also, although a lot of organic molecules just spontaneously show up when someone tries to recreate early Earth chemistry, citrate is not one of them.

Nonetheless, little by little we’re edging closer to a living RNA world. We may never know how life actually started, but the research on how it could have started looks more exciting by the day…



Adamala K & Szostak JW (2013) Nonenzymatic template-directed RNA synthesis inside model protocells. Science 342:1098-1100

Fifty thousand generations, still improving

I take all my hats off to Richard Lenski and his team. If you’ve never heard of them, they are the group that has been running an evolution experiment with E. coli bacteria non-stop for the last 25 years. That’s over 50 000 generations of the little creatures; in human generations, that translates to ~1.5 million years. This experiment has to be one of the most amazing things that ever happened in evolutionary biology.

(Below: photograph of flasks containing the twelve experimental populations on 25 June 2008. The flask labelled A-3 is cloudier than the others: this is a very special population. Photo by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela, via Wikimedia Commons.)

It doesn’t necessarily take many generations to see some mind-blowing things in evolution. An irreducibly complex new protein interaction (Meyer et al., 2012), the beginnings of new species and a simple form of multicellularity (Boraas et al., 1998) are only a few examples. However, a few generations only show tiny snapshots of the evolutionary process. Letting a population evolve for thousands of generations allows you to directly witness processes that you’d normally have to glean from the fossil record or from studies of their end products.

Fifty thousand generations, for example, can tell you that they aren’t nearly enough time to reach the limit of adaptation. The newest fruit of the Long-Term Evolution Experiment is a short paper examining the improvement in fitness the bacteria experienced over its 25 years (Wiser et al., 2013). “Fitness” is measured here as growth rate relative to the ancestral strain; the faster the bacteria are able to grow in the environment of the LTEE (which has a limited amount of glucose, E. coli‘s favourite food), the fitter they are. The LTEE follows twelve populations, all from the same ancestor, evolving in parallel, so it can also determine whether something that happens to one population is a chance occurrence or a general feature of evolution.

You can draw up a plot of fitness over time for one or more populations, and then fit mathematical models to this plot. Earlier in the experiment, the group found that a simple model in which adaptation slows down over time and eventually grinds to a halt fits the data well. However, that isn’t the only promising model. Another one predicts that adaptation only slows, never stops. Now, the experiment has been running long enough to distinguish between the two, and the second one wins hands down. Thus far, even though they’ve had plenty of time to adapt to their unchanging environment, the Lenski group’s E. coli just keep getting better at living there.

Although the simple mathematical function that describes the behaviour of these populations doesn’t really explain what’s happening behind the scenes, the team was also able to reproduce the same behaviour by building a model from known evolutionary phenomena. For example, they incorporated the idea that two bacteria with two different beneficial mutations in the same bottle are going to compete and slow down overall adaptation. (This is a problem of asexual organisms. If the creatures were, say, animals, they might have sex and spread both mutations at the same time.) So the original model doesn’t just describe the data well, it also follows from sensible theory. So did the observation that the populations which evolved higher mutation rates adapted faster.

Now, one of the first things you learn about interpreting models is that extrapolating beyond your data is dangerous. Trends can’t go on forever. In this case, you’d eventually end up with bacteria that reproduced infinitely fast, which is clearly ridiculous. However, Wiser et al. suggest that the point were their trend gets ridiculous is very, very far in the future. “The 50,000 generations studied here occurred in one scientist’s laboratory in ~21 years,” they remind us, then continue: “Now imagine that the experiment continues for 50,000 generations of scientists, each overseeing 50,000 bacterial generations, for 2.5 billion generations total.”

If the current trend continues unchanged, they estimate that the bugs at that faraway time point will be able to divide roughly every 23 minutes, compared to 55 minutes for the ancestral strain. That is still a totally realistic growth rate for a happy bacterium!

I know none of us will live to see it, but I really want to know what would happen to these little guys in 2.5 billion generations…



Boraas ME et al. (1998) Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: a possible origin of multicellularity. Evolutionary Ecology 12:153-164

Meyer JR et al. (2012) Repeatability and contingency in the evolution of a key innovation in phage lambda. Science 335:428-432

Wiser MJ et al. (2013) Long-term dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Science, published online 14/11/2013, doi: 10.1126/science.1243357

Thumbs down, what?

Bird fingers confuse me, but the explanations confuse me more, it seems.

I didn’t mean to post today, but I’ve just read a new review/hypothesis paper about the identities of the stunted little things that pass for fingers in the wings of modern birds. The review part is fine, but I’m not sure I get the difference between the hypothesis Čapek et al. (2013) are proposing and the hypothesis they are trying to replace/improve.

To recap: the basic problem with bird fingers is that fossil, genetic and developmental evidence seem to say different things about them.

1. Fossils: birds pretty clearly come from dinosaurs, and the early dinosaurs we have fossils of have five fingers on their hands with the last two being reduced. Somewhat closer to birds, you get four fingers with #4 vestigial. And the most bird-like theropods have only three fingers, which look most like digits 1, 2 and 3 of your ordinary archosaur. (Although Limusaurus messes with this scheme a bit.)

2. Embryology: in developing limb buds, digits start out as little condensations of tissue, which develop into bits of cartilage and then finger bones. Wing buds develop a short-lived condensation in front of the first digit that actually forms, and another one behind the last “surviving” digit. Taking this at face value, then, the fingers are equivalent to digits 2, 3 and 4.

3. Genetics: In five-fingered limbs, each digit has a characteristic identity in terms of the genes expressed during its formation. The first finger of birds is most like an ordinary thumb, both when you focus on individual genes like members of the HoxD cluster and when you take the entire transcriptome. However, the other two digits have ambiguous transcriptomic identities. That is, bird wings have digit 1 and two weirdos.

Add to this the fact that in other cases of digit loss, number one is normally the first to go and number four stubbornly sticks around to the end, and you can see the headache birds have caused.

So those are the basic facts. The “old” hypothesis that causes the first part of my confusion is called the frame shift hypothesis, which suggests that the ancestors of birds did indeed lose digit 1, as in the digit that came from condensation 1 – but the next three digits adopted the identities of 1-2-3 rather than 2-3-4. (This idea, IMO, can easily leave room for mixed identities – just make it a partial frame shift.)

Čapek et al.’s new one, which they call the thumbs down hypothesis, is supposedly different from this. This is how the paper states the difference:

The FSH postulates an evolutionary event in which a dissociation occurs between the developmental formation of repeated elements (digits) and their subsequent individualization.


According to the TDH no change of identity of a homeotic nature occurs, but only the phenotypic realization of the developmental process is altered due to redirected growth induced by altered tissue topology. Digit identity stays the same. Also the TDH assumes that the patterning of the limb bud, by which the digit primordia are laid down, and their developmental realization, are different developmental modules in the first place.

(Before this, they spent quite a lot of words explaining how the loss of the original thumb could trigger developmental changes that make digit 2 more thumb-like.)

I…. struggle to see the difference. If you’ve (1) moved a structure to a different position, (2) subjected it to the influence of different genes, (3) and turned its morphology into that of another structure, how exactly is that not a change in identity?

Maybe you could say that “an evolutionary event” dissociating digit formation and identity is different from formation and identity being kind of independent from the start, but I checked Wagner and Gauthier’s (1999) original frame shift paper, and I think what they propose is closer to the second idea than the first:

Building on Tabin’s (43) insight, we suggest causal independence between the morphogenetic processes that create successive condensations in the limb bud and the ensuing developmental individualization of those repeated elements as they become the functional fingers in the mature hand, thus permitting an opportunity for some degree of independent evolutionary change.

Am I missing something? I feel a little bit stupid now.



Čapek D et al. (2013) Thumbs down: a molecular-morphogenetic approach to avian digit homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology B, published online 29/10/2013, doi: 10.1002/jez.b.22545

Wagner GP and Gauthier JA (1999) 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. PNAS 96:5111-5116

A bunch of cool things

From the weeks during which I failed to check my RSS reader…

1. The coolest ribozyme ever. (In more than one sense.)

I’ve made no secret of my fandom of the RNA world hypothesis, according to which early life forms used RNA both as genetic material and as enzymes, before DNA took over the former role and proteins (mostly) took over the latter. RNA is truly an amazing molecule, capable of doing all kinds of stuff that we traditionally imagined as the job of proteins. However, coaxing it into carrying out the most important function of a primordial RNA genome – copying itself – has proven pretty difficult.

To my knowledge, the previous record holder in the field of RNA copying ribozymes (Wochner et al., 2011) ran out of steam after making RNA strands only half of its own length. (Which is still really impressive compared to its predecessors!) In a recent study, the same team turned to an alternative RNA world hypothesis for inspiration. According to the “icy RNA world” scenario, pockets of cold liquid in ice could have helped stabilise the otherwise pretty easily degraded RNA as well as concentrate and isolate it in a weird inorganic precursor to cells.

Using experimental evolution in an icy setting, they found a variation related to the aforementioned ribozyme that was much quicker and generally much better at copying RNA than its ancestors. Engineering a few previously known performance-enhancing mutations into this molecule finally gave a ribozyme that could copy an RNA molecule longer than itself! It still wouldn’t be able to self-replicate, since this particular guy can only copy sequences with certain properties it doesn’t have itself, but we’ve got the necessary endurance now. Only two words can properly describe how amazing that is. Holy. Shit. :-O


Attwater J et al. (2013) In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity. Nature Chemistry, published online 20/10/2013, doi: 10.1038/nchem.1781

Wochner A et al. (2011) Ribozyme-catalyzed transcription of an active ribozyme. Science 332:209-212


2. Cambrian explosion: evolution on steroids.

This one’s for those people who say there is nothing special about evolution during the Cambrian – and also for those who say it was too special. (Creationists, I’m looking at you.) It is also very much for me, because Cambrian! (How did I not spot this paper before? Theoretically, it came out before I stopped checking RSS…)

Lee et al. (2013) used phylogenetic trees of living arthropods to estimate how fast they evolved at different points in their history. They looked at both morphology and genomes, because the two can behave very differently. It’s basically a molecular clock study, and I’m still not sure I trust molecular clocks, but let’s just see what it says and leave lengthy ruminations about its validity to my dark and lonely hours 🙂

They used living arthropods because, obviously, you can’t look at genome evolution in fossils, but the timing of branching events in the tree was calibrated with fossils. With several different methods, they inferred evolutionary trees telling them how much change probably happened during different periods in arthropod history. They tweaked things like the estimated time of origin of arthropods, or details of the phylogeny, but always got similar results.

On average, arthropod genomes, development and anatomy evolved several times faster during the Cambrian than at any later point in time. Including the aftermath of the biggest mass extinctions. Mind you, not faster than modern animals can evolve under strong selection – they just kept up those rates for longer, and everyone did it.

(I’m jumping up and down a little, and at the same time I feel like there must be something wrong with this study, the damned thing is too good to be true. And I’d still prefer to see evolutionary rates measured on actual fossils, but there’s no way on earth the fossil record of any animal group is going to be good enough for that sort of thing. Conflicted much?)


Lee MSY et al. (2013) Rates of phenotypic and genomic evolution during the Cambrian explosion. Current Biology 23:1889-1895


3. Chitons to sausages

Aplacophorans are probably not what you think of when someone mentions molluscs. They are worm-like and shell-less, although they do have tiny mineralised scales or spines. Although they look like one might imagine an ancestral mollusc before the invention of shells, transitional fossils and molecular phylogenies have linked them to chitons, which have a more conventional “sluggy” body plan with a wide foot suitable for crawling and an armoured back with seven shell plates.

Scherholz et al. (2013) compared the musculature of a living aplacophoran to that of a chiton and found it to support the idea that aplacophorans are simplified from a chiton-like ancestor rather than simple from the start. As adults, aplacophorans and chitons are very different – chitons have a much more complex set of muscles that includes muscles associated with their shell plates. However, the missing muscles appear to be present in baby aplacophorans, who only lose them when they metamorphose. (As a caveat, this study only focused on one group of aplacophorans, and it’s not entirely certain whether the two main groups of these creatures should even be together.)


Scherholz M et al. (2013) Aplacophoran molluscs evolved from ancestors with polyplacophoran-like features. Current Biology in press, available online 17/10/2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.056


4. Does adaptation constrain mammalian spines?

Mammals are pretty rigid when it comes to the differentiation of the vertebral column. We nearly all have seven neck vertebrae, for example. This kind of conservatism is surprising when you look at other vertebrates – which include not only fairly moderate groups like birds with their variable necks, but also extremists like snakes with their lack of legs and practically body-long ribcages. Mammalian necks are evolutionarily constrained, and have been that way for a long time.

Emily Buchholz proposes an interesting explanation with links to previous hypotheses. Mammals not only differ from other vertebrates in the less variable numbers of vertebrae in various body regions; these regions are also more differentiated. For example, mammals are the only vertebrates that lack ribs in the lower back. In Buchholz’s view, this kind of increased differentiation contributes to adaptation but costs flexibility.

Her favourite example is the muscular diaphragm unique to mammals. This helps mammals breathe while they move, and also makes breathing more powerful, which is nice for active, warm-blooded creatures that use a lot of oxygen. However, it also puts constraints on further changes. Importantly, Buccholz argues that these constraints don’t all have to work in the same way.

For example, the constraint on the neck may arise because muscle cells in the diaphragm come from the same place as muscle cells associated with specific neck vertebrae. Moving the forelimbs relative to the spine, i.e. changing the number of neck vertebrae, would mess up their migration to the right place, and we’d end up with equally messed up diaphragms.

A second possible constraint has less to do with developmental mishaps and more to do with plain old functionality. If you moved the pelvis forward, you may not screw with the development of other bits, but you’d squeeze the space behind the diaphragm, which you kind of need for your guts, especially when you’re breathing in using your lovely diaphragm.


Buccholz E (2013) Crossing the frontier: a hypothesis for the origins of meristic constraint in mammalian axial patterning. Zoology in press, available online 28/10/2013, doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2013.09.001


And… I think that approximately covers today’s squee moments 🙂