SLIDE 1
Philosophy & biology: “two cultures”
Figure 1: The lab.
https://www.uni- salzburg.at/typo3temp/pics/phil_kgw_small_70cf61e0a2.jpg
Figure 2: The library.
https://www.uni- salzburg.at/typo3temp/pics/phil_kgw_small_70cf61e0a2.jpg
1 / 25
Synthetic biology and experimental evolution Expanding the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Synthetic biology and experimental evolution Expanding the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Synthetic biology and experimental evolution Expanding the structurefunction space Gregor Greslehner gregor.greslehner@gmail.com University of Salzburg The Generalized Theory of Evolution, Duesseldorf Center for Logic and Philosophy of
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Introduction
Generalized evolution & experiments
- Lewontin’s necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution by natural
selection (Lewontin, 1970):
- phenotypic variation
- differential fitness
- heredity of fitness
- How to make experiments in evolution?
- How to address evolutionary questions empirically?
2 / 25
SLIDE 4
Outline
- 1. Snythetic biology
- 2. Experimental evolution
- 3. Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution
3 / 25
SLIDE 5
Outline
- 1. Snythetic biology
- 2. Experimental evolution
- 3. Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution
4 / 25
SLIDE 6
Synthetic biology
- origin of the term (in today’s meaning) around 2000 (Hartwell et al.,
1999)
- evolution in the lab; apply evolutionary principles to proteins:
- phenotypic variation
- differential fitness
- heredity of fitness
- SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligands by EXponential enrichment);
artificial selection
5 / 25
SLIDE 7
- R. Feynman’s last blackboard
Figure 3: Feynman’s last blackboard (1988).
http://archives- dc.library.caltech.edu/islandora/object/ct1%3A483/datastream/JPG/view
6 / 25
SLIDE 8
Synthetic biology: Craig Venter lab
Figure 4: (Hutchison et al. 2016), Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome, Science 351, aad6253-6.
7 / 25
SLIDE 9
Synthetic biology: abiogenesis
Figure 5: Miller–Urey experiment.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/MUexperiment.png
Figure 6: Dan Brown’s latest novel.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Origin_%28Dan_Brown_novel_cover%29.jpg
8 / 25
SLIDE 10
- 1. Snythetic biology
- 2. Experimental evolution
- 3. Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution
9 / 25
SLIDE 11
Experimental evolution: William Dallinger, 1880–1886
Figure 7: Dallinger incubator.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Dallinger_Incubator_J.R.Microscop.Soc.1887p193.png
10 / 25
SLIDE 12
- R. Lenski: long-term evolution experiment
- starting with two E. coli strains in 1988, six populations each
- currently approx. 70,000 generations
Figure 8: Lenski’s flasks from June 25, 2008.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Lenski%27s_12_long- term_lines_of_E._coli_on_25_June_2008.jpg
addressed questions (Lenski, 2017, p. 6):
1 dynamics of adaptation: slow, gradual vs. rapid change and stasis? 2 repeatable evolutionary “solutions”? 3 relation of genotype–phenotype changes?
11 / 25
SLIDE 13
Lessons from Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment (1)
1) Dynamics of adaptation
- initial fitness trajectories with step-like dynamics
- afterwards, substantial slower development
2) Repeatability of adaptation
- 70% fitness increase relative to ancestor
- only a few percent difference at a time
- “Half of the populations evolved hypermutable phenotypes [. . . ], which
led to slightly faster rates of fitness improvement” (Lenski, 2017, p. 6)
- mutations required to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen
- nly evolved once (at generation 31,000);
historical contingency of previous required mutations (Blount et al., 2008)
12 / 25
SLIDE 14
Lessons from Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment (2)
“Rainey and Travisano showed that populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens rapidly diversified when cultured in static flasks but did not if the flasks were shaken. The diversification occurred because the static flasks generated environmental gradients, which allowed ecotypes with different environmental preferences to flourish” (Lenski, 2017, p. 8)
3) Relation of genotype–phenotype changes
- “over 50% of nonsynonymous mutations that arose in
nonhypermutable lineages concentrated in just 2% of the protein-coding genes” (Lenski, 2017, p. 7)
- “The genes with beneficial mutations include ones that encode
proteins with core metabolic and regulatory functions” (Lenski, 2017,
- p. 7)
13 / 25
SLIDE 15
Changes in genetic diversity over time
Figure 9: Mutational diversity in Lenski’s E. coli population. (Barrick and Lenski, 2009, Figure 5, p. 9)
14 / 25
SLIDE 16
Directed evolution (1)
“Directed evolution was originally developed to alter protein function, once it became clear that rational protein engineering methods were limited by
- ur incomplete knowledge of how protein sequences encode function.”
(Peisajovich, 2012, p. 199)
The central dogma of molecular biology
- DNA makes RNA makes protein
- “structure determines function”
“central dogma” “structure–function dogma”
- nucleotide sequence
determines
− − − − − − → amino acid sequence
determines
− − − − − − → protein structure
determines
− − − − − − → function
- “Anfinsen’s dogma”
15 / 25
SLIDE 17
Directed evolution (2)
Figure 10: Directed evolution. (Packer and Liu, 2015, Figure 1, p. 380)
16 / 25
SLIDE 18
Evolution and the structure–function space
- different notions of protein structure and function
- divergent evolution: similar structures with different functions
- convergent evolution: different structures with similar functions
- source of variation: error-prone PCR or directed mutagenesis
- artificial selection
17 / 25
SLIDE 19
The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology?
- tendencies to become more quantitative and predictive: systems
biology, synthetic biology
- some methods that are needed in biology already exist
(⇒ interdisciplinarity)
- in silico implementations
- bioinformatics, data science, philosophy of science
- simple laws like in 20th century physics is not the aim
18 / 25
SLIDE 20
Towards systems and synthetic biology?
“is the buzz about systems and synthetic biology just that, a buzz, or are we seeing substantial shifts in paradigms and research programmes”? (Potthast, 2009, p. S42)
19 / 25
SLIDE 21
“Can a biologist fix a radio?” (Lazebnik, 2002)
Figure 11: Inside the radio.
(Lazebnik 2002, Figure 2)
Figure 12: The biologist’s (A) & engineer’s (B) view of a radio. (Lazebnik 2002,
Figure 3)
Src . . . Serendipitously Recovered Component Mic . . . Most Important Component Ric . . . Really Important Component U-Mic . . . Undoubtedly Most Important Component
20 / 25
SLIDE 22
Typical “circuit diagrams” in biology
Figure 13: mTOR signaling.
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/joces/122/20/3589/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
21 / 25
SLIDE 23
- 1. Snythetic biology
- 2. Experimental evolution
- 3. Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution
22 / 25
SLIDE 24
Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution (1)
Figure 14: The most probable evolutionary trajectories. (Weinreich et al., 2006, Figure 2, p. 113)
23 / 25
SLIDE 25
Lessons from and for a generalized theory of evolution (2)
- “[H]istory includes too much contingency, or shaping of present
results by long chains of unpredictable antecedent states, rather than immediate determination by timeless laws of nature” (Gould, 1994).
- “replaying the protein tape of life”: only a limited number of pathways
lead to altered protein function; constraints, even predictability?
- “Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter
proteins” (Weinreich et al., 2006)
- “replaying the protein tape of life [. . . ] might be surprisingly repetitive.
It remains to be seen whether [. . . similar constraints exist for. . . ] Darwinian evolution at larger scales of biological organization” (Weinreich et al., 2006, p. 113)
24 / 25
SLIDE 26
Conclusion
- Synthetic biology and experimental evolution can learn a lot from a
generalized theory of evolution, and vice versa.
- A generalized theory of evolution is essential for understanding
evolutionary dynamics theoretically and conceptually.
- Synthetic biology and experimental evolution allows us to observe
and manipulate evolutionary systems in the lab.
- This allows us to address conceptual questions about evolutionary
processes and dynamics with empirical results.
Open questions
- What are structural and functional entities in cultural evolution?
- Do these also limit the structure–function space in a way that is
similar to the structure–function space of proteins?
25 / 25
SLIDE 27
Thank you!
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/systems- synthetic- biology/Figure3.png
SLIDE 28
Barrick, J. and Lenski, R. (2009). Genome-wide mutational diversity in an evolving population of escherichia coli. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Volume LXXIV. doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.018. Blount, Z. D., Borland, C. Z., and Lenski, R. E. (2008). Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(23):7899–7906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105. Hartwell, L. H., Hopfield, J. J., Leibler, S., and Murray, A. W. (1999). From molecular to modular cell
- biology. Nature, 402(6761 Suppl.):C47–C52. doi:10.1038/35011540.
Lazebnik, Y. (2002). Can a biologist fix a radio?—Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis. Cancer Cell, 2:179–182. doi:10.1016/S1535-6108(02)00133-2. Lenski, R. E. (2017). What is adaptation by natural selection? Perspectives of an experimental
- microbiologist. PLOS Genetics, 13(4):e1006668. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006668.