

Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory - Juha
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/

======
polemic
Physics might be pure, but Biology is f __king amazing.

Makes me ponder my own place in the scheme of things - made up of many
multicellular components, myself a component of a society, itself one of many
that make up the Human species, one of many that form the ecology of this
planet

~~~
sterling312
One might say that it's a super computer. What's the question again?

~~~
dangrossman
> Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth
> Lloyd—Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of
> the first technologically feasible design for a working quantum computer—the
> answer is yes

[http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-
Computer-...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-
Scientist/dp/1400040922)

------
learc83
Was this completely new, or was it some sort of latent ability that was
brought out by environmental conditioning?

~~~
ars
It was a latent ability. Some yeast already has the ability to make multi
cellular colonies.

When this was first published (on June 23 - not sure why it's back in the
news) there was a section of criticism saying they should have used an
organism without that ability. But I don't see this section in the wired
article.

For example:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/06/23/yeast-c...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/06/23/yeast-
can-evolve-into-multicellular-organisms-in-a-few-short-months/)

[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331789/title/Mult...](http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331789/title/Multicellular_life_arises_in_a_test_tube)

~~~
lusr
I didn't quite know how to interpret "latent ability". Reading the article,
apparently yeast _used to_ be multicellular, which is a pretty valid criticism
of this experiment having meaningful results in terms of how single-celled
organisms evolved into multicelluar organisms.

~~~
padobson
This comment seems to assume that evolution can only go in one direction -
from simple forms of life to more complex ones. If a complex form of life
evolves to become simpler and then evolves again to become more complex, then
there's just as much to be learned from following a line of evolution that
increases complexity.

~~~
ars
If you look at those "simpler" forms of life you find that the genes are not
gone, but rather they are disabled.

An example is Neoteny - the genes for adult forms are still there, but are
unused.

That's why I don't think much of this experiment - I bet the genes for multi
cellular life were already there, and just needed reactivation - which
happened randomly (perhaps due to environment, or perhaps they always
activate, but just for short times, and this experiment selected for those
with the longest or easiest to trigger activation), but no new genes were
needed.

To do this experiment properly do a DNA sequencing of the original and final
forms. And I'm actually quite surprised that they didn't do that - wouldn't it
be very useful to know which genes create multi cellular life? But I bet the
genetic diff between them is tiny - just enough to activate genes that are
already there in the starting yeast.

~~~
ZenPsycho
DNA isn't quite exactly like a program that you compile into a living
organism. The conditions for its reproduction and expression are partially
determined by its environment- so a shift from single celled from multi-celled
life might not be able to be pinned on any particular gene or set of genes as
a direct cause. You might end up with what is essentially the same sequence,
with different parts now triggered by a slightly different proportion of a
particular protein present within the cellular membrane.

------
toppy
Is it "muliticellular life" or "multicellular" life (i.e. group of independent
yeasts actually)?

~~~
adimitrov
The article actually says that some cells forfeit the ability to procreate,
and there is true division of labor among them.

------
radarsat1
This is wonderful. It is so simple, and takes a short enough amount of time,
that it would make a fantastic lab experiment for high school students. Every
day, remove the heaviest yeast and place it in a new environment and feed it.
After 2 months, see that the yeast has formed into a larger organism.

If this is highly repeatable, it could have a great role for science
education.

------
gldalmaso
An honest question: aren't there potentially dangerous repercussions in
breeding multicelular organisms like that? Could an innofensive organism
become dangerous for us if it suddenly became more efficient and specialized?

~~~
geon
Wouldn't that have happened naturally already over the thousands of years we
have used yeasts?

~~~
gldalmaso
But I don't think they'll just stick with yeasts cultures after this.

------
tintin
If it was so simple to do in 60 days I wonder why they don't question the
several billion years.

~~~
Sandman
What do you mean? Obviously, multicellular life forms _did_ evolve in those
several billion years.

~~~
tintin
From the article: _"An evolutionary transition that took several billion years
to occur in nature has happened in a laboratory, and it needed just 60 days."_

When these transitions only took 60 days, why not take another look at the
'several billion years'? Maybe life did form much faster under certain
conditions.

~~~
Sandman
Ah. Sorry, I didn't quite understand you the first time.

 _Maybe life did form much faster under certain conditions._

You mean multicellular life here, obviously. Yeah, as the experiment shows, it
probably did form fast under the right conditions. It's all about genes. If
being a part of a multicellular organism allows one cell's genes to spread
more rapidly, than that cell is going to have an incentive to be in a group.

