Gene inversion - evolution without NeoDarwinism


The article "Gene inversion potentiates bacterial evolvability and virulence" by Merrikh et al. (2018) challenges the NeoDarwinian model of evolution by suggesting that gene inversion, a relatively rare genetic event, can have a significant impact on bacterial evolution.

NeoDarwinism is the waining model of evolution, which states that evolution occurs through the accumulation of mutations over time. Mutations are random changes in DNA that can be passed on to offspring. Some mutations are beneficial, while others are harmful. Beneficial mutations can give an organism a selective advantage, allowing it to survive and reproduce more successfully than other organisms. Over time, this process of natural selection can lead to the evolution of new species.

Gene inversion is a genetic event in which a segment of DNA is reversed in orientation. This is done without NeoDarwinian "random" mutations. This can happen when a piece of DNA breaks and then rejoins in the opposite direction. Gene inversions can occur spontaneously or be caused by environmental factors, such as exposure to radiation or chemicals.

Merrick et al. (2018) found that gene inversions are more common in bacterial genomes than previously thought. They also found that gene inversions are often found in genes that are involved in antibiotic resistance and virulence. This suggests that gene inversions can play a role in the evolution of these traits.

The authors propose that gene inversions can increase bacterial evolvability and virulence in two ways. First, gene inversions can create new combinations of genes, which can lead to new traits. Second, gene inversions can disrupt the regulation of genes, which can also lead to changes in gene expression.

The findings of Merrikh et al. (2018) challenge the NeoDarwinian model of evolution in several ways. First, they suggest that gene inversion, a relatively rare event, can have a significant impact on evolution. Second, they suggest that gene inversion can lead to the evolution of new traits, not just the accumulation of small changes over time as with NeoDarwinism. Third, they suggest that gene inversion can disrupt the regulation of genes, which is a complex process that is not well understood.

The findings of this study have implications for our understanding of bacterial evolution and the development of new antibiotics. If gene inversion is a major driver of bacterial evolution, then it is important to understand how it works. This knowledge could be used to develop new strategies for preventing the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

In addition, the findings of this study suggest that gene regulation plays a more important role in bacterial evolution than previously thought. This is important because it means that we need to better understand the mechanisms of gene regulation in order to develop new ways to control bacterial growth.

Overall, the findings of Merrikh et al. (2018) provide new insights into the process of bacterial evolution. This research has the potential to lead to the development of new strategies for preventing the spread of antibiotic resistance and controlling bacterial infections.

In addition to the challenges to NeoDarwinism mentioned above, the findings of this study also raise the following questions:

  • What are the molecular mechanisms that underlie gene inversion?

  • How does gene inversion affect the regulation of genes?

  • What are the evolutionary implications of gene inversion in other organisms?

These are just a few of the questions that need to be addressed in future research. The study by Merrikh et al. (2018) has opened up a new area of research that has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of bacterial evolution without NeoDarwinism.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more