Showing posts with label prokaryote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prokaryote. Show all posts

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Life Outside The Chromosome

Biology concepts – plasmid, linear organelle genomes, extrachromosomal circular DNAs, conjugation,


Planet of the Apes (1968) – a good movie, but not a great movie.
Every ape was a ventriloquist; you never saw their lips move.
But it did have the first reciprocal interspecies kiss. The pan and
scan version loses the, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil joke;
you only see what is in the red box.
I love older movies, but only if shown in full aspect (wide screen or letterbox format). So much of old cinema had interesting things going on outside the field of focus.  Take Charlton Heston testifying before the panel of apes in Planet of the Apes. In the pan and scan version, you see one ape covering his ears when he doesn’t like what Heston is saying, but you miss the other two apes – one is covering his eyes and one is covering his mouth! You only get the joke in wide screen.

Biology can be the same. So much emphasis is placed on chromosomal DNA that we sometimes miss interesting things going on elsewhere, or we start to investigate years later than we might have if we would just look at the whole picture.

Last week we focused on the big DNA in prokaryotes, the chromosome(s). But this doesn’t mean prokaryotes don’t have other DNA. Most prokaryotes have extrachromosomal DNA in the form of plasmids (plasma = shape, and id = belonging to). These are smaller loops of DNA that have fewer genes than a chromosome, and the genes are not essential for survival.

However, "smaller than chromosomes" doesn't mean they have to be small. The "megaplasmids" are over 100,000 nucleotides, and can be more than 2 million nucleotides in length, but even these are smaller than the chromosome. The exception might be in bacteria that have multiple chromosomes. Often one chromosome is much smaller; a megaplasmid could be larger than the secondary chromosome.

Plasmids replicate on their own, so sometimes they are called autonomously replicating elements. As such, they do not depend on the chromosome for their existence. Plasmids have internal control features that keep the number of a certain plasmid within limits in any one bacterium. Some plasmids have other controls that keep certain plasmid types from surviving in cells that have other types of plasmids. But this doesn’t mean that a cell may have only one type of plasmid. Our lyme disease-causing example of last week, B. burgdorferi, has 21 different plasmids. What is more, some are linear and some are circular. It just can’t help but be an exception in all things molecular.


The plasmid is different from the chromosome. It is
smaller and is not tethered to the cell membrane.
New data is showing that eukaryotes also possess
plasmids, especially yeast. They are being used to
produce complicated proteins in a system more
like our own cell
Even though plasmids do not carry genes essential for survival, they can still have an influence on the life of the cell. For instance, most antibacterial resistance genes are carried on plasmids. These extrachromosomal elements can be transferred from bacterium to bacterium, and can be passed on to the daughter cells, producing populations of bacteria that can laugh at our puny efforts to kill them.


Plasmids may also transfer metabolic genes, allowing the recipient cell to degrade other sources of food, or virulence genes, allowing them to colonize different portions of the body. This is sometimes what happens with E. coli.  Species that live in the large bowel pick up a plasmid that codes for a system that lets them cling to the wall of the small intestine, higher in the gastrointestinal tract. Having them live here can cause diarrhea in several different ways, but it all depends on the presence or absence of  that plasmid.


One type of plasmid, called the F plasmid, has a role in bacterial sex determination. O.K., it isn’t like the sexes we think usually think of; bacteria with the F plasmid are considered F+ or “male” and those without are considered F- or “female.” The F plasmid codes for proteins that will create a tube (pilus) that can link one bacterium to another and permit the replicated F plasmid to be transferred to the F- cell, thereby turning a female in to a male. Tada – sex change the easy way.


The F plasmid contains tra genes that build the pilus
and control the integration of the DNA into the
chromosome. Helicase, the enzyme that unwinds
DNA for replication or insertion, was first identified
in the F plasmid.
Most of the time this is not such a big deal, but sometimes the F plasmid sequences can integrate into the chromosome of the bacterium, and when it cuts itself back out and becomes circular again, it may bring piece of the chromosome as well. This is now a F’ plasmid. When the F’ gets transferred to a F- cell, it takes those chromosomal sequences with it. This is one important source of genetic diversity in bacteria, called conjugation.

Plasmids are an integral part of the prokaryotic genome, so I have never considered them exceptions. What is more, you and I both know that there are circular DNAs in eukaryotic cells. Remember that the mitochondrion and chloroplast have their own chromosomes, although significantly reduced from what they had when captured by our ancestor cells underwent endosymbiosis.

Since the organelles were derived from prokaryotes, it would follow that their DNA is kept in a single, circular chromosome. In most cases this is true, but there are those organisms that demonstrate linear organelle DNA or multiple chromosomes in their organelles.

For example, the human blood sucking louse Pediculus humanus doesn’t have a single mitochondrial chromosome. Its 34 remaining mitochondrial genes are housed on 18 separate minichromosomes. Why ? – IDK (with a nod to my texting children). Even stranger, the fungus Candida parapsilosis has a linear mitochondrial genome, while its very close relative, the human pathogen C. albicans, has a conventional mitochondrial genome geometry.


The moon jellyfish is a cnidarian. Cnidarins are named
for cnidocytes, the stingers that allow them to defend
themselves or catch food. However, the sea turtle is
immune to the toxin of the moon jelly, so they are
happy with jellyfish sandwiches, like on SpongeBob.
Many other examples of linear organelle chromosomes exist, especially in the cnidarians (animals like corals and jellyfish). The relationships between these groups, phylogenetically speaking, have been hard to work out. The evidence that the hydrozoans (like the fire coral and the Portugese man-o-war) and scyphozoans (like moon jellyfish) have linear mitochondrial genomes indicate that they are probably closely related to each other and are younger than the other groups of cnidarians, like anthozoans (most corals and sea anemones).

Finally, corn (maize, species name Zea mays) cells have been show to have linear, complex, and circular forms of the chloroplast genome. In seedlings, the areas of high cellular division seem to be more active in the linear copies of the chloroplast chromosome. This may indicate that while the circular form is still present, it is the linear form that is functional in the Z. mays cells. Maybe we are catching a peak at evolution in action.

Most prokaryotes have circular chromosomes, and most eukaryotic species have organelles with circular chromosomes. It would follow that the instances of linearization of mitochondrial or chloroplasts sequences occurred after endosymbiosis was established, but why? What is their advantage? What would the text abbreviation be for “nobody knows?”

The above examples indicate that extrachromosomal DNA in eukaryotes can be more dynamic than previously surmised. But we haven’t touched on the interesting part. Eukaryotic linear chromosomes can sometimes give rise to circular pieces of DNA that then replicate on their own and stick around for varying lengths of time, just like plasmids.

Probably for reasons of "species prejudice" we don’t use the term plasmid for circular DNA in higher organisms; it makes us sound too similar to our prokaryotic ancestors. Circular DNA in plants and animals is called extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) or small poly-dispersed circular DNA (spcDNA) – and the scientists are right, these sound much more advanced: a plasmid that a eukaryote can be proud of.

The sources of these eccDNA sequences are several. They can be formed from non-coding DNA (sequences that don’t lead to the production of a particular RNA or protein), or they can be derived from tandem repeat (two copies of the same gene) DNA that are plentiful in the eukaryotic genome. A June, 2012 study identified a new type of eccDNA in mice and humans that actually has coding sequences that are non-repetitive.

eccDNA has been found in every species in which it has been looked for, so its presence is not unusual. What is unusual is that eccDNA can come and go, and can be formed from normal intrachromosomal recombination (the crossing over of sequences within one chromosome) or by the looping out of sequences from a chromosome and then being cut out. As of now, we don’t know what controls their occurrence or why they form.

Importantly, they do seem to have a function. Small numbers are seen in normal cells, but the number is increased in cancer cells or normal cells that have been exposed to cancer-causing or DNA-damaging agents. This was first demonstrated using a cancer cell line called HeLa, named for the mother from whom they were isolated, Henrietta Lacks. I highly recommend the biography of her tumor cells called, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, authored by Rebecca Skloot.


Xenopus laevis is a good model organism for
Studying development. Notice how the tadpole
Only takes 3 days to develop into a tadpole, and
every stage can be visualized. Plus, they can lay
up to 2500 eggs at a time.
The function of eccDNA in normal tissues is suggested by a study in Xenopus laevis, the African clawed frog. This animal is a much used model for studies of development because the eggs and embryos are big, the frogs can be induced to mate year round, and the embryos develop outside the body.

During development of the embryo, different levels of eccDNA are seen. Some sequences are seen early, while different sequences are seen later, and most of the eccDNA is gone by the time the embryos mature to tadpoles. This suggests specific functions for eccDNA in normal development. We wish we knew what the specific functions are – again, your opportunity for a Nobel Prize. 

The type of eccDNA in X. laevis is called a t-loop circle. The “t” stands for telomeres, like we mentioned last week. Telomeres have many units of a repeated sequence and are used to help replicate the ends of linear chromosomes. We have talked about how each replication of the chromosome leads to a slightly shorter telomere and how some scientists hypothesize that telomere shortening has something to do with aging defects.

Early in development, embryonic cells are dividing rapidly; in the 4-week human embryo, new cells are produced at a rate of 1 million/second! All this cell division requires replication, and replication shortens the telomeres. Could it be that the t-loop circle eccDNA has a function in preserving telomere length?


The telomere has many copies of a repeat sequence. Each repeat 
is recognized by an enzyme that helps to replicate that end of 
the chromosome. The enzyme called telomerase contains 
an RNA primer that can’t be converted to DNA, so the last
repeat is always lost. The telomere gets shorter with every 
replication. Sooner or later, this is going to cause a problem.

A study in 2002 suggested just that, these eccDNA telomere sequences might serve as a reserve of long telomeric sequences. These repeats could later be added back on to the telomeres through recombination events, thus preserving telomere length despite high levels of chromosome replication.

One the other hand, eccDNA is more plentiful in ageing cells and damaged cells. This might be an attempt to save the cell from the defects induced by telomere shortening or by damaging agents, or it may have a completely different function, perhaps even to induce cell suicide (apoptosis), so as to prevent damage to other cells. Once again, the small DNAs that are so easy to ignore may very well be the ones that allow us to live.

We have talked directly and indirectly about the mitochondria for the past few weeks; a crucial structure for energy production. Next time lets talk about the organisms that think they can do without this organelle.


Shibata, Y., Kumar, P., Layer, R., Willcox, S., Gagan, J., Griffith, J., & Dutta, A. (2012). Extrachromosomal MicroDNAs and Chromosomal Microdeletions in Normal Tissues Science, 336 (6077), 82-86 DOI: 10.1126/science.1213307

For additional information or classroom activities about plasmids, extrachromosomal DNA, or telomeres, see:

Plasmids –

Extrachromosomal DNA –

Telomeres -

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

It’s All in the Numbers - Sizes in Nature


If all the animal species are broken up into groups, the light 
blue section includes insects, and the rest of the 
circle colors represent every other animal on Earth!
Comparisons help to make very big or very small numbers meaningful, and biology is chock full of big and small numbers. For instance, there are more insects in the world than there are humans. By more, I mean ALOT MORE, something like 1.5 x 1018 insects. But what does that number mean? Consider looking at it this way; the world population hit 7 billion last year and that's a big number, but even if we were to double our population again in the next ten minutes, there would still be 100 million insects for every human on earth. This certainly makes an impression, but it seems small when comparing the most numerous organisms, bacteria, to humans.

Bacteria outnumber us by orders of magnitude more than insects do; they live everywhere, in every environment. They have been found in 0.5 million year-old permafrost as well as 40 miles up in the atmosphere. There are approximately 100 million to 1 billion bacteria in every teaspoon of dirt, so in total there are currently 5 x1030 bacteria carrying out their daily routines. That means there are about 5 x 1019 living bacteria (that is 50,000,000,000,000,000,000) for every person who has EVER LIVED. Another way of visualizing this might be to imagine that each bacterium is a penny being stacked. The column would be a trillion light years high. That’s about five times the diameter of the observable universe.


Nanobacteria are still controversial, the 0.2 µm diameter is 
close to the smallest size that could still hold DNA. 
For comparison, the white line in panel A is 1 µm long, 
and in Panel C the line is just 0.1 µm.
While the redwoods might be slightly taller than the sequoias, 
the mass of the sequoias is much greater because the 
trunks have such a large diameter.
Even using comparisons and analogies, these numbers are almost too big to comprehend. It isn’t much easier when talking about sizes. The scale of life is amazing, from the smallest bacteria (called nanobacteria), just 0.2 µm in size (1/5,000,000 of a meter), to the biggest living thing on Earth, a Giant Sequoia called General Sherman. This behemoth of a tree is more than 83 meters (272 ft.) in height and 1,225,000 kilograms (2,701,000 lb.) in mass. This means that from smallest to largest, life spans more than eight orders of magnitude. In terms of biomass, the difference between the smallest bacterium and General Sherman is even greater, about 1 x 1023, about the same as difference in mass as one human compared to seven Earths.

On a smaller scale, the difference in size between bacteria and nucleated cells (eukaryotic cells) is still pretty stunning. A single macrophage cell of your immune system can ingest more than 100 bacteria without flinching, and macrophages are nowhere near the biggest eukaryotic cells. These different sizes demand some distinctions in how cells conduct their business; for example, how they move molecules into and within themselves.


A macrophage reaching out and ingesting bacteria.
The bacteria are the small, connected rods.
Eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells (bacteria and Archaea), have specialized systems, like actin filaments, cytoskeleton, and microtubules. These apparatus are designed to act like conveyor belts; they carry different molecules through the cell to their needed destinations. Eukaryotes also have specific receptors for bringing in specific molecules. These are fast systems of uptake and movement, and can work against a concentration gradient.


The cytoskeleton of the eukaryotic cell stretch out like fibers.
They help it move, can convey molecules from place to place,
and holds the cells shape.




Unfortunately, bacteria only have diffusion to move molecules around their insides. This makes things doubly hard on them because bacteria have limited access to resources; most often they meet up with few molecules that are important to them (being a small cell in a big environment). Therefore, they need to get as many of these resources into their cell as possible and move throughout their entire volume quickly.

Diffusion is the movement of molecules from places where there a lot of them toward places here there are fewer of them (from high concentration to low concentration). Think of a crowd pouring out onto the football field after a big win. You start with many people in the stands and very few on the field, but end up with about an equal number of people in all parts of the stadium. Bacteria count on consuming their nutrients this way. Important molecules diffuse into the cell, and then get metabolized for energy or other building blocks. This breaking down and reassembly of molecules helps ensure that the concentration of important molecules is always lower inside the cell, so diffusion into the cell can continue. Importantly, as the width or length of a cell doubles, the volume increases by a factor of eight; therefore, prokaryotic cells remain small so that they can get molecules everywhere they need them quickly. It is the only way for diffusion to remain profitable for them.


Diffusion is the movement of from where there are 
many to where there are few. If it is water 
molecules that are moving, then call it osmosis.
Diffusion is not quite as simple as people pouring out the stands. There are several aspects of this process that are important to bacteria. The first of these is the diffusion rate, which is based on a diffusion coefficient for each different molecule, and the liquid it is moving through. For oxygen moving through water, the diffusion rate is about 1 mm/hr. This means that for an average sized bacteria it only takes 1 millisecond (1/1000th of a second) for an oxygen molecule to travel across the entire cell.

There is also the mixing rate; this refers to the time it takes for a molecule that enters the cell to have an equal probability of being found in any part of the cell. A 1µm (1/1,000,000 of a meter) bacterium has a mixing time of roughly 1 millisecond. But since the volume increases by a factor of eight as the size doubles, it would not take much growth for the mixing time to become problematic if a cell was to rely on diffusion alone.

Finally, there is the issue of traffic time. Every reaction that takes place in a cell involves two or more molecules finding one another and then interacting. In both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells there are some systems designed to help bring molecules together, but in the end, it is basically luck – they have to run into one another. The number of molecules can affect this time; say you want molecule A to meet molecule B. If the cell contained only one of each molecule, this could take a while, but if there are 1000A’s and 1000B’s, then the traffic time will be decreased considerably. For average sized bacteria, traffic times exist in the range of 1 second, but again, if they are much bigger, the chances of molecules meeting their partners goes down dramatically.

If the bacterium grows too big, the diffusion rate, mixing time, and traffic time can become too long to permit survival. Therefore, size limitations seem to be set for bacteria. However, some bacteria just have to be rule breakers. There are two excellent examples of bacteria that have evolved ways to overcome the diffusion problems associated with increased size, and we'll start to look at them next week.



Schulz, H., & Jørgensen, B. (2001). Big Bacteria Annual Review of Microbiology, 55 (1), 105-137 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.105



For more information on numbers in nature, diffusion, and cytoskeleton, as well as web-based activities and experiments, go to:

Cell size and volume:
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/cells/cellsize.html
faculty.massasoit.mass.edu/whanna/121_assets/15-week_2_prelab.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdvKM1m0jnE
http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm
www.nsa.gov/academia/_files/collected_learning/high.../surface_area.pdf
www.smccd.net/accounts/bucher/modules/DuzSizeMatter.pdf
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/AEF/1996/deaver_cell.php


scaling in nature:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-sizes-of-organisms-span-21-orders-15321100
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/
http://www.dnatube.com/video/596/Size-Analogies-of-Bacteria-and-Viruses
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/size_shapes_animals/index.html


diffusion:
http://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/diffusion.html
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter2/animation__how_diffusion_works.html
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/cells/diffusion.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/diffus.html
http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ap1903
http://www.biologycorner.com/2009/09/16/diffusion-lab/
http://chem.lapeer.org/Bio1Docs/Diffusion.html
http://www.biologyjunction.com/osmosis__diffusion_in_egg_lab.htm
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/contributions/view/3415


cytoskeleton:
http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cytoskel.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqbmLiSkpk
http://www.biochemweb.org/cytoskeleton.shtml
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/page1.html
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/main.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlYyoi5vpE8

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

A Tale Of Two Tails

Biology concepts – flagella, bacteria, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, undulipodia, axoneme, basal body, centriole


Everyone has the dream where you show up for a class
that you didn’t know was on your schedule, only to be
having a test. But in second place is the dream where you
are back in elementary school, or maybe the principal’s
office. Above is a picture of every teacher I had in
elementary school.
You find yourself transported back to sixth grade grammar class. You barely fit in the desk and your clothes are out of style.... again. You don’t know how you got there, but the immediate problem is that Mrs. Belcher has just called your name to answer the next question. What are homonyms?! You stare back at her with terror in your eyes.

But your study of word roots may help you survive. Homo- means same, while -nym means word. OK, it’s coming back to you. Homonyms can be words that are spelled but have different meanings and origins (called homographs) or words that are pronounced the same but have different spellings and meanings (called homophones).  Yes! The class cheers, and Mrs. Belcher is more than mildly surprised. Crisis averted.

I have no idea how you got transported back to grammar school, but your question and answer is very timely to our discussion today. Homographs, like minute (min-it, a short time) and minute (my-noot, a small amount), look the same, but have different meanings. Homophones, like to, too, and two sound the same but mean different things and have different origins.  This is very much like the differences in prokaryotic flagella and eukaryotic undulipodia. Too much of a stretch for you... maybe.

We have seen that bacterial flagella are long, whip-like structures protruding from the cell that can aid in motility. So are eukaryotic undulipodia. They look very similar, yet we are going to see they have very different structures, mechanisms of function, and origins – just like homophone and homonyms.  So maybe the analogy wasn’t so far off.

Both flagella and undulipodia extend from the cell surface with a long tail. But in the prokaryote, this was made of small subunits of flagellin proteins. In the undulipodia, the structure is called the axoneme, and is made of long microtubules of tubulin protein. Already we have significant differences between two things that look very similar.


A cross section of an undulipodium axoneme looks like
this – although I’m not sure they’re color coded in the
cell. Notice how the inner are connects the nested tubule
of one doublet to the outside tubule of the next doublet.
The inner arms are responsible for the degree of bend,
the outer arms are involved in the rate of movement. There
are other proteins involved, but we aren’t getting that
detailed. Maybe you want to do that on your own.
The axoneme (axo = axis, and neme = thread) of the undulipodia has a very distinct structure which is best appreciated when you look at it in cross section. The long microtubles appear as small circles in the cross cut, but they are arranged very precisely (see picture). They come in doublets, and there are nine sets of them surrounding a central doublet (called 9 + 2 or 9(2) + 2). This is very different from the single hollow tube of the prokaryotic flagellum.

The way the axoneme is built is also the key to how it works. The different microtubule doublets are cross-linked by protein complexes called dynein arms. There are inner arms and outer arms. An inner arm connects one microtubule from one doublet to another microtubule of the adjacent doublet. When one doublet slides further out from the cell body and the connected adjacent doublet doesn’t, this creates stress and the whole thing must bend to maintain the connections.

So, walking proteins are how the undulipodia create their whip-like action. There is a walking system analogous to dynein arm movement that has developed in many animals. We have looked at muscle contraction before. Just like myosin heads walking along actin filaments that are anchored to the muscle cell membrane, the dynein arms on some doublets start to crawl up or down the adjacent microtubule of an undulipodia creating a bend and then they can reverse to whip back the other direction. This is very different from the spinning motor of the bacterial flagellum.


Pay attention to these cartoons, they show how the undulipodia
bend. ATP powers the sliding of the dynein arms. As they move
down one tubule, that filament moves up. If the filaments are
anchored in the membrane, as they are in undulipodia, the
movement creates tension and a bend. The cartoon on the
right is a good summary.
The motions the two different mechanisms produce is different too (a homophone). While the prokaryotic flagellum spins like a propeller, the sliding of the microtubules makes the undulipodium wave back and forth, like a field of wheat on a breezy day, or how a snake might thrash if you held his head down (don’t just hold his tail down, he’ll bite you).

The undulipodium motion often occurs in just one plane, back and forth instead of all around, but that doesn’t mean it has too limit itself to that. It can spin too; it just takes a very coordinated sliding back and forth of microtubules.

Another difference between prokaryotic flagella and eukaryotic undulipodia is in how they are powered. We saw that flagella in bacteria get their force from the spinning motor, and the motor gets its energy from an ion gradient across the membrane. But in eukaryotes, it was seen early on that if you strip the membrane off of an undulipodium, and added ATP, they start to move.

Yes, all undulipodia are held within the membrane. Some bacterial flagella are membrane covered, but all eukaryotic versions are sheathed in plasma membrane. But back to the ATP. Exposing the naked undulipodium to ATP, even on a dead cell, can initiate the dynein walking and microtubule sliding, so it is definitely ATP powered.

Also, this points out that the power for the bacteria movement comes from the motor in the base, but the eukaryotic movement is in the axoneme, not the base. The basal body that anchors the eukaryotic undulipodium into the cell membrane is amazing in its own way. The basal body is actually a centriole, the same structure that helps to move the chromosomes apart in the spindle apparatus during mitosis. We’ll come back to this double duty organelle in a a few weeks.


Chlamydomonas algae species have a double flagella
for swimming. A single stroke as shown above. The
power strokes on top is followed by the recovery stroke
below. Put all the numbers together and looks like
someone swimming underwater. The picture of the
organism is there because it’s always better to see the
real thing as compared to a cartoon.
Our two systems still look similar, but we see how they are not so similar in structure and action. Since eukaryotic cells are so much bigger than prokaryotes, the first flagella to be examined and found to have the 9(2) + 2 structure were in sperm tails.

But soon after that, the protozoans were discovered to have undulipodia as well. Organisms from the algae genus Chlamydomonas have two long undulipodia that they use for motility. Located at the front of the cell, their movement pulls the alga through the water. But protozoans are just as likely to have undulipodia that push them through water. They can work both ways.

Amazingly, when a Chlamydomonas finds itself out of water, the undulipodia resorb in short order. Nature hates to waste energy, so why maintain a boat motor if you’re not in the water. But place them back in a liquid environment and the two structures will reassemble with in an hour – with the same structure 9(2) + 2 and working the same exact way.

Of course, saying they all have the same 9(2) + 2 structure is an invitation to find exceptions, and science has found them. A 2006 study found that rabbits are quite the rule breakers. Sure, they have 9(2) + 2 axonemes, but they don’t stop there. Some rabbit embryo undulipodia show a 9(2) + 0 structure, where the central doublet is completely missing, yet the structure functions just as other motile undulipodia.

What’s more, rabbits can also have 9(2) + 4 axonemes, with double the number of central microtubules. Again, they function just fine. Is there a reason for these variations – maybe, but maybe they are just mutations that didn’t have a negative impact, so they were retained.


You know how annoying it is when you touch a cactus
and those little bristles get stuck in your skin? Well,
don’t touch a bristleworm. They’re lined with those painful
bristles – hence the name. Somebody studied these worms,
and found out they have parasitic protozoans in their gut.
Then someone studied those parasites and found that they
have sperm. And someone studied the sperm and found
that they have unique axoneme structures. I love science.
A couple of parasitic protozoans that live in bristle worm guts show differences in their axonemes. Lecudina tuzetae sperm tails have a 6(2) + 0 structure, while the Diplauxis hatti protozoan sperm has a 3(2) + 0 axoneme. Described in a 1980 paper, this is the simplest motile undulipodium known – as of now.

The undulipodium basal body (born as a centriole) can have exceptions as well. The vast majority have a structure of 9(3) + 0, where instead of doublets, they have triplets. This makes sense since they need to be strong to support the axoneme.

But diatoms, very small algae cells protected by a silica shell, can have sperm that look very different, according to a 2013 study. Their basal bodies have been observed to have doublet microtubules, and are very similar to the axoneme. Even weirder, a couple of insects feel the need to go big with their basal bodies. Acerentomonon microrhinus, a primitive hexapod insect has sperm tail basal bodies with 14 microtubule doublets, while Sciara coprophila, a fungus gnat (see picture), has up to 90 singlet microtubules in its sperm basal body.

We have talked a lot about sperm tails and protozoan motility structures, and these undulipodia look the most like bacterial flagella. But undulipodia come in a couple of flavors; those longer than 40 m or so are called flagella while the shorter ones are called cilia. See the naming problem and why Lynn Margulis came up with undulipodia?


This is a fungus gnat – it sounds like they eat fungus,
but nope. Only the larval form feeds; the adults never
eat. That’s OK, they don’t live very long at all. They
overwinter in their adult form because they are unique
in that they can both tolerate freezing weather and freeze
themselves without damage. It must be important, since
their sperm tails are loaded with 90 microtubules in the
basal body – everyone knows that massive numbers of
microtubules is the best way to avoid cold damage.
Both eukaryotic flagella and cilia have the microtubule and dynein arm structure, with centrioles for their basal bodies. There are exceptions to the cilia that we will look at in a few weeks, but the biggest difference between them, besides their length, is that cilia occur in groups, while flagella are usually found in ones or twos. You could say that cilia and flagella are like synonyms, they have almost the same meaning (and structure), although they are two different things.

Next week – Halloween is coming, so what better time to have a discussion of genetically modified foods and an 19th century teenage girl who wrote the best science fiction book ever.




Prensier, G., Vivier, E., Goldstein, S., & Schrevel, J. (1980). Motile flagellum with a "3 + 0" ultrastructure Science, 207 (4438), 1493-1494 DOI: 10.1126/science.7189065

Idei, M., Osada, K., Sato, S., Nakayama, T., Nagumo, T., & Mann, D. (2012). Sperm ultrastructure in the diatoms Melosira and Thalassiosira and the significance of the 9 + 0 configuration Protoplasma, 250 (4), 833-850 DOI: 10.1007/s00709-012-0465-8

Feistel K, & Blum M (2006). Three types of cilia including a novel 9+4 axoneme on the notochordal plate of the rabbit embryo. Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists, 235 (12), 3348-58 PMID: 17061268




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Undulipodia –



Wednesday, October 1, 2014

One Thing Is Just Like The Other – Sort Of

Biology concepts – undulipodia, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, homologous structures, re-emergent evolution, atavism, flagella, eukaryote, prokaryote


This represents the evolution of cell phones over the last
couple of decades. The latest models aren’t there since
things are changing so fast. Evolution in biology doesn’t
always work this way, one thing leading directly to another,
sometimes you have to go back to a rotary phone go forward
to an iPhone, and sometimes two phones (species) will look
exactly alike although they were designed in secret by
different companies.
Two things look similar and perform the same function. Chances are, they have the same origin; one got copied from, or spawned, the other – see the phones to the right. Evolution in technology makes sense, but it’s not always so simple in biology.

Let’s use our flagellar example from the last few posts. Prokaryotes have flagella and use them for motility, amongst other things. Well, some eukaryotic cells have flagella too. Eukaryotic cells evolved from archaea that swallowed bacteria (see this post), so it makes sense that eukaryotic flagella evolved from prokaryotic flagella. But all evidence says no.

We’ll get into this more in the coming weeks, but flagella and similar structures in eukaryotes have very little in common with flagella from prokaryotes. Eukaryotic flagella are made up of a ring of microtubules surrounding a core of microtubules. Microtubules have nothing to do with bacterial flagella, since they are made up of polymers of flagellin protein with a hollow core, as we have discussed.


These cartoons show the differences between the
prokaryotic flagellum (left) and the eukaryotic flagellum
(right). They look pretty similar from afar, but their
structures are completely different. What you can’t see
are the genes that code for these. There are NO similarities
between the genes for the prokaryotic
and eukaryotic flagella.
Likewise, the base of the prokaryotic flagella is a series of rings that anchor it into the membranes and wall, and the motor spins in one direction and then the other based on movement of ions across a gradient. But eukaryotic flagella have a base that is not involved in the movement, yet is important enough to be derived from another organelle.

If eukaryotic flagella had evolved directly from prokaryotic flagella, then they would be termed homologous structures, having similar function and similar structure because one is directly descended from the other. There might be small or large adaptations that change the genes, structure, or function a bit, but there is still a direct link from one to the other.

Examples of homologous structures are the forelimbs of larger animals. The arm of a human, the forelimb and paw of a cat, the pectoral fin of a dolphin and the wing of a bat. They all have similar structure and function and they come from a common ancestor; they’re all mammals.

Direct descent with adaptation is how evolution works most often. But flagella in eukaryotes and prokaryotes aren’t connected by common genes or structures and you have to go so far back for a common ancestor. This is one of the exceptions – an exception called convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is defined as independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. It produces analogous structures – they may look the same and function the same, but were derived separately. An example would be flight. Flying insects, birds, and bats all developed flight and they all use wings, but wings developed for each after their ancestors split away from one another.


You don’t have to be a specialist in dermatoglyphics (fingerprint
analysis) to see that koala prints are very similar to human.
They have to grasp tree limbs and we have to grasp beer
bottles –it’s about the same thing. However, koalas only have
ridges on their fingertips, toetips, and selected parts of their
palms and soles, not like humans that have them all over the
working sides of our hands and feet.
A better and weirder example of convergent evolution to analogous structure has occurred between koalas and primates. I’d say we diverged more than 100 million years ago, yet primates and koala bears of Australia have almost indistinguishable fingerprints.

Friction ridges, or dermal ridges, are better names for fingerprints and they give a clue as to their function. The ridges help gain and maintain grip. The fingerprints of gorillas and chimps are pretty similar to humans; they're unique but don’t follow the same frequency of types as human prints.

However, a 2012 study in a forensic science text funded partially by the FBI, showed that Koala prints are almost indistinguishable from those of humans. In fact, in an interview with the author, he said that his fingerprint technician failed to pick out the human print when given a koala print and a human one to compare. Next time a crime is committed, the police will have to suspect all the koalas without alibis.

We can compare convergent evolution to another mechanism - parallel evolution. In this exception, two lineages start with similar traits because of common ancestry. Over generations they each change, but the structures and function still remain similar. This is different from convergent evolution where two different traits become more similar.


The top cat (not topcat) is Smilodon, a placental mammal that
lived in North America from 2.5 million years ago until about
10,000 years ago. On the bottom is the Thylacosmilus, a marsupial
that died out in South America a couple of million years after the
Smilodon arose. If that isn’t an argument for parallel evolution,
I don’t know what is.
A classic example of parallel evolution is between species of marsupial and placental mammals. They diverged while living in the same places at the same time, so they could each fill some empty niche. But then the continents divided. In Australia, the marsupials predominated, while in Europe and Asia the placental animals won out. In South America, they have both remained.

When the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago, many niches were open and the mammals took off, becoming more numerous and more diverse in all areas. Then we saw the parallelism. In Europe, we had the smilodon (saber-toothed cat) and in South America we had the Thylacosmilus – a saber-toothed marsupial. They looked remarkably similar. In Tasmania, a marsupial wolf developed, while in Europe and North America, it is the placental wolf. All were separated by reproductive mechanism and geography, but showed parallel evolution.

Convergent evolution usually refers to things that weren’t present in their last common ancestor, but prokaryotes already had flagella when eukaryotes diverged. This is a quandary. Parallel evolution sounds a little more like it might apply to bacteria versus eukaryotic flagella – they have a common ancestor, although you have to go way back, and they have developed remarkably similar functional structures. Think about all the different possibilities of motility, and yet they both developed a whip? Seems impossible that they couldn’t be related somehow.

But then again, parallel evolution doesn’t make sense because prokaryotic flagella are built completely different from eukaryotic flagella. Why don’t eukaryotic flagellar genes and parts mimic those of prokaryotes if they came from a common ancestor? They look similar and function similar, yet are built completely differently.


Atavisms like a human vestigial tail do occur. This is a system
that had been turned off du to regulatory genes, but sometimes
they don’t work completely. However, many pictures of supposed
tails are actually cases of spina bifida, an incomplete closing of
the spinal column. The picture on the right – see the bones in the
tail? Definitely not spina bifida.
Maybe the eukaryotic flagellum is an atavism (at = beyond, and avus = grandfather), a trait that got turned off. Many generations didn’t display it but the genes were still there. Then the feature was pulled back out of the gene pool when it was needed again, or sometimes without being needed.

For example, humans have a common ancestor with tailed mammals. Every once in a while, gene regulation gets fouled up in utero and a baby is born with a vestigial tail. The genes were still there to make a tail, they were just hidden by the ways the genes are regulated – who gets to be turned on or off. The whole tail isn’t there, but enough to see that the blueprint is still in our DNA. This is an atavism. But this isn’t what happened with flagella, because the genes are so different from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

What we have with flagella is most likely a case of re-evolved convergent evolution. The trait was lost and then evolved again. It isn’t unheard of to lose traits via evolution. It happens all the time.  It isn’t efficient, but nobody said evolution was efficient. That’s not evolution’s aim; it doesn’t have an aim. Nature reacts to mutations, pressures, and environments from generation to generation. Evolution is not a straight line.

It's more common to lose a trait than it is to re-evolve one. A study from 2009 cited the idea of relaxed selection, when a trait becomes useless after once being beneficial. Fish that become cave dwellers don’t need eyes, so they disappear over generations.

A less common example would be if a prey animal suddenly finds itself without predators. Over a short number of generations the prey animals become less alert and slower because those traits are needed any more. In general, the more costly a trait is to maintain, the faster it will be lost when selection is relaxed.


Relaxed selection is the idea that traits not needed can be lost. If t
he lion chooses not hunt the zebra any longer (he heard that
they’re high in cholesterol), then they could lose their stripes
because they don’t need to hide, they could become bigger since
they don’t to be so fleet of foot, and they could become less easily
startled. They might even choose to live alone.
On the other end of the scale, a 2011study in frogs showed that they lost mandibular teeth 230 million years but were able to re-evolve them about 5 million years ago.  This violates something called Dollo’s Law of Irreversibility, which states that when a trait is lost, it can’t be regained. Oops, maybe that law should be taken off the books. Maybe they mean that it can’t be duplicated exactly. I’m sure that the gene sequence and shape of the new mandibular teeth is at least slightly different from the originals.

Wings, the example we gave above as convergent evolution, are another example of re-emergent evolution. According to a 2003 study of stick insects, the woody little buggers have evolved, lost, and re-evolved wings several times.

The final nail in the coffin of common ancestry for prokaryotic and bacterial flagella is that the eukaryotic versions are closely related and structured exactly like another eukaryotic feature, the cilium (plural cilia, from Latin for eyelash). Prokaryotes don’t have cilia, but they’re found all over the eukaryotic world.

The similar structure of cilia and eukaryotic flagella shows that they are commonly descended - they are truly homologous structures – many cells even have both. The problem comes when you try to talk about them and still separate what your saying about eukaryotes from the prokaryotes.


Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) was a daring biologist.
She stood by her guns with several controversial
hypotheses, and most often shown to be close, if not
right on the money. Maybe it wasn’t so odd that she
thought big thoughts, she entered the University of
Chicago at age 14, she was married to astronomer
Carl Sagan, one sister married a Nobel Prize winner
in physics and the other married a mathematician, her
sons and daughter are authors and a software company
developer. No dull conversation in that house at Christmas!
Therefore Lynn Margulis, she of the endosymbiotic theory and the Gaia Hypothesis, proposed that we call the eukaryotic, protruding, microtubule structures by a different and common name – the undulipodia (undul = swinging or swaying, as in undulation, and podia = foot).

The undilopdia are the filamentous extracellular projections of eukaryotic cells, so they would include both cilia and flagella. So now we have an organelle you’ve never heard of before, but you still know what it is. I like the idea, because teaching about flagella is fairly littered with the times you have to say, “These are prokaryotic flagella we’re talking about, not eukaryotic flagella,” or vice versa. Lynn’s a smart cookie, but sometimes she goes a little far afield – we’ll see this as we talk more about undulipodia.

Next week, let’s look at the structure of undulipodia, compare them to prokaryotic flagella and wonder why rabbits get to be the exceptions.




Lahti, D. C., N. A. Johnson, et al. (2009). Relaxed selection in the wild. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, , 24 (9), 487-496

Stone G, & French V (2003). Evolution: have wings come, gone and come again? Current biology : CB, 13 (11) PMID: 12781152

Wiens JJ (2011). Re-evolution of lost mandibular teeth in frogs after more than 200 million years, and re-evaluating Dollo's law. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 65 (5), 1283-96 PMID: 21521189



For more information or classroom activities, see:

Undulipodia –

Convergent evolution –

Homologous structures –

Parallel  evolution –