Showing posts with label species. Show all posts
Showing posts with label species. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Lions And Tigers and Ligers, Oh My!

A full grown liger is a biiggg cat! A male lion and
a female tiger get to know each well, and their
love child is huge. It doesn’t happen in the wild
because the ranges of lions and tigers don’t
overlap, and they don’t have computer dating
services. The liger is bigger than either parent,
and this is a problem during birthing. They have
many birth defects and often die young.

When putting organisms into categories (taxonomy), we go from bigger, more general categories to smaller more specific ones. The more similar two organisms are, evolutionarily and genetically, the more levels of their taxonomic classification they will have in common.

Question of the day:
A tigon is the result of a cross between male tiger and a female lion, while a liger is the offspring of a male lion and a tigress. But are these new species? And just how far can you go when you cross-breed?

There are instances when different species mate, but the outcomes, while interesting, may or may not be new species. It helps to know the classification levels.

Kingdom (domain) - Insects, dogs and people are all very different, but they are all animals.

Phylum (Division for plants) – usually these group things by a common body plan or some other morphologic character, or a certain degree of genetic relatedness. Arthropods are all related by a chitin exoskeleton, so flies and lobsters are both arthropods, but flowering plants have fruits and conifers have cones, so they are in different divisions.

Class – these groups have more in common, either physiologically or genetically. Cows and dogs both have hair and give birth to live young, so they are both in the class Mammalia. However, flowering plants are divided into two classes, monocots and dicots, based on seed and vascular tissue differences.

Here is the classification scheme for several familiar
mammals. Cats are all in the same family, but there are
several genera, while all dogs fit in one genus and all
wolves in another. Black bears and Kodiak bears are a
different genus than polar bears, but hikers and bigfoot
monsters have reported sightings of polar and Kodiak
bear hybrids…. well hikers have been reporting them.
Order – Even more specific, this level of classification has been altered greatly by molecular biology. Armadilloes and anteaters are both in the Order Edentata – as toothless mammals. However, roses and magnolia trees are both dicots, but they belong to different orders (Magnoliidae and Rosidae).

Family – Now we are getting down to smaller differences, but still just as important.  All the big-eared bats and all the thick thumbed bats are both included in vespertine family, because they come out to feed in the evenings. On the other hand, maples and mahogany trees are both in the order of Sapindalae, but they belong to different families based on their leaf and flower anatomies.

Genus –comes from the Greek for “kin,” so these organisms in the same genus are closely related. In animals, both moths and butterflies are in the same order, but they are broken into 124 different families, and the family Nyphalidae, which contains the Monarch butterfly, has over 600 genera (the plural of genus).

Species – These are the individual distinct group of organisms. Usually, the distinction is made based on whether their breeding can produce fertile offspring. So bulldogs and St. Bernards are both species of dog, since they can make mutts.

The africanized honeybee is more likely to swarm and
migrate when food supplies are low, so they can be seen
in masses like the one above. For hives, they usually
invade an existing hive, quit out the queen and install their
own. The danger in these bees is that they are more likely
to swarm when agitated, and they will chase the agitator
for a much longer distance (a mile or more) than regular
honeybees (100 yards or so).
Sub-Species - this is like the different breeds of cats we keep or that unfortunate incident where African bees were crossed with South American honeybees and created killer bees!

Now that we have that information – let’s rephrase our question of the day. Can you breed (hybridize) different species and create a new species?

Cross-breeds are common within species (intraspecies hybridization), like with cats or dogs – not cats with dogs, you’d never want to do that! And we know they are fertile, so you end up with some dogs that are ¼ this, 1/8 that, and ¼ the other. What about between species?

Interspecies hybrids usually don’t give you fertile offspring. Since the definition of a species is a group of animals that can mate to give fertile offspring, then you would be hard pressed to create a new species by breeding different species together.

For example, the liger and tigon males are always sterile, so even though the females are sometimes fertile, they still can’t mate a tigon to a tigon. This would be necessary to make a stable species. So the chances are low on the interspecies level.

That would mean that new species coming from breeding of animals from different genera would be even less likely to produce new species. However, individuals can be hybridized. Intergeneric hybridization is easier to do in plants; orchid growers have made many different intergeneric crosses, like little Dr. Frankensteins with green thumbs.

Compare the two marine mammals that are jumping. One
is bigger, darker colored, and apparently can jump
higher. That one is the wolphin. Her name is Kekaimalu,
the offspring of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer
whale. Her offspring, Kawili Kai, is bigger than a dolphin
as well, but is lighter colored than mama.
But they can occur in animals. A wolphin was born at Hawaii Sea Park in 1985, the result of a mating between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. These species are in the same family (Delphinidae) but different genera. Named Kekaimalu, this female is fertile and has mated with male bottlenose dolphins. The first two offspring did not live very long, but her third calf is still alive and well, at ¾ dolphin and ¼ false killer whale. However, this wouldn’t be a new species unless wolphins mated with wolphins and produced fertile wolphins.

The rarest hybridization is the interfamilial hybrid. Most examples have occurred in birds, where game fowl are housed together. The Pea-guinea is a hybrid between a peacock and a guinea fowl hen. They look weird and don’t survive beyond a year or two, so there is no way that these could form a stable species.

It would take a bunch of posts to talk about why certain hybrids will work and others won’t, and why new species are not generally produced in this way. But for now - how about two exceptions?

What do you get when you cross a blueberry with a
snowberry (maggots, that is)? You get a Lornicera fly –
O.K. not a funny joke, but a pretty cool twist in
evolution. As fruitflies go, this is a pretty cool looking
one; you don’t have the ghoulish red eyes to deal with
and three stripes make it look a little like a lightbulb!
The Lonicera fly is a new species produced by natural interspecies hybridization! Just when you think you understand nature, there it goes again, kicking you in the seat of your pants.

The creation of this new fruit fly species did have a little help from humans. For about 250 years, honeysuckle plants have been imported to the North America from Europe. In the 1990’s scientists found the Lonicera fly and tried to see what other flies it was related to. Low and behold it was a hybrid of the snowberry maggot and the blueberry maggot. But why didn’t the hybrids breed with the parent species and dilute the hybrid genome back into the two stable species? How did the hybrid become a new, stable species?

These hybrid flies preferred to feed on the honeysuckle, so they lived on the imported plants, while the parent species lived on their favorites (snowberry bush or blueberry bush).  This is a kind of geographic isolation; the Lonicera hybrids find only Lonicera hybrids when it comes time to mate and they end up mating hybrid to hybrid for many generations. This resulted in a stable species, the process is called hybrid speciation.

The Heliconius heurippa butterfly has an unusually
large black bar that crosses its body. This must be
fairly obvious to other butterflies of the same
hybridization and it must also be pretty attractive.
Both male and female hybrids search out the wide
black bands. I would love to know the molecular
biology of that specificity of attraction.
The second exception is the Heliconius heurippa butterfly in South America. An interesting 2006 study in which hybridization was repeated in the laboratory showed that H. heurippa in nature is the result of breeding of two other species of butterflies. The hybrid does produce fertile offspring, both male and female, but that isn’t the end of the story. In this case, there isn’t any geographic isolation forcing hybrid-hybrid mating - they choose to mate together. Their choice is related to the fact that the hybrids have bold black stripes on its wings, while neither parent species does.

The hybrids preferentially mate with other butterflies with the bold stripes, so they are mating hybrid to hybrid and are stabilizing the new species. Darwin would blow his top – or maybe not. He never said this couldn’t happen, just that it was less likely.

Stay tuned, molecular techniques are beginning to show us that this may not be such an exception – a 2011 study identified another butterfly species created by hybrid speciation and it happens all the time in plants, like sunflowers. Three younger species, the desert, the puzzle, and the sand – seem to live where their parent species cannot, so they tend to pollinate with their similar hybrid brethren and make new species.

Next week we will ask why some birds migrate while others stay put year round.


Jesús Mavárez1, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham1, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins & Mauricio Linares (2006). Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies Nature, 41, 868-871 DOI: 10.1038/nature04738

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Biodiversity Counts!

Biology concepts – biodiversity, kingdoms of life, animalia, plantae, fungi, protist, archaea, bacteria, extant, extinct

It seems that contests counting things in jars
always involve food. M&Ms, jellybeans, candies,
and gumballs are common things to estimate. I like
another estimate game – how many grains of sand
can be held in one human hand?
Amazingly, only about 10,000.
At some point in our lives, we have all tried to win the prize by guessing how many jellybeans are in the jar. Number estimation is a skill few people possess, just try ordering mulch by the square yard – you end up with either half as much as you need or buried in pine bark!

There is a large group of scientists playing the jellybean game for a living, but their jar is the entire earth. The jellybeans are species of organisms. The prize? Well, you don’t get to keep the jellybeans; and just how will we know who wins?

The Question of the Day – How many species of life are there on Earth?

It seems like a straight forward question, but let’s look at it in a bit more detail before we try to answer it.  What is it we're counting, animals? Animals and plants? Let’s include everything – everything that is considered alive. So what is considered alive? You can have a great discussion as to what should be considered alive, but for these purposes, let’s stick to the kingdoms of life as taught in every biology class – Archaea, Bacteria, Protists, Fungi, Plants, and Animals.

So now that we know the biodiversity we are assessing, we need to define our unit. We said above that we would count species, but it isn’t that simple. We have discussed before what constitutes a species in general – those animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. So we don’t count ligers and tigons (crosses between tigers and lions), but should we count all the hybridizations of orchids? More than 24,000 species are named already, with about 800 added each year. For our purposes, and for most people estimating species, we will stick with those found in nature, unaided by man.

In 2012, Japanese botanists crossed two orchids and
created a new orchid. No big deal right, orchids are
crossed all the time. But this was the first time that a
photosynthesizing orchid was crossed with a purely
parasitic orchid that doesn’t perform photosynthesis.
They think the plants are doing some photosynthesis –
they’re pretty anyway. Is this a species we should
count in our estimate?
We are counting species, but is it live (extant) species or all species including those that are extinct? The World Wildlife Federation estimates that between 0.01% and 0.1% of all species go extinct each year. However many species we end up with as an estimate for all life on Earth, this is a huge number of species to lose EVERY YEAR. It is scary to think how many undiscovered species will go extinct this year. There must be thousands and thousands of species that we will never get to describe using a live specimen or discover how they might add to the diversity of the planet.

Scientists refer to “catalogued” species, but does that refer to those alive at the time the were described, or any species that has ever been described and named? Scientists estimate that extant species account for only 3% of everything that has lived on Earth, so including all species would greatly increased the overall number. However, in most estimates of species on Earth, the species being talked about are alive now, except for the one went extinct just this second, and the one that will go extinct two minutes from now, and the one….


The opposite action is also occurring; we discover new species every year. Most people think that perhaps a few new species are found each year, but it’s really in the thousands. The International Institute for Species Exploration (IISE) at Arizona State University publishes a list each year of the newly discovered species. For 2011 the list was more than 18,000 species long! You can see from the picture (below, right) that many discoveries were made in every kingdom of life in the decade of the 2000’s, more than 170,000 discoveries in all.

This graph shows the relative number of new species in many groups of
organisms. The scales are variable for each group and can’t be compared
amongst the groups. The trends show that in some groups, more and
more species are being discovered each year, while in others, fewer and
fewer are being found. In still others, some years a bunch are found and
some years provide few or no new species.
If 170,000 were discovered in ten years, the total number of species on Earth must be huge. Let’s break down the numbers of catalogued species and the estimates by kingdom.

Animalia – These are what most people think of when asked to name a species. Most animals are relatively big and can be seen in everyday life. The number of catalogued species includes the dinosaurs and humans, birds and sponges.  The numbers in each group vary greatly.

People love to study birds – so we have probably found a greater percentage of the total number of birds than we have worms. We have named about 10,000 species of birds, and more than 22,000 species of annelids (segmented worms). But there are probably many more annelids that we have not found as compared to birds. Therefore the estimate for annelids will be harder to make and perhaps less accurate.

For all animals, the total number of catalogued species by 2010 was 1.2 million. A recent paper (2011, Mora et al.) has predicted the number of species in most kingdoms based on several mathematical models. The authors predict that there are more than 9.9 million animal species on the Earth and in the oceans. According to this estimate, we have found only 12% of all the animals on Earth!

Meet the Giant Gippsland Earthworm 
(Megascolides australis). It can reach 3meters 
(10 feet) in length. First described in 1878, this 
worm lives in the deep clay soil in a small 
area in Australia. Similar worms live in North
America, but they are rarely observed.
Plantae – Plants include the non-vascular mosses, the vascular, spore-forming ferns and horsetails, the seed bearing gymnosperms (conifers and such) and the fruiting and flowering angiosperms. So many of these organisms are crucial for human life (medicine, food, oxygen!) we have done a good job of cataloguing them. The 2011 Mora paper surmises that we have already described nearly 50% of the total number of species.

Their methodology uses a lot of math to relate the number of higher taxa (phylums, orders, families) that are known in well-described kingdoms to the possible number in lesser studied groups. They found that there was a consistent pattern in which the more families there are now can be used to predict how many total genera there might be, and each level then can be used to predict the number in kingdoms for which the number of higher taxa are known. They also use methods to predict unknown higher taxa, so they can be included in the species estimate.

For plants, the Mora group predicts that there are 314,000 species extant on Earth. Other estimates also come out at about 300,000 species, but they include algae, which are actually protists, not plants.

Fungi – These organisms range from the invisible to the visible. In fact, in the paleoworld, fungi represented the largest organisms on Earth. Even today, the largest single organism is a fungus in the Malheur National Forest in Oregon, where a single 8,000 year old honey mushroom covers 2,200 acres (8,900 square meters) of land.

On the top is a fossilized prototaxite fungus in Saudi Arabia 
that once reached 20 ft (6 m) in height and was the tallest 
organism on the early Earth (this one is on its side). On the 
bottom is the national forest where a single honey mushroom mat 
has killed 2200 acres of trees. Each mushroom is a clone,
connected by a rhizoid mat just under the ground.
If you compare plant diversity to fungi, fungi win hands down. Described species of fungus lag behind; only 43,000 species have been named, but there is much more room to add new species. Estimates are that by the time we are done, whenever that is, we will have nearly 700,000 different mushrooms and other fungi.

Protista – Protists are a bit of a catch-all kingdom. Some have aspects that make them look like plants; they perform photosynthesis or they have central vacuoles. Others are much more animal-like. Overall, they are free-living organisms that are usually single celled or made up of many cells not forming tissues. Two examples show you the diversity in this group. Giant sea kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) is a type of brown algae that can grow at a rate of 2 ft/day and can reach a length of 300 ft (91.5 m), while picoplankton are 0.2 microns (0.00000002 m) in diameter, are single celled, and may or may not perform photosynthesis.

The estimates for the number of protists vary greatly. A 1998 study indicated that they had no reason to believe the total number of protist species would be greater than 3000. However, a 2005 report puts the estimate number anywhere from 140,000 to 1.6 million. The Mora group’s paper estimates that about 73,000 will be found; that’s 57,000 more than have been described as of 2010.

Archaea and Bacteria – These are the prokaryotes. They live in tar pits and arm pits; they own the planet and probably outer space as well. There are more bacteria in a scoop full of dirt then people who have ever lived on Earth. But for the purposes of our discussion today, the important part is that same scoop of dirt has thousands of undiscovered bacteria.

The J. Craig Venter Institute is leading the Global Ocean Sampling Expeditions to discover new marine microorganisms. A pilot expedition in 2003 identifed 1800 new species in just a couple of months. This was followed by global expeditions in 2005-2009 and an expedition to the European waterways in 2009-2010. They will analyzing the data and naming species for decades to come.

This map represents the expeditions of the Global Ocean Sampling Projects
of the Venter Institute. As they traveled, they would acquire 200-400 gallon
samples of water from different depths every 200 miles and put them
through a series of filters to catch smaller and smaller organisms. The filters
would be dried and used for DNA analysis. In just a couple of months, 1.2
million genes were identified using this methodology.
Most bacteria and archaea can’t be grown in the lab because we don’t know what they require to live. This makes them hard to describe and classify.  Therefore, the Venter Institute uses DNA techniques from dried whole organisms to identify new “species.”

But perhaps classification is not the proper term for these organisms. I talked to Dr. Mora about why prokaryotes were not analyzed to the same degree as other kingdoms in their paper.  He rightfully pointed out that species definitions don’t really apply to prokaryotes as neatly as they do other types of organisms.

Certainly they don’t conform to the mating and fertile offspring definition of species since they don’t mate. Also, since they swap DNA as usual business (lateral gene transfer), who is to say where one species stops and another begins.

Other sources are little more daring in projecting possible numbers of prokaryotes. It is possible that there are a billion distinct bacteria and archaea, but it more likely that the number is in the 10-20 million range.

What are our final numbers when add up all the estimates? Predicted species numbers for life on Earth range from 11.3 million in the Mora paper, to perhaps more than 1 billion if you include prokaryotes. If we leave the bacteria out of the equation, there could still be as many as 30,000,000 forms of life on the planet. We have described about 2 million (according to IISE), so only 28,000,000 left to find!


Mora, C., Tittensor, D., Adl, S., Simpson, A., & Worm, B. (2011). How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biology, 9 (8) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
 
ADL, S., SIMPSON, A., FARMER, M., ANDERSEN, R., ANDERSON, O., BARTA, J., BOWSER, S., BRUGEROLLE, G., FENSOME, R., FREDERICQ, S., JAMES, T., KARPOV, S., KUGRENS, P., KRUG, J., LANE, C., LEWIS, L., LODGE, J., LYNN, D., MANN, D., MCCOURT, R., MENDOZA, L., MOESTRUP, O., MOZLEY-STANDRIDGE, S., NERAD, T., SHEARER, C., SMIRNOV, A., SPIEGEL, F., & TAYLOR, M. (2005). The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 52 (5), 399-451 DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00053.x

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

An Evolutionary Ploy Employing Polyploidy

Biology concepts – polyploidy, autopolyploidy, allopolyploidy, gigas effect, heterosis

The Sixth Day was a cheesy science fiction thriller
about cloning. But plants do have different versions
of themselves in many cases, produced not by
cloning, but by polyploidization. I have no idea
what cloning Arnold had to do with the funky
lights in the eyes; maybe it is a vitamin D thing.
Imagine that there are three different versions of you, each with different strengths and weaknesses, living in different places and surviving in different ways. Sounds like a strange Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi movie; maybe one version of you has really big muscles and an accent.

For some organisms, this isn’t science fiction, it is science fact. In the last two weeks we discussed how one mammal manages to survive while being polyploidy in all its cells. We have also discussed how our bodies have discrete sets of polyploidy cell types. While these cells are crucial for human development, they are tightly regulated; indiscriminate polyploidy in humans is deadly- it's called cancer.

Now we can talk about whole groups of organisms that use polyploidy as a key to their evolution. Not only can they survive as polyploidy beings, they thrive on it.

A study from late 2012 highlights the importance of polyploidy in plants. It turns out that plants can tolerate being polyploid much better than most animals can. In fact, being polyploid is the reason for much of their success in colonizing different habitats.

The researchers in the 2012 study were looking at a plant called Atriplex canescens, a drought resistant shrub that lives in the Chihuahuan Desert of the American Southwest. A. canescens has three versions of itself, called cytotypes. One is diploid in all its cells (except the ovule and pollen sperm of course). Another is tetraploid (4n), and the third is hexaploid (6n). It turns out that each cytotype lives in a slightly different habitat in the desert, depending on how much water is available.

The hexaploid version lives in the clay, the type of soil that is most likely to be water-poor. The diploid cytotype lives in the sandy soil nearest the regular sources of water, and the 4n shrub lives in between. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the different ploidys result in different physiologic and structural characteristics. This turns out to be so.

When plants have more than two copies of each chromosome, it changes the structures of their leaves and stems. Polyploid plants tend to have larger, but less densely packed pores in their leaves. We talked about these pores, called stomata, in an earlier post. They are responsible for releasing water and oxygen to the outside world. This regulates the movement of water in the plant. As more water evaporates from the stomata, more is drawn up from the roots by negative pressure, called transpiration.

Embolisms are bad for plants in the xylem and for human in the 
arteries. Divers have to ascend slowly from deep dive so that 
the gases in their blood has time to adjust to the pressure 
change. If the rise too quickly, the gases come out of 
solution and forms bubbles in their vessels. This is called 
decompression sickness or the bends, and it can kill.
Polyploid plants also tend to have thicker epidermis layers on their leaves, and this, together with the lower density of stomata means that polyploid plants tend to lose less water than diploid version of the same species. That could be helpful in low water environments.

Polyploid plants also have changes in their xylem. The xylem is the vessel-like tissue that moves sugars and nutrients throughout the plant. In time of drought, low water levels can cause an air pocket to form in the xylem. This stops the xylem flow, much like an air or solid object embolus can stop the flow of blood when it gets stuck in a blood vessel. You wonder why the nurse takes such care to remove the air from the syringe when she gives you a shot? An air bubble getting stuck in an artery in your heart, lung, or brain could very well kill you.

Emboli formation is less likely in polyploid xylem, because the channels are bigger. This is good for safety and remaining alive in drought conditions, but it is not good for growing fast when more water is available. Therefore, the diploid versions of a species are more likely to live where there is more water, and the polyploid versions where there is less water.

This is exactly what the researchers found out. The hexaploid cytotype had the high measured water resistance, with the largest stomata, thickest leaves and widest xylem channels. The opposite was true for the diploid version, and the 4n cytotype was in the middle. Therefore, they show that water conservation and movement is different in the different ploidy plants and this accounts for their different habitats.

The gigas effect isn’t just seen in the watermelon fruit.
The leaves and flowers of the tetraploid version (on
the right) or bigger than those of the diploid watermelon
plant. More DNA means a bigger nucleus, and a bigger
nucleus needs a bigger cell. So all the structures get 
bigger as well.
One species being able to live in several habitats is quite the evolutionary advantage. They don’t compete with one another and they can colonize a larger portion of the land. Being polyploid is quite the boon for some plants.

The advantages all seem to come from size; bigger stomata, thicker epidermal cells, wider xylem. If a cell has more DNA to house, the cell is necessarily going to be bigger. This leads to the bigger plant structures, and their size leads to less water loss. If the conditions arise where water is not available in a certain area, these characteristics will be advantageous and selected for by evolution.

But larger cells are supposed to be one of the disadvantages of polyploidization. Called the gigas effect, larger cells leads to higher energy needs and altered surface area to volume ratios. These change can inhibit interactions between the plasma membrane proteins and cytoplasmic elements can be disadvantageous, even lethal. However, for some things in plants, like fruits, huge increases in DNA, up to 126n or more work just fine.

Do you like watermelon? More watermelon is better then, right? Melons grow large because of the gigas effect. Many watermelon species are triploid or higher. The strawberries that come coated in chocolate and are as big as your palm are very likely to be octaploid (8n).

Autopolyploids can arise from genome duplications, or from
hybridizations between a diploid gamete and a haploid
gamete, with later stabilization of the genome by
polyploidization. But all the genes come from one version of
the organism. Allopolyploidization (on the right) come from
hybridization of two different organisms, often with a sterile
first generation (F1), and polyploidization to return fertility.
This plant has several copies of different genes, so it has quite
the chance to become a new species.
Many crops are polyploid, the results of hybridizations and crosses over many years. These crosses have been meant to increase yields reduce disease susceptibility and expand the environments in which the crops can be grown. For hybrids of two different species, this is called allopolyploidy (allo = different). Using this method, we have developed strong wheat (hexaploid), apple (tetraploid), cotton (tetraploid), and sugar cane (octaploid) crops.

Many crop hybrids are often sterile in first generation, especially if they come about from autopolyploidy hybridizations. “Auto” means same, so these are crosses between variants of the same species, and are often associated with endoreplication events (see When Too Much Is Just Enough) giving a diploid gamete mating with a haploid gamete to give a triploid organism. Triploids are often sterile. This is how you have things like seedless watermelons and you know those little black dots in your banana, those are the undeveloped seeds. You have to propagate these plants by cuttings (called vegetative reproduction), not by seeds.

When you induce polyploidy in the triploid hybrids, they become fertile again, and they (and allopolyploids) also display another feature, called heterosis, also known as hybridization vigor. This heterosis is another reason why most of the cash crops of the world are polyploid. While the crosses are meant to alter traits, the resulting polyploidization increases heartiness. Still think GM crops are a bad idea – you’ve been eating them your entire life.

When plants undergo polyploidization, they have more
copies of each gene, called redundancy. This represented
by the green circles, only showing two here for convenience.
The plant may get rid of some copies, as in the left panel, or
may compartmentalize some of the functions in each allele
(subfunctionalization, on the right). In other cases, some alleles
may drift genetically, until they have new functions –
neofunctionalization, as show in the middle panel. New functions
could lead to a new species, if environmental changes make
them advantageous.
But heterosis could also have unwanted results. In the late 1800’s, hybrids of different spartina bush species were carried out in England in hopes of breeding a species that would better prevent erosion of the tidal mud flats. It turned out that the offspring underwent allopolyploidization and became too strong a species. The new species, Spartina anglica, underwent significant and rapid genetic changes and became invasive in salt marshes. It can crowd out other species and can grow dense enough to prevent some animals from moving from land to water.

The new talents of S. anglica are related to its polyploidization. When plants become polyploid, they may have lots of DNA with the same functions; therefore they tend to try and reduce their genetic load. This can occur by getting rid of some gene copies, or letting mutations run wild in some alleles, as others will still be around to perform the needed function.

This can lead to subfunctionalization (altered functions) or neofunctionalization (new functions) in the changing genes. New functions + change in environment can lead to new species, ie, speciation. Speciation due to polyploidy is apparent in 15% of angiosperms and 31% of ferns. In fact, 40-100% of flowering plants have some polyploidy in their past.

The sweet corn in your low country boil is a direct
effect of polyploidization. The sucrose produced in
polyploids is higher than in diploid corn, so
naturally we can’t get enough of the polyploidy
versions of corn. Sweet corn with shrimp, sausage,
and potatoes – can’t beat it.
But not every polyploid development is so simple. Sometimes the new cytotypes cannot quite overcome the problems inherent in having many more copies of genes all working at once. In corn for instance, some polyploid numbers are better tolerated than others. In 1996, Guo, the same primary researcher involved in the Atriplex work cited above, was working on haploid, diploid, triploid, and tetraploid versions of maize. He found that some gene products (proteins) did increase with increasing gene copy number, but others didn’t.

For example, sucrose synthase levels were twice as high in the 4n version as in the 2n version of maize as expected, but mRNA levels were 3x higher in the haploid plants and 6x higher in the triploid versions! Obviously, some regulatory pathways were not controlled as well at some of the polyploidy levels. In these plants, fully 10% of the genes had an “odd-ploidy” effect. This leads to less than stable cytotypes and poor endurance in the environment.

Next time, we will see that fish are one of the exceptions of the animal world. They tolerate polyploidy well, and we have even used that fact to increase our harvests, but also our headaches.


Hao GY, Lucero ME, Sanderson SC, Zacharias EH, Holbrook NM. (2012). Polyploidy enhances the occupation of heterogeneous environments through hydraulic related trade-offs in Atriplex canescens (Chenopodiaceae). New Phytol.

SALMON, A., AINOUCHE, M., & WENDEL, J. (2005). Genetic and epigenetic consequences of recent hybridization and polyploidy in Spartina (Poaceae) Molecular Ecology, 14 (4), 1163-1175 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02488.x

Guo M, Davis D, Birchler JA. (1996). Dosage effects on gene expression in a maize ploidy series Trends in Genetics, 12 (8) DOI: 10.1016/0168-9525(96)81463-6


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Polyploidy in angiosperms –

Polyploidy in crop plants –

Autopolyploidy and allopolyploidy –