Deflated egos and the G-value paradox

The Deflated Ego Problem refers to the fact that many scientists were very disappointed to learn we had less than 30,000 genes. Those scientists were expecting that the human genome would contain many more genes in line with their belief that humans must be genetically more complex than the "lower" animals. They should have known better since knowledgeable experts were predicting fewer than 30,000 genes and these same experts knew that humans don't need many more genes than other animals [see: Revisiting the deflated ego problem].

Disappointed scientists don't use the term "deflated ego;" instead they refer to their problem as the G-value paradox. This makes it seem like a real problem instead of just a mistaken view of evolution.

Michael Behe's third book

I'm looking forward to Michael Behe's third book, which is due to be published in February. As most of you probably know, Michael Behe is a biochemist and a former professor at Lehigh University in Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA. He's also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture—the most prominent organization pushing Intelligent Design Creationism.

This will be Behe's third book. The first one was Darwin's Black Box (1996) where he argued against evolution by suggesting that some cellular complexes (e.g. bacterial flagella) are irreducibly complex and could not possibly have evolved by natural means. His second book was The Edge of Evolution (2007) where the theme was that there are limits to evolution preventing it from accomplishing significant beneficial changes.

Latest Tango in Halifax

I've known Yana Eglit for many years. She frequently posts comments on this blog but you won't recognize her name because she uses a pseudonym.¹ Yana is a graduate student in the lab of Alastair Simpson at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. A few years ago she saw some strange organisms dancing in a Petri dish.²

The microorganisms belong to the group Hemimastigophora. Yana found them in a clump of dirt she picked up while hiking near Halifax. They named the species Hemimastix kukwesjijk. The group only contains a few other species.

Hemimastigophora is one of those protist groups that have been difficult to classify and difficult to place relative to other protists. It's traditionally been given the status of a phylum but its position in the eukaryotic tree was ambiguous.

The Simpson lab, in a collaboration with Andrew Roger's group, sequenced a number of genes (transcripts) from H. kukwesjijk and another species that they recently identified (Spirenema). The datasets contained samples of about 300 genes of each species. Trees constructed with this dataset place the Hemimastigophora near the base of the eukrayotic tree as a sister group to Diaphoretices. The work was published in a recent issue of Nature (Lax, Egrit, et al., 2018).

The details of eukaryotic taxonomy and the various subdivisions needn't concern us but the important take-home lesson is that there are a huge number of protists forming diverse groups that separated more than a billion years ago. The authors claim that Hemimastigophora deserves supra-kingdom status equivalent to the other supra-kingdoms shown in the figure (modified from Figure 4 of the paper).

The root of the eukaryotic tree is controversial. It could be at positions a, b, or c, shown in the figure. According to the authors, position a is the most favored these days. Regardless of where the root is actually placed, the new positioning of Hemimastigophora adds a lot of information to the deepest parts of the eukaryotic tree and brings us closer to identifying the most primitive features of the eukaryotic cell.

I wonder how many other strange species can be found in Canadian dirt?

---

Photo Credit: The photo of Yana Eglit at her microscope is from the Dalhousie University press office [Hidden in plain sight: Dal evolutionary biologists uncover a new branch on the Tree of Life]

1. Which she might accidentally reveal if she responds to this post!

2. The fact they were "dancing" gave me an excuse to use a corny title that refers to one of our favorite TV shows, "Last Tango in Halifax."

Lax, G., Eglit, Y., Eme, L., Bertrand, E. M., Roger, A. J., and Simpson, A. G. B. (2018) Hemimastigophora is a novel supra-kingdom-level lineage of eukaryotes. Nature. (in press) [doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0708-8]

Revisiting the deflated ego problem

Humans are just another animal. All animals share a core set of several thousand genes and all mammals have about the same number of homologous genes (~25,000). The differences between species such as gorillas, bats and whales are due almost exclusively to differences in the timing of expression of these common genes.

This concept is not new. It was the major theme of Stephen Jay Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, back in 1977 [Learning About EVO-Devo]. Over the next twenty years or so, the concept was confirmed repeatedly by the work of hundreds of developmental biology labs working mostly with model organisms such as Drosophila (fruit flies). The field is evolutionary developmental biology or "evo-devo" and that work has been nicely summarized in several popular books appearing in the 21st century.

Celebrating 50 years of Neutral Theory

The importance of Neutral Theory and Nearly-Neutral Theory cannot be exaggerated. It has radically transformed the way experts think about evolution, especially at the molecular level. Unfortunately, the average scientist is not aware of the revolution that took place 50 years ago and they still think of evolution as a synonym for natural selection. I suspect that 80% of biology undergraduates in North American universities are graduating without a deep understanding of the importance of Neutral Theory.¹

The journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution has published a special issue: Celebrating 50 years of the Neutral Theory. The key paper published 50 years ago was Motoo Kimura's paper on “Evolutionary rate at the molecular level” (Kimura, 1968) followed shortly after by a paper from Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes on "Non-Darwinian Evolution" (King and Jukes, 1969).

The special issue contains reprints of two classic papers published in Molecular Biology and Evolution in 1983 and 2005. In addition, there are 14 reviews and opinions written by editors of the journal and published earlier this year (see below). It's interesting that several of the editors of a leading molecular evolution journal are challenging the importance of Neutral Theory and one of them (senior editor Matthew Hahn) is downright hostile.

DNA Is Not Destiny by Steven J. Heine

DNA Is Not Destiny: The Remarkable Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes
by Steven J. Heine
W.W. Norton & Company, New York/London (2017)
ISBN: 978-0-393-24408-3

Steven Heine is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, B.C., Canada). He has written a book about the perils of DNA testing and his main thesis is that the results of such tests are bound to make you fell unhappy because you will learn that you have a higher risk of several nasty diseases. He warns us that the science behind these predictions is not nearly as solid as the testing companies would have you believe but his main point is the psychological impact of the test results. He claims that we are not conditioned to put the results into the proper perspective because we are pre-conditioned to adopt a very fatalist view of our genetic makeup.

He had his DNA analyzed by a number of companies. Here's some of what he learned from 23 and Me.

23andMe provided me with a gripping set of predictions about my health with real concrete numbers—I learned that I have a 2.1 percent chance of developing Parkinson's disease, and this is 32 percent higher than the average person. The 23andMe experience "felt" satisfying because it provided a wealth of highly specific and personal information about my health. But then, so would the fortune-teller down the street, and at least she isn't claiming any scientific foundation to her predictions.

The role of chance in evolution

I highly recommend this brief editorial by Naruya Saitou: "Chance, Finiteness, and History" (Saitou, 2018). Saitou is a strong proponent of Neutral Theory and the importance of random genetic drift. Together these influences, along with the "random" nature of mutation, introduce a major element of chance and accident into evolution.

Saitou was a student of Masatochi Nei and he recounts how he was influenced by Nei's 1987 book "Molecular Evolutionary Genetics." I remember reading that book 30 years ago and being very impressed with Nei's case for mutationism. Dan Graur also studied with Nei and he was kind enough to introduce me to Nei a few years ago in Chicago.

I think it's very clear that the role of chance in evolution, especially in molecular evolution, is very much underappreciated by the average scientist and by almost all non-scientists who are interested in the field. I doubt they will be convinced by a short essay but at least it will alert them to a different way of thinking.

Here's an example from Saitou's essay of that way of thinking ...

This world is finite. Our earth is just a 40,000-km circumference sphere. Life evolved on this tiny planet. We have to face the finiteness of the living world when we think about evolution. Random fluctuation of DNA copies (allele frequencies in classic sense) is a logical consequence of this finiteness. Because evolution follows time, evolution is historical. And chance played an important role in evolutionary history, as already noted by Darwin (1859). This is why I often mention three words—chance, finiteness, and history—in my talks and books as well as the title for this perspective.

Saitou is using "evolution" in two different senses. First, there's the ongoing process involving changes in allele frequencies and then there's the history of life. I think it's best to avoid using the word "evolution" as a stand-in for the history of life but that's just a quibble. The idea behind the history of life is that the pathway that each extant lineage has followed over the past three billion years is very much due to chance and accident. It's like Gould's idea that the tape of life can't be replayed.

The essay contains a sentence about junk DNA ...

From direct comparison of protein or RNA coding gene regions with noncoding regions of many genomes, it became clear that the majority of intergenic regions and introns are in fact “junk” DNA, as predicted by Ohno (1972).

This is about all the comment that's needed if you're a population geneticist. From their perspective, the debate is over and junk DNA won decisively over the speculation that most of our genome is functional. I wish more scientists, journalists, and philosophers would realize that the leading experts have reached a consensus on this subject.¹

---

1. Let me repeat what I've said many times before: you don't have to agree with the views of these experts but you do have to acknowledge what you are up against when you argue for function. Do not mislead your audience by ignoring the experts in order to make your own opinion seem more reasonable.

Saitou, N. (2018) Chance, finiteness, and history. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(6), 1556-1557. [doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy087]

John Mattick's latest attack on junk DNA

John Mattick is the most prominent defender of the idea that the human genome is full of functional sequences. In fact, he is just about the only scientist of any prominence who's on that side of the debate. His main "evidence" is the fact that genomes are pervasively transcribed and that most of the transcripts are functional. Let's look at his latest review paper to see how well this argument stands up to close scrutiny (Mattick, 2018).¹

As you read this post, keep in mind that in 2012 John Mattick was awarded a prize by the Human Genome Organization for proving his hypothesis [John Mattick Wins Chen Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in Human Genetic and Genomic Research].

The Award Reviewing Committee commented that Professor Mattick’s “work on long non-coding RNA has dramatically changed our concept of 95% of our genome”, and that he has been a “true visionary in his field; he has demonstrated an extraordinary degree of perseverance and ingenuity in gradually proving his hypothesis over the course of 18 years.”

Mattick follows his usual format by giving us his version of history. He has argued for the past 15 years that the scientific community has been reluctant to accept the evidence of massive amounts of regulatory RNA genes because it conflicts with the standard paradigm of the supremacy of proteins. In the past he has claimed that this paradigm is based on the Central Dogma which states, according to him, that the only real function of DNA is to make proteins [How Much Junk in the Human Genome?]. As we shall see, he hasn't abandoned that argument but at least he no longer refers to the Central Dogma for support

The great junk DNA debate

I've been talking to philosophers lately about the true state of the junk DNA controversy. I imagine what it would be like to stage a great debate on the topic. It's easy to come up with names for the pro-junk side; Dan Graur, Ford Doolittle, Sean Eddy, Ryan Gregory etc. It's hard to think of any experts who could defend the idea that most of our genome is functional. The only scientist I can think of who would accept such a challenge is John Mattick but let's imagine that he could find three others to join him in the great debate.

I claim that the debate would be a rout for the pro-junk side. The data and the theories are all on the side of those who would argue that 90% of our genome is junk. I don't think the functionalists could possibly defend the idea that most of our genome is functional. What do you think?

Assuming that I'm right, why is it that the average scientist doesn't know this? Why do they still believe there's a good case for function when none of the arguments stand up to close scrutiny? And why are philosophers not conveying the true state of the controversy to their readers? I'm told that anti-junk philosophers like Evelyn Fox Keller are held in high regard even though her arguments are easy to refute [When philosophers talk about genomes]. I'm told that John Mattick is highly respected in philosophy circles even though knowledgeable scientists have little use for his writings.

Can readers help me identify papers by philosophers of science that come down on the side of junk DNA and conclude that experts like Graur, Doolittle, etc are almost certainly correct?

---

Image Credit: The cartoon is by Tom Gauld and it was published online at the The New York Times Magazine website. I hope they will consider it fair use on an educational blog. See: Junk DNA comments in the New York Times Magazine.

Alternative splicing and the gene concept

I just learned about a workshop scheduled for the end of this month. The topic is: Evolutionary Roles of Transposable Elements and Non-coding DNA: The Science and the Philosophy.

I'd love to attend but it's a just small workshop designed to encourage dialogue between scientists and philosophers who are interested in the topic. Here's a list of the speakers ...

• Ryan Gregory: Junk DNA, genome size, and the onion test.
• Stefan Linquist: Four decades debating junk DNA and the Phenotype Paradigm is (somehow) alive and well.
• Chris Ponting: 92.9% of the human genome evolved neutrally.
• Paul Griffiths: Both adaptation and adaptivity are relevant to diagnosing function.
• Ford Doolittle: Selfish genes and selfish DNA: is there a difference?
• Justin Garson: Biological functions, the liberality problem, and transposable elements.
• Joyce Havstad: Evolutionary Thinking about Critique of Function Talk.
• Guillame Bourque: Impact of transposable elements on human gene regulatory networks.
• Ulrich Stegman: On parity, genetic causation and coding.
• Steven Downes: Understanding non-coding variants as disease risk alleles.
• Alexander Palazzo: How nuclear retention and cytoplasmic export of RNAs reduces the deleteriousness of junk DNA.
• David Haig: Pax somatica
• Cedric Feschotte: Transposable elements as catalysts of genome evolution.

Who wants "A Sad Case: Owen vs Huxley" pamphlet and a possible Darwin letter?

A friend has a neighbor who's in possession of a pamphlet from 1863 on the Owen vs Huxley debate. The text of the pamphlet is here: A Report of A SAD CASE, Recently tried before the Lord Mayor, OWEN versus HUXLEY, In which will be found fully given the Merits of the great Recent BONE CASE. A photocopy of the pamphlet is shown below along with a possible letter from Charles Darwin (I have not authenticated the letter).

The owners are willing to donate the material to a worthy cause, preferably a museum if it's valuable. Does anyone know of a worthy home?

---

How many protein-coding genes in the human genome?

The three main human databases (GENCODE/Ensembl, RefSeq, UniProtKB) contain a total of 22,210 protein-coding genes but only 19,446 of these genes are found in all three databases. That leaves 2764 potential genes that may or may not be real. A recent publication suggests that most of them are not real genes (Abascal et al., 2018). The issue is the same problem that I discussed in recent posts [Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published] [Nature falls (again) for gene hype].

Nature falls (again) for gene hype

Nature is arguably the most prestigious science journal. Articles published in Nature are widely perceived to be correct, unbiased, and factual. This perception is certainly true of articles that appear in the News section of the journal since these article are presumably written by expert science writers who have evaluated the new study and decided that it's worth reporting.

Sandwalk readers know that this perception is false (fake news). It turns out that science writers who publish in Nature are not very much better than science writers in general and that's not good.

I recently published a post about an extraordinary claim concerning the number of human genes [Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published ]. It concerns a paper posted on an archive site claiming to have found 4,998 new genes of which 1,178 are new protein-coding genes (Pertea et. al., 2018). About five weeks later another paper was posted that effectively refuted the claim of new protein-coding genes (Jungreis et al., 2018). In between publication of those two papers, a freelance science writer, Cassandra Willyard, wrote an article for Nature News that covered the original claim of 4,998 new genes [New human gene tally reignites debate].

Let's see how she handled the controversy.

Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published

Several readers alerted me to a paper that was posted on bioRxiv a few weeks ago (May 28, 2018). The paper claimed that the human genome contains 43,162 genes consisting of 21,306 protein-coding genes and 21,856 noncoding genes. The authors reported that they had discovered 3,819 new noncoding genes and 1,178 new protein-coding genes. In addition, they claim to have discovered 97,511 new splice variants raising the total number of splice variants to 12.5 per protein-coding gene although they seem to suggest that almost one-third of these splice variants are non-functional splicing errors. The most striking result, according to the authors, is that 95% of all transcripts are just transcriptional noise.

Here's the paper ...

Press release from the Francis Crick Institute misrepresents junk DNA

Press releases have become a serious problem. I'm frequently upset whenever I read a press release covering a field I'm familiar with. They rarely do a good job of explaining what's actually in the paper and putting it into the proper context. The people who write press releases are more concerned with sensationalizing the work than they are with teaching the general public about how science works. They often do this with the blessing and participation of the scientists who did the work.

Let me illustrate the problem using a recent examples from the Francis Crick Institute in London, UK [Non-coding DNA changes the genitals you're born with]. The press release covers a recent Science paper from the Lovell-Badge lab ....