Community-level evolutionary processes: Linking community genetics with replicator-interactor theory.

Understanding community-level selection using Lewontin's criteria requires both community-level inheritance and community-level heritability, and in the discipline of community and ecosystem genetics, these are often conflated. While there are existing studies that show the possibility of both, these studies impose community-level inheritance as a product of the experimental design. For this reason, these experiments provide only weak support for the existence of community-level selection in nature. By contrast, treating communities as interactors (in line with Hull's replicator-interactor framework or Dawkins's idea of the "extended phenotype") provides a more plausible and empirically supportable model for the role of ecological communities in the evolutionary process.

The role of purifying selection in the origin and maintenance of complex function.

Fitness contribution alone should not be the criterion of 'function' in molecular biology and genomics. Disagreement over the use of 'function' in molecular biology and genomics is still with us, almost eight years after publicity surrounding the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project claimed that 80.4% of the human genome comprises "functional elements". Recent approaches attempt to resolve or reformulate this debate by redefining genomic 'function' in terms of current fitness contribution. In its favour, this redefinition for the genomic context is in apparent conformity with predominant experimental practices, especially in biomedical research, and with ascription of function by selective maintenance. We argue against approaches of this kind, however, on the grounds that they could be seen as non-Darwinian, and fail to properly account for the diversity of non-adaptive processes involved in the origin and maintenance of genomic complexity. We examine cases of molecular and organismal complexity that arise neutrally, showing how purifying selection maintains non-adaptive genomic complexity. Rather than lumping different sorts of genomic complexity together by defining 'function' as fitness contribution, we argue that it is best to separate the heterogeneous contributions of preaptation, exaptation and adaptation to the historical processes of origin and maintenance for complex features.

'Species' without species.

Biological science uses multiple species concepts. Order can be brought to this diversity if we recognize two key features. First, any given species concept is likely to have a patchwork structure, generated by repeated application of the concept to new domains. We illustrate this by showing how two species concepts (biological and ecological) have been modified from their initial eukaryotic applications to apply to prokaryotes. Second, both within and between patches, distinct species concepts may interact and hybridize. We thus defend a semantic picture of the species concept as a collection of interacting patchwork structures. Thus, although not all uses of the term pick out the same kind of unit in nature, the diversity of uses reflects something more than mere polysemy. We suggest that the emphasis on the use of species to pick out natural units is itself problematic, because that is not the term's sole function. In particular, species concepts are used to manage inquiry into processes of speciation, even when these processes do not produce clearly delimited species.

Could this pandemic usher in evolution's next major transition?

Much discussion about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and whatever emerges as the 'new normal' has been psychological or political in nature, but there is a more inclusive evolutionary biological context in which we might understand it, ourselves, and our responsibilities to the planet.

Evolution: Two Domains of Life or Three?

That Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya (eukaryotes) represent three separate domains of Life, no one having evolved from within any other, has been taken as fact for three decades. Recent work shows this to be untrue. Eukarya arose from well within Archaea and are specifically related to newly discovered archaeal species with eukaryote-like features.

Neutral evolution of cellular phenotypes.

Eukaryotes exhibit a great diversity of cellular and subcellular morphologies, but their basic underlying architecture is fairly constant. All have a nucleus, Golgi, cytoskeleton, plasma membrane, vesicles, ribosomes, and all known lineages but one have mitochondrion-related organelles. Moreover, most eukaryotes undergo processes such as mitosis, meiosis, DNA recombination, and often perform feats such as phagocytosis, and amoeboid and flagellar movement. With all of these commonalities, it is obvious that eukaryotes evolved from a common ancestor, but it is not obvious how eukaryotes came to have their diverse structural phenotypes. Are these phenotypes adaptations to particular niches, their evolution dominated by positive natural selection? Or is eukaryotic cellular diversity substantially the product of neutral evolutionary processes, with adaptation either illusory or a secondary consequence? In this paper, we outline how a hierarchical view of phenotype can be used to articulate a neutral theory of phenotypic evolution, involving processes such as gene loss, gene replacement by homologues or analogues, gene duplication followed by subfunctionalization, and constructive neutral evolution. We suggest that neutral iterations of these processes followed by entrenchment of their products can explain much of the diversity of cellular, developmental, and biochemical phenotypes of unicellular eukaryotes and should be explored in addition to adaptive explanations.

Making Evolutionary Sense of Gaia.

The Gaia hypothesis in a strong and frequently criticized form assumes that global homeostatic mechanisms have evolved by natural selection favoring the maintenance of conditions suitable for life. Traditional neoDarwinists hold this to be impossible in theory. But the hypothesis does make sense if one treats the clade that comprises the biological component of Gaia as an individual and allows differential persistence - as well as differential reproduction - to be an outcome of evolution by natural selection. Recent developments in theoretical and experimental evolutionary biology may justify both maneuvers.

We simply cannot go on being so vague about 'function'.

Function is an onerous concept, as the recent study by Steven Salzberg and colleagues demonstrates. We should be careful and always specific in using the 'F-word'.

Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking.

Many practicing biologists accept that nothing in their discipline makes sense except in the light of evolution, and that natural selection is evolution's principal sense-maker. But what natural selection actually is (a force or a statistical outcome, for example) and the levels of the biological hierarchy (genes, organisms, species, or even ecosystems) at which it operates directly are still actively disputed among philosophers and theoretical biologists. Most formulations of evolution by natural selection emphasize the differential reproduction of entities at one or the other of these levels. Some also recognize differential persistence, but in either case the focus is on lineages of material things: even species can be thought of as spatiotemporally restricted, if dispersed, physical beings. Few consider-as "units of selection" in their own right-the processes implemented by genes, cells, species, or communities. "It's the song not the singer" (ITSNTS) theory does that, also claiming that evolution by natural selection of processes is more easily understood and explained as differential persistence than as differential reproduction. ITSNTS was formulated as a response to the observation that the collective functions of microbial communities (the songs) are more stably conserved and ecologically relevant than are the taxa that implement them (the singers). It aims to serve as a useful corrective to claims that "holobionts" (microbes and their animal or plant hosts) are aggregate "units of selection," claims that often conflate meanings of that latter term. But ITSNS also seems broadly applicable, for example, to the evolution of global biogeochemical cycles and the definition of ecosystem function.

On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk.

The idea that much of our genome is irrelevant to fitness-is not the product of positive natural selection at the organismal level-remains viable. Claims to the contrary, and specifically that the notion of "junk DNA" should be abandoned, are based on conflating meanings of the word "function". Recent estimates suggest that perhaps 90% of our DNA, though biochemically active, does not contribute to fitness in any sequence-dependent way, and possibly in no way at all. Comparisons to vertebrates with much larger and smaller genomes (the lungfish and the pufferfish) strongly align with such a conclusion, as they have done for the last half-century.

Darwinizing Gaia.

The Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock was co-developed with and vigorously promoted by Lynn Margulis, but most mainstream Darwinists scorned and still do not accept the notion. They cannot imagine selection for global stability being realized at the level of the individuals or species that make up the biosphere. Here I suggest that we look at the biogeochemical cycles and other homeostatic processes that might confer stability - rather than the taxa (mostly microbial) that implement them - as the relevant units of selection. By thus focusing our attentions on the "song", not the "singers", a Darwinized Gaia might be developed. Our understanding of evolution by natural selection would however need to be stretched to accommodate differential persistence as well as differential reproduction.

Molecular Phylogenetics and the Perennial Problem of Homology.

The concept of homology has a long history, during much of which the issue has been how to reconcile similarity and common descent when these are not coextensive. Although thinking molecular phylogeneticists have learned not to say "percent homology," the problems are deeper than that and unresolved.

Microbial Evolution: Xenology (Apparently) Trumps Paralogy.

Within-genome gene duplication is generally considered the source of extra copies when higher dosage is required and a starting point for evolution of new function. A new study suggests that horizontal gene transfer can appear to play both roles.

The Modern Synthesis in the Light of Microbial Genomics.

We review the theoretical implications of findings in genomics for evolutionary biology since the Modern Synthesis. We examine the ways in which microbial genomics has influenced our understanding of the last universal common ancestor, the tree of life, species, lineages, and evolutionary transitions. We conclude by advocating a piecemeal toolkit approach to evolutionary biology, in lieu of any grand unified theory updated to include microbial genomics.

What Is the Tree of Life?

A universal Tree of Life (TOL) has long been a goal of molecular phylogeneticists, but reticulation at the level of genes and possibly at the levels of cells and species renders any simple interpretation of such a TOL, especially as applied to prokaryotes, problematic.

Archaea.

A headline on the front page of the New York Times for November 3, 1977, read "Scientists Discover a Way of Life That Predates Higher Organisms". The accompanying article described a spectacular claim by Carl Woese and George Fox to have discovered a third form of life, a new 'domain' that we now call Archaea. It's not that these microbes were unknown before, nor was it the case that their peculiarities had gone completely unnoticed. Indeed, Ralph Wolfe, in the same department at the University of Illinois as Woese, had already discovered how it was that methanogens (uniquely on the planet) make methane, and the bizarre adaptations that allow extremely halophilic archaea (then called halobacteria) and thermoacidophiles to live in the extreme environments where they do were already under investigation in many labs. But what Woese and Fox had found was that these organisms were related to each other not just in their 'extremophily' but also phylogenetically. And, most surprisingly, they were only remotely related to the rest of the prokaryotes, which we now call the domain Bacteria (Figure 1).

Eukaryotes first: how could that be?

In the half century since the formulation of the prokaryote : eukaryote dichotomy, many authors have proposed that the former evolved from something resembling the latter, in defiance of common (and possibly common sense) views. In such 'eukaryotes first' (EF) scenarios, the last universal common ancestor is imagined to have possessed significantly many of the complex characteristics of contemporary eukaryotes, as relics of an earlier 'progenotic' period or RNA world. Bacteria and Archaea thus must have lost these complex features secondarily, through 'streamlining'. If the canonical three-domain tree in which Archaea and Eukarya are sisters is accepted, EF entails that Bacteria and Archaea are convergently prokaryotic. We ask what this means and how it might be tested.