Advertisement

Cell System Complexity and Biological Evolution

  • Michele Sarà
Chapter

Abstract

According to the recent knowledge on cell and genome functioning the whole cell system directed by genes, and not the genes alone, should be considered as the basic evolutionary level. Gene changes cannot be considered, as in the neo-darwinian orthodoxy, only as stochastic changes because are submitted to several endogenous and exogenous constraints. Moreover, natural selection works on phenotypes that don’t exactly mirror genomic changes but are strongly influenced by the epigenetic cell processes. The cell system produces the proteome and the whole cell phenotype through a continuous molecular talking based on a bidirectional information flow linking genome and membrane receptors. However, in a pluricellular organism, the single cell systems shall be always considered inside the framework of tissue interactions.

The dynamic autopoietic processes based on the cell system complexity are characterized by robustness but also plasticity. Stresses, i.e. stimuli beyond the threshold, may provoke their breakdown but may be also the cause of incipient evolutionary changes. These become effective if may be transmitted through generations and are not eliminated by natural selection. Transmission may occur through epigenetic or epigenetically induced genetic mechanisms. As the epigenetic way seems presently too little stable to represent a general mechanism I consider an epigenetically induced genetic way as the most fruitful working hypothesis for linking the cell system autopoietic changes to the evolutionary novelties. It could be based on the genetic assimilation of plastic traits.

Keywords

Phenotypic Plasticity Biological Evolution Epigenetic Inheritance Genetic Assimilation Germ Cell Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Aranda-Anzaldo A., The Hox-gene research programme and the shortcomings of molecular preformationism,Riv. Biol./Biol. Forum 93 (2000), 57–82.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baldwin J.M., A new factor in evolution,Am. Nat. 30 (1896), 441–541.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Chapman L.J., Galls F., Shinn J., Phenotypic plasticity and the possible role of genetic assimilation: Hypoxia-induced trade-offs in the morphological traits of an African cichlid, Ecol. Lett. 3 (2000), 387–393.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cubas P., Vincent C., Coen E., An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral simmetry, Nature 401 (1999), 157–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cullis C.A., Control of variation in higher plants, in: “Evolutionary processes and metaphors”, M.W. Ho and S.W. Fox eds., J. Wiley, New York 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Foster P.L., Mechanisms of stationary phase mutation: a decade of adaptive mutation,Annu. Rev. Genet. 33 (1999), 57–88.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Foster P.L., Rosche W.A., Adaptive mutation in Escherichia coli strain FC40, J. Genetics 78 (1999), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Galls F., Metz J.A.J., Why are there so many cichlid species?, Tr. Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Girard L., Freeling M., Regulatory changes as a consequence of transposon insertion, Dev. Genet. 25 (1999), 197–200.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Goldschmidt R.B., The material basis of evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven 1940.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Grunstein M., Histones as regulators of genes, Sci. Amer. 267 (1992), 68–74B.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gutkind J.S. (ED.), Signaling networks and cell cycle control: the molecular basis of cancer and other diseases, Humana Press, Totowa, N.J. 2000.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Herbert A., Rich A., RNA processing and the evolution of eukaryotes, Nat. Genet. 21 (1999), 265–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Holliday R., Mechanisms for the control of gene activity during development,Biol. Rev. 65 (1990), 431–471.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jablonka E., Lachmann M., Lamb M.J., Evidence, mechanisms and models for the inheritance of acquired characters, J. Theor. Biol. 158 (1992), 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Jablonka E., Lamb M.J., The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations, J. Theor. Biol. 139 (1989), 69–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Jablonka E., Lamb M.J., Epigenetic inheritance and evolution. The Lamarckian dimension, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Jordan J.D., Landau E.M., Iyengar R., Signaling networks: the origins of cellular multitasking, Cell 103 (2000), 193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Kadonaga J.T., Grunstein M., Chromosomes and expression mechanisms: the packaging is the message, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9 (1999), 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Kauffman S.A., The origins of order, self-organization and selection in evolution, Oxford University Press, New York 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Kidwell M.G., Lisch D.R., Transposable elements and host genome evolution, Tr. Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000), 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Landman O.E., The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations,Annu. Rev. Genet. 25 (1991), 1–20.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Lauffenburger D.A., Cell signaling pathways as control modules: complexity for simplicity?,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (2000), 5031–5033.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lidholm D.A., Lohe A.R., Hatl D.R., The transposable element mariner mediates germline transformation in Drosophila melanogaster, Genetics 134 (1993), 859–868.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Lombardo M.J., Rosenberg S.M., Hypermutation in stationary-phase Escherichia coli: tales from the lac operon, J. Genet. 78 (1999), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Losos J.B., Creer D.A., Glossip D., Goellner R., Hampton A., Roberts G., Haskell N., Taylor P., Ettling J., Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in the hindlimb of the lizard Anolis sagrei, Evolution 54 (2000), 301–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Morata G., Struhl, Fly fishing downstream, Nature 348 (1990), 547–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Morgan H.D., Sutherland H.G.E., Martin D.I.K., Whitelaw E., Epigenetic inheritance in the mouse, Nat. Genet. 23 (1999), 314–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Nieuwkoop P.D., Sutasurya L.A., Primordial germ cells in the invertebrates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1981.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Nyers C., Follet N., Synexpression groups in eukaryotes, Nature 402 (1999), 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Pagel M., Krakauer D.C., Prions and the new molecular phenetics, Tr. Ecol. Evol. 11 (1996), 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Pawson T., Nash P., Protein-protein interactions define specificity in signal transduction, Genes Dev. 14 (2000), 1027–1047.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Rollo C.D., Phenotypes: their epigenetics, ecology and evolution, Chapman and Hall, London 1994.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Rutherford S.L., Lindquist S., Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution, Nature 396 (1998), 336–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Sarà M., Biological evolution: a holistic organism-centered approach,Riv. Biol./ Biol. Forum 86 (1993), 347–359.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Sarà M., A “sensitive” cell system,Riv. Biol/Biol. Forum 89 (1996), 139–148.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Sarà M., New perspectives on the role of constraints in evolution,Riv. Biol./ Biol. Forum 92 (1999), 29–52.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Sarà M., Lamarckian aspects in contemporary biology,Epistemologia 22 (1999), 223–250.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Schibler U., Sierra F., Alternative promoters in developmental gene expression, Annu. Rev. Genet. 21 (1987), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Schlichting C.D., Pigliucci M., Phenotypic evolution. A reaction norm perspective, Sinauer, Sunderland, Ma. 1998.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Serio T.R., Lindquist S.L., PSI+: an epigenetic modulator of translation termination efficiency, Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 15 (1999), 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Smith-Gill S.J., Developmental plasticity: developmental conversion versus phenotypic modulation,Am. Zool. 23 (1983), 47–55.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Steele E.J., Blanders R.V., The reverse transcriptase model of somatic hypermutation, Phil Trans. R. Soc. Loud. B 356 (2001), 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Sultan S.E., Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants,Evol. Biol. 21 (1987), 127–178.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Szathmary E., Jordan F., Pal C., Can genes explain biological complexity?, Science 292 (2001), 1315–1316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Varmuza S., Gametic imprinting as a speciation mechanism in mammals,Theor. Biol. 164 (1993), 1–13.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Waddington C.H., Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters,Nature 150 (1942), 563–565.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Waddington C.H., Genetic assimilation of an acquired character,Evolution 7 (1953), 118–126.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Wolffe A.P., Matzke M.A., Epigenetic regulation through repression, Science 286 (1999), 481–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Zuckerkandl E., Villet R., Concentration-affinity equivalence in gene regulation: Convergence of genetic and environmental effects, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85 (1988), 4784–4787CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Sarà
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento per lo studio del Territorio e delle sue RisorseGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations