BEACON Researchers at Work: Bases vs Bytes- Bioinformaticians to the Rescue

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by University of Texas at Austin Research Scientist Dhivya Arasappan.

Dhivya

Bioinformatics is an interdisciplinary field in which computer algorithms and statistical methods are applied to answer biological questions. It is a field that is often talked about as the next biggest thing; it is a field I knew nothing about when I started college. As it happens with many things in life, I never planned on becoming a bioinformatician, but I’m happy that I did. After completing my undergraduate studies in Computer Science, I was underwhelmed by the standard career opportunities that were available to me. I was interested in applying computer algorithms towards a greater goal. This is when I learned about the field of bioinformatics and I chose to to do my graduate work in it. Now after 7 years as a bioinformatician, I can say that the challenges in the field are more interesting and the demand greater than ever. With the advent of next generation sequencing, our ability to generate biological data is rapidly outpacing our ability to store and make sense of it. This has made bioinformatics crucial both in research and industry settings.

rhazyaplant_bob1At the University of Texas at Austin, I work at the Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (CCBB) as part of the bioinformatics consulting group. At its core, what I do as a bioinformatician is parse through large amounts of data to identify patterns that may be biologically meaningful. A large and often most exciting aspect of my job is collaborating with labs to guide experimental design and perform computational analysis of their high throughput data sets. For the last two years, I’ve worked with Dr. Bob Jansen’s lab to sequence, assemble and annotate a medicinally important desert plant known as Rhazya stricta. This plant grows abundantly in arid environments in the Middle East and India and belongs to the Apocynaceae family and Gentianales order. Like others in the Gentianales order, Rhazya is a producer of monoterpenoid indole alkaloids. These compounds are of great interest because several have antibacterial activity and some have found use as anticancer agents. We assembled and annotated the nuclear genome of Rhazya stricta in order to better understand the pathways related to the generation of these compounds. For the de novo assembly of the genome, we generated data from multiple sequencing platforms. Each sequencing platform comes with inherent strengths and weaknesses. Some, like PacBio, produce very long reads which are conducive to whole genome assembly, but are low in yield and high in error. Other platforms, like the Illumina HiSeq, produce a high yield of high quality reads, but the reads are short in length. By using a complementary set of data from multiple platforms, we were able to generate a high quality genome assembly. Bioinformatically, it is a challenge to find a genome assembler that is well equipped to handle data from multiple platforms. These challenges are compounded by the fact that each platform has different error rates and is prone to different types of sequencing errors. We used an iterative assembly method by pipelining multiple assembly, gap filling and scaffolding tools in sequence to generate a high quality draft genome in a reasonable amount of time. By annotating this genome, we’ve been able to elucidate some of the metabolic pathways in the plant.

RHAplant_bob2Along with our collaboration and research efforts, another important facet of the consulting group is training. We provide numerous educational opportunities for researchers from within UT and outside to learn bioinformatics skills. These skills become especially vital when the researchers are bombarded with their own large-scale data sets and need to parse something meaningful out of them. I have had an opportunity to teach and train many graduate students, post-docs and professors in the last 2 years and it has been a very rewarding experience. As part of our Big Data in Biology Summer School program, I teach an Introduction to RNA-Seq course that allows students to get hands-on skills in analyzing RNA-Seq data sets. Apart from this longer course, I also teach 3-hour short courses during the fall and spring semesters on topics related to data analysis. We also strive to develop the bioinformatics community within the University and on that front, I run a monthly meeting of bioinformaticians called byte club. A play on the movie title Fight Club, byte club, offers a place for people doing bioinformatics and people interested in bioinformatics to listen to an interesting talk, communicate with each other and hopefully resolve issues that they may be facing.

classroomAnother exciting avenue for bioinformatics training that is opening up at UT is a new stream as part of the freshman research initiative called ‘Big data in Biology’. The Freshman Research Initiative (FRI) provides first-year students the opportunity to participate in real research with UT faculty and staff. It has been a very successful program for the last 10 years and this spring, FRI is introducing three new technology streams that focus specifically on improving undergraduates’ industry relevant technological skills. I will be the technology educator responsible for the Big Data in Biology stream and I’m very excited about the prospect of designing a curriculum and research projects to impart undergraduates with skills in large-scale data analysis.

As a member of the bioinformatics consulting group, I believe I help enable cutting-edge research, both by collaborating with labs on all aspects of their projects and by educating the community on bioinformatics skills. This is very fulfilling and it makes going to work every day a joy.

For more information about Dhivya’s work, you can contact her at darasappan at mail dot utexas dot edu.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BEACON Researchers at Work: Pacific Land Snail Evolution

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by University of Idaho postdoc Andrew Kraemer. 

Andrew Kraemer“When was the last time this island was searched for snails?” I asked as I picked my way through the loose cobble of lava rock.

“Over 100 years,” Christine replied. “The last time a malacologist searched Santa Fé was during the California Academy of Sciences Galápagos Expedition of 1905-1906.”

A 100-year gap between censuses is only one of the reasons I find myself looking for Galápagos snails (genus Naesiotus) during my postdoc with Dr. Christine Parent. Islands like Santa Fé, it turns out, are not particularly hospitable to snails. These islands are hot, dry, and often go through rapid shifts in climate. As a result, any snails found may be recent colonists from older, larger islands. Similarly, species found on the young volcanoes of the archipelago are also colonists. By comparing these young colonists to species found on older islands, we hope to learn more about the colonization process.

After a long ascent, we finally climb onto the heap of boulders that constitute one of Santa Fé’s small peaks. While much of the island is hot and dry, clouds passing over sometimes drift low enough to bump up against these peaks. As a result, snails are able to eke out a living in the moist grass clumps that grow at the highest points of the island. On our trip to Santa Fé, we find 4 adults and a handful of juvenile snails of Naesiotus cucullinus. A small and tenuous population, but a live population nonetheless.

Through this research I am lucky to explore corners of Galápagos that few are given access to. As a result, we sometimes rediscover species long presumed extinct (e.g. Naesiotus rabidensis) or even find snails that do not correspond to any species previously described.

Pacific land snailOur research requires us to seek out these snails wherever they live, whether that is on a tiny island, the rim of a volcano, or at a construction site. We use a portable spectrometer to measure shell coloration in the field and collect empty shells to measure shell shape back in the lab. Previous research on these species has indicated that shell size and shape are tightly linked to local environment, and our recent work suggests that bird predators may direct the evolution of shell coloration. As for the colonist species, we are finding phenotypic similarities among species found on young volcanoes and among those found on small, relatively inhospitable islands. This could be due to rapid evolution after colonization or a filtering process that determines which species become successful colonists in the first place. We are currently constructing a new phylogeny of all Galápagos Naesiotus snails, living and extinct, that should indicate which scenario is most likely.

Unfortunately, extinction is all too common in Galápagos and other Pacific islands. In particular, land snails like Naesiotus have been hit hard by many recent threats, including rats, invasive snails, habitat destruction, and even direct collection by humans. A reasonable question, then, is which species are we losing? Furthermore, why those species and not others? Another project I am working on will attempt to answer those questions for two snail groups (Galápagos Naesiotus snails and the tree snails of Hawaii), both of which have endured massive declines over the last 100 years. For this project I will visit several museums around the U.S. that have extensive snail shell collections. Using these collections and the records associated with them I will characterize distribution, shell size, shell shape, and shell coloration for each species. At the same time, my host lab (Parent) and a collaborator in Hawaii (the Holland Lab) will be expanding the phylogenies of each snail group using next generation and ancient DNA sequencing techniques. Together, we will find out if the catastrophic declines within these two major radiations are randomly distributed, or if the declines are funneling away the ecological and morphological diversity these groups are known for. The former result would be disturbing, but the latter result would prove ruinous for the evolutionary heritage of these two groups.

The voyage of the Beagle and Darwin’s theory of natural selection ensured Galápagos would forever be a mecca for biologists, the truly astounding species make it a place worth studying, and the shocking recent declines of some of its fauna adds urgency to this work. My hope is that our research will contribute to the important conservation efforts of other scientists in the Pacific.

For more information about Andy’s work, please see his website or email him at: akraemer at uidaho dot edu.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BEACON Researchers at Work: Providing computational methods for biological research

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by University of Texas at Austin research scientist Dennis Wylie.

Chimera of goat and lionI’ve always been intrigued by the combination of seemingly incongruous things. As a child I loved stories about strange chimerical creatures composed of one part this animal, two parts that, and so on — not just for the fantastic nature of the imagery but also because I couldn’t stop asking myself questions like “how does the goat head feel when the lion head eats a goat?” As an adult I’ve therefore found it particularly interesting to be working in the field of computational biology: the goals and methods of one discipline often seem bizarre from the perspective of another, but sometimes the contrast helps to bring out something new and unexpected.

Since January I’ve worked at the Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (CCBB) at the University of Texas as part of the bioinformatics consulting group. We work with faculty members across several departments pursuing a large variety of different projects which in one way or another involve large-scale data sets and complex computational analyses, largely (though certainly not exclusively) based around next-generation sequencing (NGS). In the few months since I have joined the group, I have worked on projects applying computational approaches for NGS variant calling, methylation profiling via bisulfite sequencing, RNA-Seq differential expression analysis, RIP-Seq analysis, and metagenomics, among other methods.

svm_radial_c1_g12p5_contour

Probabilities of proneural vs. mesenchymal subtype (blue indicates higher probability of proneural, black of mesenchymal) predicted by toy SVM model designed to demonstrate overfitting and trained on RNA expression levels of two genes as measured by sequencing (GSE57872). Hollow inverted triangles are specimens which were assigned mesenchymal subtype according to Patel et al 2014 (Science 344: 1396-1401), while filled-in triangles represent specimens assigned to proneural subtype. Contours represent probability levels approximately equal to 50% or 100%; in each of the primarily mesenchymal and primarily proneural regions of the plot, a few samples of the opposite subtype create a “hole” region in which the prediction is flipped.

The project with which I have been most heavily involved here at UT is the ongoing study of the proteasome in Andreas Matouschek’s lab. While it has been well established for some time that the attachment of polyubiquitin chains to proteins targets them for degradation by the proteasome, some proteins are degraded with much less efficiency than others even when polyubiquitinated. Matouschek’s group has shown that the breakdown of polyubiquitinated proteins is accelerated by the presence of an unstructured region which can serve as an initiation site for the proteasome to begin the degradation process. Moreover, they have demonstrated through experiments varying the length and complexity of peptide tail sequences appended to fluorescent proteins that there are observable patterns in the types of peptides which serve as more or less effective initiation sites. The rich complexity of the space of relevant peptide structural features, combined with the increasingly large data sets the Matouschek lab is now generating, makes this a promising meeting ground for biophysical, computational, and statistical methodologies. In this context I am currently providing consultation applying algorithmic pattern recognition methods to help tease out in more detail which features determine proteasomal degradation efficiency.

Dennis WylieAt the CCBB I also have the opportunity to teach the methods I help apply in various research projects to students, postdocs, and anyone else who might be interested. At the end of every May we offer a slate of courses composing our “Summer School for Big Data in Biology,” for which this year I put together a course in machine learning methods for gene expression analysis (based both on my experience at UT and my prior work as a bioinformatician in industry developing molecular diagnostic tests). In planning the syllabus, assembling examples, teaching the techniques, and discussing the many potential applications with students, I had plenty of time to contemplate the interplay of ideas (and, more prosaically, of different jargons) from biology, mathematics, computer science, and many other fields. For example, the idea of model overfitting (e.g., see contour plot of overfit SVM classification model), whether done by human or by machine, lurks in the background of pretty much every scientific field (though not always known by that name).

It is my hope that in providing both research consultation and educational services at the CCBB we are assisting in the ongoing synthesis of scientific theory such that future generations will more easily appreciate the harmonies between disciplines. Combinations that today seem bizarre chimeras may one day be appreciated as natural fauna inhabiting the scientific landscape.

For more information about Dennis’ work, you can contact him at denniswylie at austin dot utexas dot edu.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Misnomers and Mixed Intentions: Communicating Science is Hard

Reposted from the Teaching Evolution in Action blog

By Chris Symons

Chris SymonsThe route of information between the raw data of scientific experimentation to the public’s understanding is convoluted. The murky water of scientific communication is problematic at best, if anyone ever hopes to get the public united behind a scientific issue, they will need to learn to navigate these problems with science communication they can expect to encounter.

There are a couple key factors, notably term misuse and biased/sensational media, to be blamed for many communication misconceptions.

Term misuse causes inaccurate understandings of definitions. For example, pop culture and video games are sources of evolution being used incorrectly. In the Pokémon series the ‘evolution’ that transpires in the game is actually a metamorphosis, and while this mix up is certainly innocent enough, it is term misuse that reinforces evolution as being a deliberate, linear, immediate process. In other words, that two chimpanzees suddenly birthed a human child, for example. This is a common misunderstanding, that evolution occurs in a single glorious moment and a new species is born. Evolution is a process that occurs over generations, with no specific direction, resulting in very gradual changes to the gene pool.

Pictured: Not evolution

Another word that is under constant contention is ‘theory’, which suffers from different use by scientists, as opposed to the general public. People attach the uncertainty that the common understanding of ‘theory’ has, to the way scientists use it, and this is highly confusing. When scientists use the term ‘theory’, it means an idea that is heavily tested, and heavily reinforced and supported by evidence. Gravity, evolution, continental drift, heavy bombardment, and relativity are all theories- yet we do not see the heavy doubt and denial with all of them.

There is another great divide in communication, due to differing goals of all the people the information must get through to get to the public ear. The scientist may want to convey his data neutrally, and make sure she is not making any assertions her colleagues and fellow scientists will question too harshly. That information could be picked up by a researcher, who wants to use particular points from the dense and technical write up of the findings for a specific purpose. The researcher will emphasize these specific points to suit their purpose. If the media gets involved, their prerogative is getting as many viewers or page views as possible, so they will often lean towards sensationalism by exaggerating points further. Even though the information is still the same, the way it is presented and viewed changes the way it is received and understood. This leads to misunderstanding.

Both of these processes occur commonly, and warp the public’s understanding of scientific information. Communication is critical for re-establishing a higher degree of trust and understanding between the public and the people who do science for their careers. The potential oversight of these roadblocks can be nothing short of disastrous to the relationship between citizens and science. My advice to the general public would be to look hard at your sources of news, and stay engaged and curious about the world. My advice to scientists is to avoid highbrow scientific jargon, or writing too dryly and complexly, when dealing with the public. I also highly recommend every scientist engage actively in social media. What better way to relay information directly to the public than to access them directly? For citizens to obtain information from scientists directly, would be a fantastic step towards a more educated public body- and I have no doubt this educated public would be more united to act on issues like climate change, vaccinations, and evolution.

I have recently discovered a wonderfully inspiring TEDx talk delivered by Sheril Kirshenbaum, all about communicating science. Check it out here-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Passing of Prof. John Holland, father of genetic algorithms and pioneer in complex systems

August 10, 2015

Dear BEACONites,

It is with great sadness that I report the death yesterday of Prof. John H. Holland, Professor of Psychology and of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan. John, 86, succumbed to an illness he had been dealing with for a few years, although he did manage to publish two books in the last three years in spite of it. Until very recently, he was as full of ideas and as animated as ever.

John HollandJohn invented genetic algorithms in the 1960’s, proving a number of theorems about them before they had been so named. He also pioneered then what are now called “learning classifier systems,” although he called them only “classifier systems.” John led the development of a marvelous multi-disciplinary Ph.D. program at UM, in “Computer and Communication Sciences.” He was the reason I went to UM for my Ph.D., and was my teacher and mentor in learning about genetic algorithms, although his former student Bernie Zeigler served as my academic advisor, so I am formally Holland’s “academic grandchild.” John founded the Logic of Computers Group with the late Prof. Art Burks, another brilliant thinker (logician and automata theorist) and co-inventor of the ENIAC Computer at Penn. John was largely responsible for making that research group an inspiring place to work and a fun place to spend as many hours as possible each week!

After publication of John’s book “Analysis of Natural and Artificial Systems” in 1975, he became widely recognized and lauded as the father of GA’s. He received many awards, including the MacArthur Fellowship, the Louis Levy Medal, and UM’s highest award for a faculty member.

John was also a co-founder and still a Trustee and External Professor of the Santa Fe Institute, which has been for many years a leading place where economists, physicists, computer scientists, biologists and others formulated the concepts of complex systems that are so important in science and economics today. Many of these leaders were Nobel Laureates, and John was highly esteemed among them. He wrote many books on complex systems, many of which were inspired by his study of the basic requirements for spawning of living organisms.

UM’s Center for the Study of Complex Systems was the brain-child of the highly multidisciplinary BACH group, of which John Holland was a founder–Burks (Art), Axelrod (Bob), Cohen (Michael), and Holland (John). Others joined the group after the 1980’s.

I am greatly saddened by John’s passing–he has always been a great inspiration to me–but I take consolation from knowing that his memory and his legacy will survive long beyond our generation of scientists.

Erik Goodman, BEACON Director

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

BEACON Researchers at Work: Partnerships between plants and bacteria

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by MSU graduate student Colleen Friel.

Colleen Friel at the lab benchMy foray into the world of science started back when I was a high school student dead set on becoming a large animal veterinarian. To pursue that goal, I attended the Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Agricultural Sciences the summer before I graduated high school. While there, I performed my first rectal exam on an obviously displeased dairy cow and realized that veterinary medicine was not the career for me. After this rude awakening, I unexpectedly found myself fascinated by my classes in plant science and agronomy – here was a way to engage in science that fed the world (and, as an added benefit, did not involve orifices of any kind!). As an undergraduate, I performed research in microbiology, forestry, and plant biology, a combination that led to my interest in my current field of research, plant-microbe interactions. I was fascinated by how interactions between plants and organisms too small for the naked eye to see were so important on so many scales–they are vital to the functioning of natural ecosystems and goals of feeding the growing population sustainably.

Here in the Friesen lab at Michigan State, my research focuses on how plant and soil microbes exchange resources. One system I study is the mutualism between legumes (plants such as peas, beans, and clover) and soil bacteria called rhizobia. Rhizobia induce some plants to form specialized organs on their roots, called nodules. The rhizobia live in the nodules and fix nitrogen gas from the atmosphere into a form that the plants are able to use. In return for fixing nitrogen, the plant supplies the rhizobia with photosynthetically fixed carbon.

Nodules on a Trifolium plant (courtesy of Maren Friesen)

Nodules on a Trifolium plant (courtesy of Maren Friesen)

This interaction is like a biological market, where the plant and rhizobia trade carbon for nitrogen vice versa. Each organism must decide how much effort they will put into independently acquiring resources (e.g., the plant deciding how much effort to put into root growth to directly take up nitrogen from the soil) and how much effort they will put into trading for resources (e.g., the plant deciding how much carbon to supply to its rhizobia in exchange for nitrogen). Using economic theory about how markets work, it is possible to create mathematical models that describe the costs and benefits legumes and rhizobia incur through this trading agreement. In a collaborative project with the Yair-Shachar Hill lab at MSU and Emily Grman at Eastern Michigan University, we are currently working experimentally validating an existing mathematical model to describe the outcome of the legume-rhizobia mutualism in different environmental conditions. We are using photosynthesis, biomass, and carbon and nitrogen content measurements to estimate parameter values for a previously written model that we adapted to the legume-rhizobia symbiosis. We will test the model by comparing its predicted outcomes to those observed in nature or a novel set of experiments. This work is making important connections between theoretical ecological models and empirical physiological studies, while helping us understand the context-dependent effects of mutualisms on community structure.

Another economic theory that can be applied to the legume-rhizobia mutualism is the tragedy of the commons, where an individual acts against the common interest of the group by depleting a resource for its own benefit. The tragedy of the commons is a situation faced by farmers who are able to graze livestock on village commons: each farmer is motivated to graze as many animals as possible to maximize his or her personal benefit, but this will lead to overgrazing of the commons and depletion of the resource for everyone. In the context of legume-rhizobia interactions, one would imagine that rhizobia would often become “cheaters” in this system-that is, that they would direct their resources towards their own growth and reproduction rather than toward fixing nitrogen for their host plant. Thus, we would expect rhizobial populations to be dominated by these cheaters who fix little or no nitrogen while still acquiring carbon from the plant. However, this is not the case: rhizobia are very diverse and are not dominated by cheating strains.

One possible mechanism that could be stabilizing the mutualism is sanctioning, or the plant “punishing” cheaters for being less cooperative. Plants may punish rhizobia by decreasing nodule carbon or oxygen supply or by promoting early nodule death, but we do not currently understand the exact mechanism of these sanctions. I am making a mutant strain of rhizobia that is unable to fix nitrogen because of a missing protein. Once I finish generating this mutant, I hope to use it for a number of experiments where I will use techniques such as RNA sequencing to determine how the plant’s response differs between cheating and fixing rhizobia at the molecular level. This project will help us identify the genes and proteins that plants use to sanction cheaters, which could help us to understand how legumes and rhizobia co-evolved.

My research seeks to better understand how legumes negotiate interactions with their rhizobial partners. With it, I hope to provide insights into important questions in ecology and evolution about the stabilization of mutualisms, their context-dependency, and their effects on community structure. 

For more information about Colleen’s work, you can follow her on Twitter (@colleen_friel) or email her at frielcol at gmail dot com.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Natural Rejection: Addressing Student Resistance to Evolution Education

Reposted from the Teaching Evolution in Action blog

Israel_Day 2By Ian Zaback

It’s a moment that we’ve all dreaded in one way or another. A student approaches you at the end of class clutching a note, and as the paper changes hands the phrase leaves their lips: “I’m opting out of learning evolution.”

If you found yourself at the other end of this conversation, what would you say? Would your first move be to silence them, and use the curriculum to reinforce your decision? Or would you send an email to their parents, taking a diplomatic tone to explain why this is such an important concept to learn? This is a situation that all science educators worry about in the back of their minds, but so few have given thought to what they might say if they actually landed in the hot seat. The truth is, this is a multifaceted issue with no one simple answer.

Despite 95% of all scientists accepting the validity of evolution, the United States remains among the lowest in its public acceptance of evolution. This distrust of scientific theory is often deeply rooted in religious and spiritual beliefs, and so trying to challenge such misconceptions only drives students further into the shells constructed for them by their families and communities.

So how do you approach such a sensitive situation without it quickly turning sour? One strategy is to try and preempt the fallout before students fixate on the controversy. Evolution is a fact of life, and so much of what we know about the world makes a great deal more sense in the light of evolutionary theory. By easing into the subject just like you would with any other topic, you can present this important overarching concept as simply another thing to be learned. The advantage of this strategy is that some students may put up less resistance to the evidence behind it, gradually coming to realize just how perfectly many other ecological concepts that they’ve learned up to this point make sense in context. Alternatively, if you come into class one day and say to your students: “Alright, there’s a lot of controversy around this topic, but today we’re getting close and personal with Charles Darwin!” …you may be digging your own grave. To sensationalize the topic is to rob it of the status of peer-reviewed, highly accepted scientific theory, and instead make it seem like a political issue. Even if you don’t encounter immediate resistance, some of your students may very well grow to consider evolution to be a controversy rather than well-grounded science for the rest of their academic careers.

The important thing to understand is that it is not the science teacher’s job to challenge a students’ deeply rooted religious beliefs. Rather, the important thing is that we communicate the underlying concepts as something of value and ensure that the students develop a thorough understanding of scientific theory. For example, by stressing the scientific definition of a theory as something supported by multiple lines of evidence, we can provide students with an opportunity to understand the school of thought behind scientific theory and discovery. This carries with it the potential to broaden their horizons; in contrast, vocalizing a defined, partial stance favoring evolution as an absolute (whether you accept the theory or not) may serve only to shut them down.

When you get down to it, one of the most important lessons a science teacher can impart to their students is to ask questions. One word epitomizes scientific thought: “Why?” Everything we know about the world around us, from gravity to evolution, we know because somebody observed something that they could not explain and wondered why it was so. Science class shouldn’t just be about learning the facts; rather, the expectation should be that every student walks out of the classroom at the end of the year prepared to make discoveries of their own. So how do you mitigate unpleasant situations when teaching about evolution? You need to work with the student to show evolution in a different context. Shutting resistant students down only hinders the learning process and pushes students away from a lifestyle of scientific discovery. However, if you inspire them to adopt a more open worldview and accept them in turn, they may yet be inspired to embrace their own scientific curiosity.

About Ian: Hello, fellow scientists! My name is Ian Zaback. Hailing from Farmington Hills, MI, I’m a secondary biology education student from Michigan State, a proud Briggsie and RISE student. Officially, my role this summer is as the KBS Science Education Intern, but I am thrilled to be joining all of you in Teaching Evolution in Action as well. For as long as I can remember, I’ve been incredibly passionate about the natural sciences. From running environmental advocacy campaigns in high school to serving as an outdoor education specialist at sleepaway camp for the last two years, deep down I’ve always understood that the greatest good that I can do is in sharing my passion with others, engaging my students in active learning and inspiring them to ask questions about the world around them. I can hardly wait to grow with all of you throughout the summer!

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

BEACON Researchers at Work: Carnivore Skull Evolution

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by MSU graduate student Nikki Cavalieri.

CNCavalieri2015_UrsusMustelaWhy?

Why do tree frogs stick to glass but toads don’t? Why are baby skinks tail’s blue but adult’s not? Why are puppies and kittens born with their eyes closed but calves and foals born with their eyes open? Why did a girl from Cloudy, Oklahoma become a scientist? I was a child with many questions, which no one could answer. I grew up, went to college and still no one could answer all of my questions. So I became a scientist to find out WHY?

The essential question of my dissertation research is “Why don’t all carnivorans have a strong skull with formidable teeth?” Carnivorans are members of the mammalian Order Carnivora. They are some of the most recognizable animals on earth: cats, dogs, bears, seals and many others. They range in size from the least weasel (100 g) to the polar bear (800 Kg). They live on all major landmasses and occur in every ocean. Carnivoran diets range from completely herbivorous to completely carnivorous and include every combination in between.

Nikki showing the full range of carnivore skull sizes

Nikki showing the full range of carnivore skull sizes

The ancestral features of this group are a robust cranium and jaw with large canines and sharp cheek teeth. Many modern carnivorans have more delicate features. Why lose a good thing? We know that species evolve via natural selection. That is, individuals that perform better, through morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits, survive and have more opportunities to produce offspring. Those offspring inherit the traits of their parents. This differential survival and reproduction of individuals with different traits is what determines how species function and make a living.

We would expect that species would evolve only traits that perform best. However, this is not what we observe. So why? We know that there is a limited amount of energy available in the environment. In order to reproduce and pass traits to the next generation an individual must grow and survive first. Individuals must balance energy demands between traits for survival, growth and reproduction. These traits are competing. When traits compete we expect to see trade-offs. A trade-off is a compromise between conflicting selection pressures on a trait. This can result in the phenotype being suboptimal for one or more traits. To further complicate matters, selection pressures on a trait may be different during different times in life.

Not only do we expect trade-offs between what traits species have, but also when those traits develop. There is no advantage to developing secondary sexual characteristics to attract mates if reproductive organs are not fully developed. Thus, the evolution of timing of life history events (i.e. weaning, independence, age at first reproduction) is influenced by trade-offs between competing traits for survival, growth and reproduction. I believe that understanding the interaction and timing of competing traits will help us decipher why there so much variation in the carnivoran cranium and jaw.

Since energy is limited, natural selection should act strongly on traits for obtaining energy. The main structure for obtaining energy for carnivorans is the skull. The Carnivora skull is a multipurpose structure that serves as a feeding apparatus plus houses and protects the brain and sensory organs. The carnivoran skull is not completely developed at birth and must go through extensive post-natal growth before reaching morphological maturity. It has to meet demands at each life stage and to develop between life stages (e.g. morphology for nursing versus procuring food). In its role as a feeding apparatus, the skull must procure and process food. Many studies have found a strong relationship between diet and morphology of the carnivoran skull.

Specifically I study the patterns of interspecific variation in growth and development of the carnivoran skull. I focus on two questions: (1) whether interspecific differences in the timing of morphological maturity are reflected in life history schedules and (2) whether timing of morphological maturity is influenced by diet.

CNCavalieri2015_setupI hypothesize that delayed morphological maturity shifts reproduction to later in life. To test this I get to travel to natural history collections and photograph specimens ranging from one day to several years of age. From these photographs I construct ontogenetic skull series. Shape and size are quantified for the skull series using geometric morphometrics. I calculate age at morphological maturity for skull shape and skull size, for each species. I examine changes of ontogenetic trajectories, allometric trajectories, and disparity. I compare the timing of morphological maturity of the skull relative to life history schedules across the Order Carnivora, taking into account body size and longevity. I plan to examine some of the behavioral correlates (e.g. level of maternal care) that accompany these shifts.

My second hypothesis is that there is a trade-off between dietary challenge (i.e., difficulty in procurement and processing) and timing of skull development, such that species with more challenging diets reach morphological landmarks (e.g., age at adult skull morphology) later in their life cycle than species with less challenging diets. I measure dietary challenge with two components: 1) procuring difficulty and 2) processing difficulty. Procuring difficulty is quantified using a score that takes into account the physical and behavioral aspects of the predator and food item. A higher score indicates a more difficult diet to procure. Processing difficulty is quantified using empirical measurements of food items. I get to use engineering machinery, usually used to test material properties of steel beams, to measure the toughness, tensile strength, and hardness of food items.

One of the cool analyses I will be able to do is to map dietary challenge and timing of skull maturity on a phylogeny of the Order Carnivora. By using Bayesian inference to estimate ancestral character states, I can explore transitions between high and low dietary challenge and early or late skull maturity through evolution. This is exciting because it can allow me to understand why and when variation in carnivorans evolved.

As of right now I still don’t know “Why all carnivorans don’t have a strong skull with formidable teeth?”. I have collected enough data to know that it is going to be interesting but not enough to see the whole picture. I will just have to wait a little longer to find out WHY?

For more information about Nikki’s work, you can contact her at cavali13 at msu dot edu.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BEACON Researchers at Work: Tools for mapping rare mutations

This week’s BEACON Researchers at Work blog post is by University of Texas at Austin postdoc Daniel Deatherage.

Dan in a suit and without a beard. It may be surprising to those that don’t work with him, but the suit is a more common sighting than the lack of beard these days.

Dan in a suit and without a beard. It may be surprising to those that don’t work with him, but the suit is a more common sighting than the lack of beard these days.

My doctoral work focused on epigenetic changes in ovarian cancer in the lab of Dr. Tim Huang at The Ohio State University. A common theme of the journal clubs I attended was the rise of next-generation sequencing technologies, the enormous amounts of data they produced, and questions they could answer that were unanswerable by any other method. One thing that always struck me was how small variations in constructing sequencing libraries could have profound effects on the data the sequencing runs would produce. Because of this, one of my primary interests became how to generate sequencing libraries capable of answering questions not possible even with “standard” next-generation sequencing. Now in my post-doctoral work with Dr. Jeffrey Barrick at The University of Texas at Austin I have sought to use modified Illumina sequencing adapters to monitor how mutations within evolving populations of E. coli spread while they are still very rare (<0.01%) rather than having to wait until they reach 1% of the total population as standard Illumina sequencing requires. Hopefully by the time you are finished reading this, you will have a new appreciation for just how powerful next-generation sequencing can be even if you are already using it in your own research.

Identifying mutations in next-generation sequencing data can be very difficult regardless of what method of analysis you choose. This is compounded when looking at mixed populations where both mutations and wild type sequences exist. If I were going to use this blog post as nothing but a bit of shameless self-promotion, the rest of it would likely talk about all the benefits of the breseq computational program that our lab has developed. I could go on and on about how well it automates the identification of mutations particularly in organisms with genomes smaller than 20 mega bases that have good reference sequences, about how its being actively developed as a tool for the entire community that is already being used by many BEACON and non-BEACON researchers alike, and about how it is freely available for both linux and mac operating systems with tutorials for understanding how to use it. At the end of this hypothetical self promotion I would put in a hyper link to the breseq page where you can find instructions on how to install the program and the tutorials for how to use it, and say something about how I hope anyone using next-generation sequencing in their research considers using breseq and contacts our lab if they run into difficulties.

Figure 1. Computer simulation of E. coli population evolving under LTEE like conditions. Each line represents the percentage a single mutation at any given generational time point. Horizontal dashed line represents the 1% minimum threshold a mutation must eclipse to be detectable by standard Illumina sequencing.

Figure 1. Computer simulation of E. coli population evolving under LTEE like conditions. Each line represents the percentage a single mutation at any given generational time point. Horizontal dashed line represents the 1% minimum threshold a mutation must eclipse to be detectable by standard Illumina sequencing.

Instead, I’d like to talk about a key limitation of all standard next-generation sequencing experiments, and how I am overcoming this limitation in my research. Next-generation sequencing error rates are something that can quite often be completely ignored, particularly when sequencing a sample that you expect to have only a single genotype (such as a bacterial culture grown up from a single colony) as the predominantly random distribution of sequencing errors are unlikely to yield false-positive mutations. When you begin sequencing samples that are mixed populations, the error rate sets a floor on the minimum frequency you can confidently call no matter how much sequencing you perform. In the case of standard Illumina sequencing, although looking at different subsets of data can lower the error rate somewhat, the overall error rate is commonly reported to be ~1% [1]. Computer simulations show that only a small fraction of total mutations in an evolving bacterial population rise above a frequency of 1%, meaning that a study which does not compensate for sequencing error rate is only looking at the tip of the iceberg and ignoring several orders of magnitude more mutations (see figure at left). As mentioned previously, because the error rate is randomly distributed among all reads, methods such as duplex sequencing [2], which incorporate random nucleotides into the adapters as the first bases sequenced, allow reads corresponding to the same original fragment of DNA to be grouped together based on the “molecular index” and more accurate consensus sequences (with error rates of < 0.01%) can be generated for each read group. This means that mutations can reliably be detected while they are at least 100 times more rare, or only present in a single cell out of more than 10,000.

Because this method of error reduction requires multiple reads from each fragment of DNA, E. coli such as the thoroughly studied REL606 with its ~4.6 megabase genome could easily require more than 1 billion Illumina reads to give 10,000 fold coverage of the entire genome. While it is certainly possible to generate such a quantity of reads, it is not necessarily the wisest investment of money particularly when so much more is known about the organism. The decades of research performed by Richard Lenski and colleagues on REL606 and its evolved descendants in the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has amassed a list of genes that can be mutated to provide a selective advantage. Using some of this knowledge, I designed iDT xGen biotinylated probes against several genes I expected to have beneficial mutations within 500 generations. These probes were hybridized with Illumina libraries containing molecular indexes and enriched for the targeted genes with streptavidin beads. This caused on average ~70-80% of reads to map to the 8 genes of interest corresponding to just ~0.7% of the genome making it highly economical to deep sequence numerous mixed populations.

Despite the enormous power of the “frozen fossil record” of the LTEE experiments performed by Richard Lenski, populations have only been frozen every 500 generations which is a very long time when looking at rare mutations. To overcome this, I allowed six replicate populations of REL606 to evolve under nearly identical conditions to the LTEE for 500 generations, but froze each day’s culture taking up more than half of a large –80°C chest freezer much to the annoyance of other lab members. Sequencing libraries were generated at ~13 to 25 generation increments over the course of the experiment for each of the different populations and analyzed with breseq revealing unprecedented insights into the beneficial mutational landscapes of indivi

dual genes and epistatic interactions. These results should be published soon, but to underscore just how powerful this approach has proven I’ll share two highlights. First, more than 150 beneficial mutations were identified in just 3 genes which is significantly more than have previously been reported for these genes. Second, the fitness effect of all 150+ mutations has been determined based on sequencing data alone, and it is in agreement with clones verified to have individual mutations and competed against the ancestor in conventional fitness assays. These findings would not have been possible if we restricted our analysis to mutations that reach 1% frequency because clonal interference quickly becomes the key force acting on the population and the majority of mutations are outcompeted by a single clone often harboring multiple mutations before they can reach 1% of the total population. As sequencing costs continue to fall this type of analysis should make it possible to map the entire single step beneficial mutational landscape that is available to an organism in a single experiment.

References:

  1. Lou, D. I. et al. (2013)High-throughput dna sequencing errors are reduced by orders of magnitude using circle sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 110: 19872–19877.
  2. Schmitt MW, et al. (2012) Detec­tion of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109:14508–14513.

For more information about Dan’s work, you can contact him at daniel dot deatherage at gmail dot com.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BEACON's NSF grant renewed for another 5 years

From the press release at MSU Today

Michigan State University has been awarded $22.5 million by the National Science Foundation to continue the research, education and outreach activities of the BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action.

Since 2010, BEACON has brought together evolutionary biologists, computer scientists and engineers to explore evolution going on in today’s world. BEACON researchers have provided insights into the evolution of disease, reducing the evolution of antibiotic resistance and predicting how populations of organisms respond to climate change.

The use of digital organisms – self-reproducing computer programs operating in a controlled computer environment – allows researchers to explore evolutionary dynamics much more rapidly than studies in the lab or field. Understanding these processes contributes to better solutions of design and engineering problems of industrial and societal importance using evolutionary computational tools, said BEACON Director Erik Goodman.

“BEACON’s world-class faculty members, all pulling toward common goals, enable our high level of scientific innovation, attracting top-notch graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to the best place in the world to study evolution in action,” he said. “Researchers are drawn to BEACON because the frequent exchange of ideas makes it worthwhile for their research, energizing everyone involved. NSF’s renewal of BEACON will enable continuing breakthroughs in our understanding and harnessing of evolution in action.”

BEACON’s development of more-sophisticated evolutionary computational models to solve intractable problems in science and industry is creating new partnerships between biologists and engineers, said George Gilchrist, program director in NSF’s Division of Environmental Biology.

“In the first five years, BEACON has changed the landscape of evolutionary computation, creating a set of multidisciplinary scientists making strong contributions in both biology and engineering,” he said. “The second five years promises new advances in taking inspiration from the algorithmic nature of the evolutionary process to deliver robust solutions to some of the most-difficult problems in both science and industry.”

For example, Richard Lenski, MSU Hannah Distinguished Professor of microbiology and molecular genetics, continues to provide important insights about evolution and the process of natural selection. His long-term E. coli experiment distills the essence of evolution in petri dishes and has received a great deal of media attention from outlets including NPR, the New York Times, Science and New Scientist. In fact, Science referred to Lenski as “The Man Who Bottled Evolution.”

Kay Holekamp, University Distinguished Professor of zoology, continues to serve as one of the world’s leading behavioral ecologists through her studies of spotted hyenas in Kenya. Her long-running study has accumulated more than 25 years of data, covering nearly 10 generations, of spotted hyenas. She and her students have published more than 150 scientific papers.

BEACONITES also have made great strides toward understanding one of the major transitions in evolution – transforming from single-celled to multicellular life. Charles Ofria, director of MSU’s Digital Evolution Laboratory, and fellow BEACONITE Heather Goldsby, showed how reproductive division of labor could possibly have evolved. Their research suggests that separating germ cells – sperm and eggs – from somatic cells – all other cells – preserves genetic building blocks while allowing organisms to flourish.

Overall, BEACON researchers have published more than 565 peer-reviewed papers and written proposals that have netted nearly $47 million in external funds.

BEACON is headquartered at MSU, and its partners include University of Idaho, North Carolina A&T State University, University of Texas at Austin and University of Washington. BEACON stands as one of 14 NSF Science and Technology Centers, an elite group of research partnerships meant to unite and transform fields across science and engineering.

Posted in About BEACON, BEACON in the News | Leave a comment