Death and Resurrection ... Of a Gene

The SLAMF9 gene became non-functional in the human lineage, and then later was re-activated. Why?

Biology is amazingly intricate, but it is often also needlessly complex- evidence for the haphazard, if eventually pointed, mechanisms of the evolutionary process. We will take up the discussion of "junk" DNA again next week, but molecular biology is full of redundant and excessive processes, which should certainly be mystifying from a "design" perspective. At the frontier of natural selection are neutral and near-neutral genetic elements, which change over time due to chance, lacking selection pressure towards conservation. Pseudogenes (of which we have about 20,000- almost as many as functional genes) are one form of neutral element. They are typically remnants of functional genes that have been duplicated and inactivated by mutation. They are a lively area of genome annotation because it is hard to be sure that they are really dead. Despite what looks like an inactivating mutation, they typically still produce RNA transcripts, and may produce partial or alternative proteins as well. The literature is full of experiments finding products and activities from genes annotated elsewhere as pseudogenes. And what looks like a pseudogene from one sample might just be an allele, the same gene being whole and active in other people.

So, it is hard to know what any particular genetic region is doing without a lot of evolutionary, functional, and even population analysis. A recent paper looked deeply at one gene- a gene that seems to have flipped back and forth between functional and non-functional states in the human lineage. It is a rare example of a gene coming back from what is usually a one-way trip into mutational oblivion, once its function- and thus selective pressure for conservation- have disappeared.

SLAMF9 is one of a family (signaling lymphocyte activation molecule family) of surface receptors that occur in many cells of the immune system, help activate responses in these cells, and also recognize some viruses and bacteria. They bind to each other and to other components of the immune system, creating complex signaling networks. Genes involved in our immune systems are commonly subject to rapid evolution, the arms race against our many pathogens being relentless. Sometimes that takes the form of gene inactivation, if a particular receptor, for instance, has been turned against us by a pathogen that uses it for binding and cell entry. 

This week's authors were facing a conundrum. They were studying SLAMF9, and found the mouse version easy to clone and express in the lab. But the human version ... that was another story, frustratingly impossible to express in usable amounts. When they looked at the protein sequence, they were in for a big surprise:

At the front end of SLAMF9, there is very strong conservation across mammals... except when it comes to humans! The signal peptide is what directs this protein to be inserted into the plasma membrane, and is cleaved off the mature protein. In red is highlighted the region starkly different in humans, which naturally affects (not in a good way) the signal cleavage process. "a" and "b" point to important domains of the cytoplasmic side of the final protein, which are just barely preserved/conserved in the human form.

This alignment among various mammalian versions (orthologs) of SLAMF9 shows that they are all pretty much the same... except for the human version. All the way from mouse to chimpanzee nothing has changed at the front end of this protein. That is amazing in itself, showing very strong conservation. But then after our lineage split from chimpanzees, something weird. A small segment at the front of this protein is totally different. This area is important because it carries the cleavage site of the signal sequence. The signal sequence directs the protein to be sent to the membrane (as this is a trans-membrane receptor), and this cleavage site is bad, explaining why the author's attempt to express this protein went so poorly. It might be enough for modest expression in the natural setting, but not enough for their investigations.

At the DNA level, it is clear that what happened to the protein was a double frame shift in translation, out of frame at the front, then recovered frame at the second mutation. The mutations must have been independent events, but the order of their occurrence is not known. The first intron trails off to the left, while the coding sequence tails off to the right.

When they looked at the DNA sequence, the reason for this change in the protein sequence became clearer. There was a frame shift, with only small changes in the DNA sequence that led to the bigger change in the protein sequence. On the left, there is a shift in the splice site at the end of the first intron (splice acceptor). This shifts the mRNA product by four bases (vs the start site of translation), creating a frame shift in translation, as portrayed in the amino acid codes given. On the right, there is a one nucleotide deletion, causing another frame shift that brings the translation back into the normal frame. 

They sampled all the available archeological samples from the human lineage- Neanderthals and Denisovans, and each were the same as the current human sequence. So, whatever happened did so between the split from chimpanzees and the advent of these available homo species. And what happened were two distinct events- the second frame shift and the first frame shift are independent genetic mutations. 

Which happened first? That is uncertain, but the authors show that the right-most frame shift (called g.621delT) did not influence the change in the splice site. The splice site change was caused by a series of about six mutations within the first intron, (not shown), which shifted the pattern of mRNA self-hybridization that helps direct splice site selection. So it is likely that the splice site change happened first, essentially killing the gene. And then the downstream frameshift happened later on to rescue it in a partial, not very well-expressed way. However, either mutation could have happened first to functionally kill off this gene, and then further mutation(s) to recover its function. In any case, both events happened within this roughly six-million-year time span that generated our immediate lineage, becoming firmly fixed as the only version of this gene now in our collective genome.

What might cause these events? It all goes back to the function of SLAMF9. As shown above, it is very highly conserved. But, being part of the immune system and the interface we show to pathogens, it is also on the front line of the bio-warfare arms race. As humans started ranging far beyond their original habitats, they doubtless encountered many new pathogens. It seems likely that killing off this gene might have resolved one such fight, at least for a little while, perhaps by removing a pathogen entry point. But later on, it became beneficial to recover it, which is to say that new mutations that restored its function even a little bit were evidently selected for, and spread in the population. There was a race at this point between the accumulation of more (now neutral) mutations that would have permanently inactivated this gene, and the advent of that one special mutation that could save it. The overall conservation of SLAMF9 argues that saving it must have conferred significant benefits.

• "A single long-haul flight per year over the past decade leads to about $25k ($6,000–77,000) in future damages by 2100."
• These people run our lives?
• Update on the cerebellum.
• Cuba and capitalism, of a sort.

We Have Rocks in Our Heads ... And Everywhere Else, Too

On the evolution and role of iron-sulfur complexes.

Some of the more persuasive ideas about the origin of life have it beginning in the rocks of hydrothermal vents. Here was a place with plenty of energy, interesting chemistry, and proto-cellular structures available to host it. Some kind of metabolism would by this theory have come first, followed by other critical elements like membranes and RNA coding/catalysis. This early earth lacked oxygen, so iron was easily available, not prone to oxidation as now. Thus life at this early time used many minerals in its metabolic processes, as they were available for free. Now, on today's earth, they are not so free, and we have complex processes to acquire and manage them. One of the major minerals we use is the iron-sulfur complex, (similar to pyrite), which comes in a variety of forms and is used by innumerable enzymes in our cells. 

The more common iron-sulfur complexes, with sulfur in yellow, iron in orange.

The principle virtue of the iron-sulfur complex is its redox flexibility. With the relatively electronically "soft" sulfur, iron forms semi-covalent-style bonds, while being able to absorb or give up an electron safely, without destroying nearby chemicals as iron alone typically does. Depending on the structure and liganding, the voltage potential of such complexes can be tuned all over the (reduction potential) map, from -600 to +400 mV. Many other cofactors and metals are used in redox reactions, but iron-sulfur is the most common by far.

Reduction potentials (ability to take up an electron, given an electrical push) of various iron-sulfur complexes.

Researchers had assumed that, given the abundance of these elements, iron-sulfur complexes were essentially freely acquired until the great oxidation event, about two to three billion years ago, when free oxygen started rising and free iron (and sulfur) disappeared, salted away into vast geological deposits. Life faced a dilemma- how to reliably construct minerals that were now getting scarce. The most common solution was a three enzyme system in mitochondria that 1) strips a sulfur from the amino acid cysteine, a convenient source inside cells, 2) scaffolds the construction of the iron-sulfur complex, with iron coming from carrier proteins such as frataxin, and 3) employs several carrier proteins to transfer the resulting complexes to enzymes that need them. 

But a recent paper described work that alters this story, finding archaeal microbes that live anaerobically and make do with only the second of these enzymes. A deep phylogenetic analysis shows that the (#2) assembly/scaffold enzymes are the core of this process, and have existed since the last common ancestor of all life. So they are incredibly ancient, and it turns out to that iron-sulfur complexes can not just be gobbled up from the environment, at least not by any reasonably advanced life form. Rather, these complexes need to be built and managed under the care of an enzyme.

The presented structures of the dimer of SmsB (orange) and SmsC (blue) that dimerize again to make up a full iron-sulfur scaffolding and production enzyme in the archaean Methanocaldococcus jannaschii. Note the reaction scheme where ATP comes in and evicts the iron-sulfur cluster. On right is shown how ATP fits into the structure, and how it nudges the iron-sulfur binding area (blue vs green tracing).

A recent paper from this group extended their analysis to the structure of the assembly/scaffold enzyme. They find that, though it is a symmetrical dimer of a complex of two proteins, it only deals with one iron-sulfur complex at at time. It also binds and cleaves ATP. But ATP seems to have more of an inhibitory role than one that stimulates assembly directly. The authors suggest that high levels of ATP signal that less iron-sulfur complex is needed to sustain the core electron transport chains of metabolism, making this ATP inhibition an allosteric feedback control mechanism in these archaeal cells. I might add, however, that ATP binding may well also have a role in extricating the assembled iron-sulfur cluster from the enzyme, as that complex is quite well coordinated, and could use a push to pop out into the waiting arms of target enzymes.

"These ancestral systems were kept in archaea whereas they went through stepwise complexification in bacteria to incorporate additional functions for higher Fe-S cluster synthesis efficiency leading to SUF, ISC and NIF." - That is, the three-component systems present in eukaryotes, which come in three types.

In the author's structure, the iron-sulfur complex, liganded by three cysteines within the SmsC protein. But note how, facing the viewer, the complex is quite exposed, ready to be taken up by some other enzyme that has a nice empty spot for it.

Additionally, these archaea, with this simple one-step iron cluster formation pathway, get their sulfur not from cysteine, but from ambient elemental sulfur. Which is possible, as they live only in anaerobic environments, such as deep sea hydrothermal vents. So they represent a primitive condition for the whole system as may have occurred in the last common ancestor of all life. This ancestor is located at the split between bacteria and archaea, so was a fully fledged and advanced cell, far beyond the earlier glimmers of abiogenesis, the iron sulfur world, and the RNA world.

• Triumph of stupidity and corruption.
• Oil fields are a mess.
• Homes are going nuts.
• But they should be getting closer.
• Gosh, there was a pedophilia ring after all.
• Who wants a concentration camp?

Jonathan Singer and the Cranky Book

An eminent scientist at the end of his career writes out his thoughts and preoccupations.

Jonathan Singer was a famous scientist at my graduate school. I did not interact with him, but he played a role in attracting me to the program, as I was interested in biological membranes at the time. Singer himself studied with Linus Pauling, and they were the first to identify a human mutation in a specific gene as a cause for a specific disease- sickle cell disease. After further notable work in electron microscopy, he reached a career triumph by developing, in 1972, the fluid mosaic model of biological membranes. This revolutionized and clarified the field, showing that cells are bounded by something incredibly simple- a bilayer of phospholipids that naturally order themselves into a remarkably stable sheet, (a bubble, one might say), all organized by their charged headgroups and hydrophobic fatty tails. This model also showed that proteins would be swimming around freely in this membrane, and could be integrated in various ways, ether lightly attached on one side, or spanning it completely, thereby enabling complex channel and transporter functions. The model implied the typical length of a protein alpha helix that, by virtue of its hydrophobic side chains, would naturally be able to do this spanning function- a prediction that was spot-on. He could have easily won a Nobel for this work.

I was intrigued when I learned recently that Singer had written a book near the end of his career. It is just the kind of thing that a retired professor loves to do in the sunset of his career, sharing the wisdom and staving off the darkness by taking a stab at the book biz. And Singer's is a classic of the form- highly personal, a bit stilted, and ultimately meandering. I will review some of its high points, and then take a stab of my own at knitting together some of the interesting themes he grapples with.

For at base, Singer turns out to be a spiritual compadre of this blog. He claims to be a rationalist, in a world where, as he has it, no more than 9% of people are rational. Definition? It is the poll question of whether one believes that god created man, rather than the other way around. Singer recognizes that the world around him is crazy, and that the communities he has been a part of have been precious oases amid the general indifference and grasping of the world. But changing it? He is rather fatalistic about that, recognizing that reason is up against overwhelming forces.

His specific themes cover a great deal of biology, and then some more mystical reflections on balance and diversity in biology, and later, in capitalism and politics. He points out that the nature/nurture debate has been settled by twin studies. Nature, which is to say, genetics, is the dominant influence on human characteristics, including a wide variety of psychological traits, including intelligence. Environment and nurture is critical for reaching one's highest potential, and for using it in socially constructive ways, but the limits of that potential are largely set by one's genes. Singer does not, however, draw the inevitable conclusion from these observations, which is that some kind of long-term eugenic approach would be beneficial to our collective future, assuming machines do not replace us forthwith. Biologists know that very small selective coefficients can have big effects, so nothing drastic is needed. But what criteria to use- that is the sticky part. Just as success in the capitalist system hardly signals high moral or personal qualities, nor does incarceration by the justice system always show low ones. It is virtually an insoluble problem, so we muddle along, destined probably for continued cycles of Spenglerian civilizational collapse.

Turning to social affairs, Singer settles on "structural chaos" as his description of how the scientific enterprise works, and how capitalism at large works. With a great deal of waste, and misdirected effort, it nevertheless ends up providing good results- better than those that top-down direction can provide. He seems a sigh a little that "scientific" methods of social organization, such as those in Soviet Russia, were so ineffective, and that the best we can do is to muddle along with the spontaneous entrepreneurship and occasional flashes of innovation that push the process along. Not to mention the "monstrous vulgarity" of advertising, etc. Likewise, democracy is a mess, with most people totally incapable of making the reasoned decisions needed to maintain it. Again, the chaos of democracy is sadly the best we can do, and the duty of rational people, in Singer's view, is to keep alive the flame of intellectual freedom while outside pressures constantly threaten.

Art, and science.

What can we do with this? I think that the unifying thread that Singer was groping for was competition. One can frame competition as a universal principle that shapes the physical, biological, and social worlds. Put two children on a teeter-totter, and you can see how physical forces (e.g. gravitation) compete all the time, subtly producing equilibria that characterize the universe. Chemical equilibria are likewise a product of constant competition, even including the perpetual jostling of phospholipids to find their lowest energy configuration amidst the biological membrane bilayer, which has the side-effect of creating such a stable, yet highly flexible, structure. With Darwin, competition reaches its apotheosis- the endless proliferation, diversification, and selection of organisms. Singer marvels at the fragility of individual life, at the same time that life writ large is so incredibly durable and prolific. Well, the mechanism behind that is competition. And naturally, economics of any free kind, including capitalism and grant-making in science, are based on competition as well- the natural principle that selects which products are useful, which employees are productive, and which technologies are helpful. Waste is part of the process, as diversity amidst excess production is the essential ingredient for subsequent selection. 

And yet.. something is missing. The earth's biosphere would still be a mere bacterial soup if competition were the only principle at work. Bacteria (and their viruses) are the most streamlined competition machines- battlebots of the living world. It took cooperation between a bacterial cell and an archaeal cell to make a revolutionary new entity- the eukaryotic cell. It then took some more cooperation for eukaryotic cells to band together into bodies, making plants and animals. And among animals, cooperation in modest amounts provides for reproduction, family structure, flock structures, and even complex insect societies. It is with humans that cooperation and competition reach their most complex heights, for we are able to regulate ourselves, rationally. We make rules. 

Without rules, human society is anarchic mayhem- a trumpian, dystopian and corrupt nightmare. With them, it (ideally) balances competition with cooperation to harness the benefits of each. Our devotion to sports can be seen as a form of rule worship, and explicit management of the competitive landscape. Can there be too many rules? Absolutely, there are dangers on both sides. Take China as an example. In the last half-century, it revamped its system of rules to lower the instability of political competition, harness the power of economic competition, and completely transform its society. 

The most characteristic and powerful human institution may be the legislature, which is our ongoing effort to make rational rules regulating how the incredibly powerful motive force of competition shapes our lives. Our rules, in the US, were authored, at the outset, by the founders, who were- drumroll please- rationalists. To read the Federalist Papers is to see exquisite reasoning drawing on wide historical precedent, and particularly on the inspirations of the rationalist enlightenment, to formulate a new set of rules mediating between cooperation and competition. Not only were they more fair than the old rules, but they were designed for perpetual improvement and adjustment. The founding was, at base, a rationlist moment, when characters like Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson- deists at best and rationalists through and through, led the new country into a hopeful, constitutional future. At the current moment, two hundred and fifty years on, as our institutions are being wantonly destroyed and anything resembling reason, civility, and truth is under particularly vengeful attack, we should appreciate and own that heritage, which informs a true patriotism against the forces of darkness.

• Bill Mitchell on AI.
• How this drives politics.
• And can thought survive against an onslaught of slop?
• Paul Krugman on abasement.
• Is evil lack of religion, or too much religion?

Mutations That Make Us Human

The ongoing quest to make biologic sense of genomic regions that differentiate us from other apes.

Some people are still, at this late date, taken aback by the fact that we are animals, biologically hardly more than cousins to fellow apes like the chimpanzee, and descendants through billions of years of other life forms far more humble. It has taken a lot of suffering and drama to get to where we are today. But what are those specific genetic endowments that make us different from the other apes? That, like much of genetics and genetic variation, is a tough question to answer.

At the DNA level, we are roughly one percent different from chimpanzees. A recent sequencing of great apes provided a gross overview of these differences. There are inversions, and larger changes in junk DNA that can look like bigger differences, but these have little biological importance, and are not counted in the sequence difference. A difference of one percent is really quite large. For a three gigabyte genome, that works out to 30 million differences. That is plenty of room for big things to happen.

Gross alignment of one chromosome between the great apes. [HSA- human, PTR- chimpanzee, PPA- bonobo, GGO- gorilla, PPY- orangutan (Borneo), PAB- orangutan (Sumatra)]. Fully aligned regions (not showing smaller single nucleotide differences) are shown in blue. Large inversions of DNA order are shown in yellow. Other junk DNA gains and losses are shown in red, pink, purple. One large-scale jump of a DNA segment is show in green. One can see that there has been significant rearrangement of genomes along the way, even as most of this chromosome (and others as well) are easly alignable and traceable through the evolutionary tree.

But most of those differences are totally unimportant. Mutations happen all the time, and most have no effect, since most positions (particularly the most variable ones) in our DNA are junk, like transposons, heterochromatin, telomeres, centromeres, introns, intergenic space, etc. Even in protein-coding genes, a third of the positions are "synonymous", with no effect on the coded amino acid, and even when an amino acid is changed, that protein's function is frequently unaffected. The next biggest group of mutations have bad effects, and are selected against. These make up the tragic pool of genetic syndromes and diseases, from mild to severe. Only a tiny proportion of mutations will have been beneficial at any point in this story. But those mutations have tremendous power. They can drag along their local DNA regions as they are positively selected, and gain "fixation" in the genome, which is to say, they are sufficiently beneficial to their hosts that they outcompete all others, with the ultimate result that mutation becomes universal in the population- the new standard. This process happens in parallel, across all positions of the genome, all at the same time. So a process that seems painfully slow can actually add up to quite a bit of change over evolutionary time, as we see.

So the hunt was on to find "human accelerated regions" (HAR), which are parts of our genome that were conserved in other apes, but suddenly changed on the way to humans. There roughly three thousand such regions, but figuring out what they might be doing is quite difficult, and there is a long tail from strong to weak effects. There are two general rationales for their occurrence. First, selection was lost over a genomic region, if that function became unimportant. That would allow faster mutation and divergence from the progenitors. Or second, some novel beneficial mutation happened there, bringing it under positive selection and to fixation. Some recent work found, interestingly, that clusters of mutations in HAR segments often have countervailing effects, with one major mutation causing one change, and a few other mutations (vs the ancestral sequence) causing opposite changes, in a process hypothesized to amount to evolutionary fine tuning. 

A second property of HARs is that they are overwhelmingly not in coding regions of the genome, but in regulatory areas. They constitute fine tuning adjustments of timing and amount of gene regulation, not so much changes in the proteins produced. That is, our evolution was more about subtle changes in management of processes than of the processes themselves. A recent paper delved in detail into HAR5, one of the strongest such regions, (that is, strongest prior conservation, compared with changes in human sequence), which lies in the regulatory regions upstream of Frizzled8 (FZD8). FZD8 is a cell surface receptor, which receives signals from a class of signaling molecules called WNT (wingless and int). These molecules were originally discovered in flies, where they signal body development programs, allowing cells to know where they are and when they are in the developmental program, in relation to cells next door, and then to grow or migrate as needed. They have central roles in embryonic development, in organ development, and also in cancer, where their function is misused.

For our story, the WNT/FZD8 circuit is important in fetal brain development. Our brains undergo massive cell division and migration during fetal development, and clearly this is one of the most momentous and interesting differences between ourselves and all other animals. The current authors made mutations in mice that reproduce some of the HAR5 sequences, and investigated their effects. 

Two mouse brains at three months of age, one with the human version of the HAR5 region. Hard to see here, but the latter brain is ~7% bigger.

The authors claim that these brains, one with native mouse sequence, and the other with the human sequences from HAR5, have about a seven percent difference in mass. Thus the HAR5 region, all by itself, explains about one fourteenth of the gross difference in brain size between us and chimpanzees. 

HAR5 is a 619 base-pair region with only four sequence differences between ourselves and chimpanzees. It lies 300,000 bases upstream of FZD8, in a vast region of over a million base pairs with no genes. While this region contains many regulatory elements, (generally called enhancers or enhancer modules, only some of which are mapped), it is at the same time an example of junk DNA, where most of the individual positions in this vast sea of DNA are likely of little significance. The multifarious regulation by all these modules is of course important because this receptor participates in so many different developmental programs, and has doubtless been fine-tuned over the millennia not just for brain development, but for every location and time point where it is needed.

Location of the FZD8 gene, in the standard view of the genome at NIH. I have added an arrow that points to the tiny (in relative terms) FZD8 coding region (green), and a star at the location of HAR5, far upstream among a multitude of enhancer sequences. One can see that this upstream region is a vast area (of roughly 1.5 million bases) with no other genes in sight, providing space for extremely complicated and detailed regulation, little of which is as yet characterized.

Diving into the HAR5 functions in more detail, the authors show that it directly increases FZD8 gene expression, (about 2 fold, in very rough terms), while deleting the region from mice strongly decreases expression in mice. Of the four individual base changes in the HAR5 region, two have strong (additive) effects increasing FZD8 expression, while the other two have weaker, but still activating, effects. Thus, no compensatory regulation here.. it is full speed ahead at HAR5 for bigger brain size. Additionally, a variant in human populations that is responsible for autism spectrum disorders also resides in this region, and the authors show that this change decreases FZD8 expression about 20%. Small numbers, sure, but for a process that directs cell division over many cycles in early brain development, this kind of difference can have profound effects.

The HAR5 region causes increased transcription of FZD8, in mice, compared to the native version and a deletion.

The HAR5 region causes increased cell proliferation in embryonic day 14.5 brain areas, stained for neural markers.

"This reveals Hs-HARE5 modifies radial glial progenitor behavior, with increased self-renewal at early developmental stages followed by expanded neurogenic potential. ... Using these orthogonal strategies we show four human-specific variants in HARE5 drive increased enhancer activity which promotes progenitor proliferation. These findings illustrate how small changes in regulatory DNA can directly impact critical signaling pathways and brain development."

So there you have it. The nuts and bolts of evolution, from the molecular to the cellular, the organ, and then the organismal, levels. Humans do not just have bigger brains, but better brains, and countless other subtle differences all over the body. Each of these is directed by genetic differences, as the combined inheritance of the last six million years since our divergence versus chimpanzees. Only with the modern molecular tools can we see Darwin's vision come into concrete focus, as particular, even quantum, changes in the code, and thus biology, of humanity. There is a great deal left to decipher, but the answers are all in there, waiting.

• Who's the poodle?
• We are going totally tin-pot.

How to Capture Solar Energy

Charge separation is handled totally differently by silicon solar cells and by photosynthetic organisms.

Everyone comes around sooner or later to the most abundant and renewable form of energy, which is the sun. The current administration may try to block the future, but solar power is the best power right now and will continue to gain on other sources. Likewise, life started by using some sort of geological energy, or pre-existing carbon compounds, but inevitably found that tapping the vast powers streaming in from the sun was the way to really take over the earth. But how does one tap solar energy? It is harder than it looks, since it so easily turns into heat and lost energy. Some kind of separation and control are required, to isolate the power (that is to say, the electron that was excited by the photon of light), and harness it to do useful work.

Silicon solar cells and photosynthesis represent two ways of doing this, and are fundamentally, even diametrically, different solutions to this problem. So I thought it would be interesting to compare them in detail. Silicon is a semiconductor, torn between trapping its valence electrons in silicon atoms, or distributing them around in a conduction band, as in metals. With elemental doping, silicon can be manipulated to bias these properties, and that is the basis of the solar cell.

Schematic of a silicon solar cell. A static voltage exists across the N-type to P-type boundary, sweeping electrons freed by the photoelectric effect (light) up to the conducting electrode layer.

Solar cells have one side doped to N status, and the bulk set to P doping status. While the bulk material is neutral on both sides, at the boundary, a static charge scheme is set up where electrons are attracted into the P-side, and removed from the N-side. This static voltage has very important effects on electrons that are excited by incoming light and freed from their silicon atoms. These high energy electrons enter the conduction band of the material, and can migrate. Due to the prevailing field, they get swept towards the N side, and thus are separated and can be siphoned off with wires. The current thus set up can exert a pressure of about 0.6 volt. That is not much, nor is it equivalent to the 2 to 3 electron volts received from each visible photon. So a great deal of energy is lost as heat.

Solar cells do not care about capturing each energized electron in detail. Their purpose is to harvest a bulk electrical voltage + current with which to do some work in our electrical grids. Photosynthesis takes an entirely different approach, however. This may be mostly for historical and technical reasons, but also because part of its purpose is to do chemical work with the captured electrons. Biology tends to take a highly controlling approach to chemistry, using precise shapes, functional groups, and electrical environments to guide reactions to exact ends. While some of the power of photosynthesis goes toward pumping protons out of the membrane, setting up a gradient later used to make ATP, about half is used for other things like splitting water to replace lost electrons, and making reducing chemicals like NADPH.

A portion of a poster about the core processes of photosynthesis. It provides a highly accurate portrayal of the two photosystems and their transactions with electrons and protons.

In plants, photosynthesis is a chain of processes focused around two main complexes, photosystems I and II, and all occurring within membranes- the thylakoid membranes of the chloroplast. Confusingly, photosystem II comes first, accepting light, splitting water, pumping some protons, and sending out a pair of electrons on mobile plastoquinones, which eventually find their way to photosystem I, which jacks up their energy again using another quantum of light, to produce NADPH. 

Photosystem II is full of chlorophyll pigments, which are what get excited by visible photons. But most of them are "antenna" chlorophylls, passing the excitation along to a pair of centrally located chlorophylls. Note that the light energy is at this point passed as a molecular excitation, not as a free electron. This passage may happen by Förster resonance energy transfer, but is so fast and efficient that stronger Redfield coupling may be involved as well. Charge separation only happens at the reaction center, where an excited electron is popped out to a chain of recipients. The chlorophylls are organized so that the pair at the reaction center have a slightly lower energy of excitation, thus serve as a funnel for excitation energy from the antenna system. These transfers are extremely rapid, on the picosecond time scale.

It is interesting to note tangentially that only red light energy is used. Chlorophylls have two excitation states, excited by red light (680 nm = 1.82 eV) and blue light (400-450 nm, 2.76 eV) (note the absence of green absorbance). The significant extra energy from blue light is wasted, radiated away to let it (the excited electron) relax to the lower excitation state, which is then passed though the antenna complex as though it had come from red light. 

Charge separation is managed precisely at the photosystem II reaction center through a series of pigments of graded energy capacity, sending the excited electron first to a neighboring chlorophyll, then to a pheophytin, then to a pair of iron-coordinated quinones, which then pass two electrons to a plastoquinone that is released to the local membrane, to float off to the cytochrome b6f complex. In photosystem II, another two photons of light are separately used to power the splitting of one water molecule, (giving two electrons and pumping two protons). So the whole process, just within photosystem II, yields, per four light quanta, four protons pumped from one side of the membrane to the other. Since the ATP sythetase uses about three protons per ATP, this nets just over one ATP per four photons. 

Some of the energetics of photosystem II. The orientations and structures of the reaction center paired chlorophylls (Pd1, Pd2), the neighboring chlorophyll (Chl), and then the pheophytin (Ph) and quinones (Qa, Qb) are shown in the inset. Energy of the excited electron is sacrifice gradually to accomplish the charge separation and channeling, down to the final quinone pairing, after which the electrons are released to a plastoquinone and send to another complex in the chain.

So the principles of silicon and biological solar cells are totally different in detail, though each gives rise to a delocalized field, one of electrons flowing with a low potential, and the other of protons used later for ATP generation. Each energy system must have a way to pop off an excited electron in a controlled, useful way that prevents it from recombining with the positive ion it came from. That is why there is such an ornate conduction pathway in photosystem II to carry that electron away. Overall, points go to the silicon cell for elegance and simplicity, and we in our climate crisis are the beneficiaries, if we care to use it. 

But the photosynthetic enzymes are far, far older. A recent paper pointed out that no only are photosystems II and I clearly cousins of each other, but it is likely that, contrary to the consensus heretofore, photosystem II is the original version, at least of the various photosystems that currently exist. All the other photosystems (including those in bacteria that lack oxygen stripping ability) carry traces of the oxygen evolving center. It makes sense that getting electrons is a fundamental part of the whole process, even though that chemistry is quite challenging. 

That in turn raises a big question- if oxygen evolving photosystems are primitive (originating very roughly with the last common ancestor of all life, about four billion years ago) then why was earth's atmosphere oxygenated only from two billion years ago onward? It had been assumed that this turn in Earth history marked the evolution of photosystem II. The authors point out additionally that there is also evidence for the respiratory use of oxygen from these extremely early times as well, despite the lack of free oxygen. Quite perplexing, (and the authors decline to speculate), but one gets the distinct sense that possibly life, while surprisingly complex and advanced from early times, was not operating at the scale it does today. For example, colonization of land had to await the buildup of sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere to provide a protective ozone layer against UV light. It may have taken the advent of eukaryotes, including cyanobacterial-harnessing plants, to raise overall biological productivity sufficiently to overcome the vast reductive capacity of the early earth. On the other hand, speculation about the evolution of early life based on sequence comparisons (as these authors do) is notoriously prone to artifacts, since what evolves at vanishingly slow rates today (such as the photosystem core proteins) must have originally evolved at quite a rapid clip to attain the functions now so well conserved. We simply can not project ancient ages (at the four billion year time scales) from current rates of change.

• Light can do other wonderful things for us.
• Congressional acts, Official acts, and criminal acts.

The Origin of Life

What do we know about how it all began? Will we ever know for sure?

Of all the great mysteries of science, the origin of life is maybe the one least likely to ever be solved. It is a singular event that happened four billion years ago in a world vastly different from ours. Scientists have developed a lot of ideas about it and increased knowledge of this original environment, but in the end, despite intense interest, the best we will be able to do is informed speculation. Which is, sure, better than uninformed speculation, (aka theology), but still unsatisfying. 

A recent paper about sugars and early metabolism (and a more fully argued precursor) piqued my interest in this area. It claimed that there are non-enzymatic ways to generate most or all of the core carbohydrates of glycolysis and CO2 fixation around pentose sugars, which are at the core of metabolism and the supply of sugars like ribose that form RNA, ATP, and other key compounds. The general idea is that at the very beginning of life, there were no enzymes and proteins, so our metabolism is patterned on reactions that originally happened naturally, with some kind of kick from environmental energy sources and mineral catalysts, like iron, which was very abundant. 

That is wonderful, but first, we had better define what we mean by life, and figure out what the logical steps are to cross this momentous threshold. Life is any chemical process that can accomplish Darwinian evolution. That is, it replicates in some fashion, and it has to encode those replicated descendants in some way that is subject to mutation and selection. With those two ingredients, we are off to the races. Without them, we are merely complex minerals. Crystals replicate, sometimes quite quickly, but they do not encode descendent crystals in a way that is complex at all- you either get the parent crystal, or you get a mess. This general theory is why the RNA world hypothesis was, and remains, so powerful. 

The RNA world hypothesis is that RNA is likely the first genetic material, before DNA (which is about 200 times more stable) was devised. RNA also has catalytic capabilities, so it could encode in its own structure some of the key mechanisms of life, therefore embodying both of the critical characteristics of life specified above. The fact that some key processes remain catalyzed by RNA today, such as ribosomal synthesis of proteins, spliceosomal re-arrangement of RNAs, and cutting of RNAs by RNAse P, suggest that proteins (as well as DNA) were the Johnny-come-latelies of the chemistry of life, after RNA had, in its lumbering, inefficient way, blazed the trail. 

In this image of the ribosome, RNA is gray, proteins are yellow. The active site is marked with a bright light. Which came first here-
protein or RNA?

But what kind of setting would have been needed for RNA to appear? Was metabolism needed? Does genetics come first, or does metabolism come first? If one means a cyclic system of organic transformations encoded by protein or RNA enzymes, then obviously genetics had to come first. But if one means a mess of organic chemicals that allowed some RNA to be made and provide modest direction to its own chemical fate, and to a few other reactions, then yes, those chemicals had to come first. A great deal of work has been done speculating what kind of peculiar early earth conditions might have been conducive to such chemistries. Hydrothermal vents, with their constant input of energy, and rich environment of metallic catalysts? Clay particles, with their helpful surfaces that can faux-crystalize formation of RNAs? Warm ponds, hot ponds, UV light.... the suggestions are legion. The main thing to realize is that early earth was surely highly diverse, had a lot of energy, and had lots of carbon, with a CO2-rich atmosphere. UV would have created a fair amount of carbon monoxide, which is the feedstock of the Fischer-Tropsch reactions that create complex organic compounds, including lipids, which are critical for formation of cells. Early earth very likely had pockets that could produce abundant complex organic molecules.

Thus early life was surely heterotrophic, taking in organic chemicals that were given by the ambient conditions for free. And before life really got going, there was no competition- there was nothing else to break those chemicals down, so in a sort of chemical pre-Darwinian setting, life could progress very slowly (though RNA has some instability in water, so there are limits). Later, when some of the scarcer chemicals were eaten up by other already-replicating life forms, then the race was on to develop those enzymes, of what we now recognize as metabolism, which could furnish those chemicals out of more common ingredients. Onwards the process then went, hammering out ever more extensive metabolic sequences to take in what was common and make what was precious- those ribose sugars, or nucleoside rings that originally had arrived for free. The first enzymes would have been made of RNA, or metals, or whatever was at hand. It was only much later that proteins, first short, then longer, came on the scene as superior catalysts, extensively assisted by metals, RNAs, vitamins, and other cofactors.

Where did the energy for all this come from? To cross the first threshold, only chemicals (which embodied outside energy cycles) were needed, not energy. Energy requirements accompanied the development of metabolism, as the complex chemicals become scarcer and they needed to be made internally. Only when the problem of making complex organic chemicals from simpler ones presented itself did it also become important to find some separate energy source to do that organic chemistry. Of course, the first complex chemicals absolutely needed were copies of the original RNA molecules. How that process was promoted, through some kind of activated intermediates, remains particularly unclear.

All this happened long before the last universal common ancestor, termed "LUCA", which was already an advanced cell just prior to the split into the archaeal and bacterial lineages, (much later to rejoin to create the most amazing form of life- eukaryotes). There has been quite a bit of analysis of LUCA to attempt to figure out the basic requirements of life, and what happened at the origin. But this ("top-down") approach is not useful. The original form of life was vastly more primitive, and was wholly re-written in countless ways before it became the true bacterial cell, and later still, LUCA. Only the faintest traces remain in our RNA-rich biochemistry. Just think about the complexity of the ribosome as an RNA catalyst, and one can appreciate the ragged nature of the RNA world, which was probably full of similar lumbering catalysts for other processes, each inefficient and absurdly wasteful of resources. But it could reproduce in Darwinian fashion, and thus it could improve. 

Today we find on earth a diversity of environments, from the bizarre mineral-driven hydrothermal vents under the ocean to the hot springs of Yellowstone. The geology of earth is wondrously varied, making it quite possible to credit one or more of the many theories of how complex organic molecules may have become a "soup" somewhere on the early Earth. When that soup produces ribose sugars and the other rudiments of RNA, we have the makings of life. The many other things that have come to characterize it, such as lipid membranes and metabolism of compounds are fundamentally secondary, though critically important for progress beyond that so-pregnant moment. 

• Notes on US history.
• The fascist playbook.
• Chemosynthetic life is doing very well.
• Decimation leads to decline.
• FYI, a discussion of phosphate.
• FYI, a discussion of hypothetical steps toward RNA self-replication.

Eccentricity, Obliquity, Precession, and Glaciation

The glacial cycles of the last few million years were highly determined by earth's orbital mechanics.

Naturalism as a philosophy came into its own when Newton explained the heavens as a machine, not a pantheon. It was stunning to realize that age-old mysteries were thoroughly explicable and that, if we kept at it with a bit of diligence and intellectual openness, we could attain ever-widening vistas of understanding, which now reach to the farthest reaches of the universe. 

In our current day, the mechanics of Earth's climate have become another example of this expansion of understanding, and, sadly, another example of resistance to naturalism, to scientific understanding, and ultimately to the stewardship of our environment. It has dawned on the scientific community (and anyone else willing to look) over the last few decades that our industrial production of CO2 is heating the climate, and that it needs to stop if the biosphere is to be saved from an ever-more degrading crisis. But countervailing excuses and interests abound, and we are now ruled by an adminstration in the US whose values run toward lies and greed, and which naturally can not abide moral responsibility.

The Cenozoic, our present age after the demise of the dinosaurs, has been characterized by falling levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has led to a progression from very warm climates 50 mya (million years ago) to ice ages beginning roughly 3 mya. The reasons for this are not completely clear. There has been a marked lack of vocanism, which is one of main ways CO2 gets back into the atmosphere. This contrasts strongly with ages of extreme volcanism like the Permian-Triassic boundary and extinction events, about 250 mya. It makes one think that the earth may be storing up a mega-volcanic event for the future. Yeet plate tectonics has kept plugging along, and has sent continents to the poles, where they previously hung out in more equatorial locations. That makes ice ages possible, giving glaciers something to glaciate, rather than letting ocean circulation keep the poles temperate. Additionally, the uplift of the Himalayas has dramatically increased rock exposure and weathering, which is the main driver of CO2 burial, by carbonate formation. And on top of all that has been the continued evolution of plant life, particularly the grasses, which have extra mechanisms to extract CO2 out of the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere has been falling through most of the Cenozoic.

All this has led to the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which have been stable at about 300 ppm over the last million years, very gradually declining prior to that time. Now we are pushing 420 ppm and beyond, which the biosphere has not seen for ten million years or more, and doing so at speeds that no amount of evolution can accommodate. The problem is clear enough, once the facts are laid out.

But what about those glaciations, which have been such a dramatic and influential feature of Earth's climate over the last few million years? They have followed a curious periodicity, advancing and retreating repeatedly over this time. Does that have anything to do with CO2? It turns out that it does not, and we have to turn our eyes to the heavens again for an explanation. It was Milankovitch, a century ago, who first solidified the theory that the changing orbital parameters of Earth, and particularly the intensity of the sun in the Northern hemisphere, where most of the land surface of Earth lies, that causes this repetitive climatic behavior.  

Cycles of orbital parameters and glaciation, over a million years.

It was in 1976 that a more refined analysis put a mathematical model and better data behind the Milankovitch cycles, showing that one major element of our orbit around the sun- the variation of eccentricity- had the greatest overall effect on the 100,000 year periodicity of recent glacial cycles. Eccentricity is how skewed our orbit is from round-ness, which varies slightly over time, due to interactions with other planets. Secondly, the position of the Earth's tilt at various points of this eliptical orbit, whether closer to the sun in northern summer, or father away, has critical effects on net solar input and on glaciation. The combined measure is called the precessional index, expressing the earth-sun distance in June. The eccentricity itself has a period of about 93,000 years, and the precessional index has a periodicity of 21,000 years. As glacial cycles over the last 800,000 years have had a strong 100,000 year periodicity, it is clearly the eccentricity alone that has the strongest single effect.

Lastly, there is also the tilt of the Earth, called obliquity, which varies slightly with a 40,000 year cycle. A recent paper made a major claim that they had finally solved the whole glaciation cycle in more detail than previously, by integrating all these cycles into a master algorithm for when glaciations start/end. They were curious about exactly what drives the deglaciation phase, within the large eccentricity-driven energetic cycle. The rule they came up with, again using better data and more complicated algorithms, is that it reaches its maximum rate when, after a minimum of eccentricity, the precession parameter (the purple line, below) has reached a peak, and the obliquity parameter (the green line, below) is rising. That is, when the Earth's degree of tilt and closeness to the sun in Norther summer are mutually reinforcing. There are also lags built into this, since it takes one or two thousand years for these orbital effects to build heat up in the climate system, a bit like spring happening annually well after the equinox.

"We find that the set of precession peaks (minima) responsible for terminations since 0.9 million years ago is a subset of those peaks that begin (i.e., the precession parameter starts decreasing) while obliquity is increasing. Specifically, termination occurs with the first of these candidate peaks to occur after each eccentricity minimum."

 

 

Summary diagram from Barker, et al. At the very top is a synopsis of the orbital variables. At bottom are the glacial cycles, marked with yellow dots (maximum slope of deglaciation), red dots (maximum extent of deglaciation) and blue dots (maximum slope of reglaciation, also called inception). Above this graph is an analysis of the time spans between the yellow and red dots, showing the strength of each deglaciation (gray double arrows). They claim that this strength is proportion to an orbita parameter illustrated above with the T-designation of each glacial cycle. This parameter is precession lagged by obliquity. Finally in the upper graph, the orbital cycles are shown directly, especially including eccentricity in gray, and the time points of the yellow nodes are matched here with purple nodes, lagged with the preceeding (by ~2,000 years) rising obliquity as an orange node. The green verticle bars were applied by me to ease the clear correlation of eccentricity maxima vs deglaciation maxima.

I have to say that the communication of this paper is not crystal clear, and the data a bit iffy. The T5 deglaciation, for instance, which is relatively huge, comes after a tiny minimum of eccentricity and at a tiny peak of precession, making the scale of the effect hard to understand from the scale of the inputs. T3 shows the opposite, with large inputs yielding a modest, if extended, deglacial cycle. And the obliquity values that are supposed to drive the deglaciation events are quite scattered over their respective cycle. But I take their point that ultimately, it is slight variations in the solar inputs that drive these cycles, and we just need to tease out / model the details to figure out how it works.

There is another question in the field, which is that, prior to 800,000 years ago, glacial cycles were much less dramatic, and had a faster cadence of about 40,000 years. This is clearly more lined up with the obliquity parameter as a driver. So while obliquity is part of the equation in the recent period, involved in triggering deglaciation, it was the primary driver a million years ago, when CO2 levels were perhaps slightly higher and the system didn't need the extra push from eccentricity to cycle milder glaciations. Lastly, why are the recent glacial cycles so pronounced, when the orbital forcing effects are so small and take thousands of years to build up? Glaciation is self-reinforcing, in that higher reflectivity from snow / ice drives down warming. Conversely, retreat of glaciers can release large amounts of built-up methane and other forms of carbon from permafrost, continental shelves, the deep ocean, etc. So there may be some additional cycle, such as a smaller CO2 or methane cycle, that halts glaciation at its farthest extent- that aspect remains a bit unclear.

Overall, the earlier paper of Hays et al. found that summer insolation varies by at most 10% over Earth's various orbital cycles. That is not much, yet it drives glaciation of ice sheets thousands of feet thick, and reversals back to deglaciation that uncovers bare rock all over the far north. It shows that Earth's climate is extremely sensitive to small effects. The last time CO2 was as high as it is now, (~16 mya), Greenland was free of ice. We are heading in that direction very rapidly now, in geological terms. Earth has experienced plenty of catastrophes in the past, even some caused biologically, such as the oxygenation of the atmosphere. But this, what we are doing to the biosphere now, is something quite new.

• That new world order we were working on...
• Degradation and corruption at FAA.. what could go wrong?
• Better air.
• Congress has the power, should it choose to use it.
• Ongoing destruction, degradation.
• Oh, Canada!

Proving Evolution the Hard Way

Using genomes and codon ratios to estimate selective pressures was so easy... why is it not working?

The fruits of evolution surround us with abundance, from the tallest tree to the tiniest bacterium, and the viruses of that bacterium. But the process behind it is not immediately evident. It was relatively late in the enlightenment before Darwin came up with the stroke of insight that explained it all. Yet that mechanism of natural selection remains an abstract concept requiring an analytical mind and due respect for very inhuman scales of the time and space in play. Many people remain dumbfounded, and in denial, while evolutionary biology has forged ahead, powered by new discoveries in geology and molecular biology.

A recent paper (with review) offered a fascinating perspective, both critical and productive, on the study of evolutionary biology. It deals with the opsin protein that hosts the visual pigment 11-cis-retinal, by which we see. The retinal molecule is the same across all opsins, but different opsin proteins can "tune" the light wavelength of greatest sensitivity, creating the various retinal-opsin combinations for all visual needs, across the cone cells and rod cells. This paper considered the rhodopsin version of opsin, which we use in rod cells to perceive dim light. They observed that in fish species, the sensitivity of rhodopsin has been repeatedly adjusted to accommodate light at different depths of the water column. At shallow levels, sunlight is similar to what we see, and rhodopsin is tuned to about 500 nm, while deeper down, when the light is more blue-ish, rhodopsin is tuned towards about 480 nm maximum sensitivity. There are also special super-deep fish who see by their own red-tinged bioluminescence, and their rhodopsins are tuned to 526 nm. 

This "spectrum" of sensitivities of rhodopsin has a variety of useful scientific properties. First, the evolutionary logic is clear enough, matching the fish's vision to its environment. Second, the molecular structure of these opsins is well-understood, the genes are sequenced, and the history can be reconstructed. Third, the opsin properties can be objectively measured, unlike many sequence variations which affect more qualitative, difficult-to-observe, or impossible-to-observe biological properties. The authors used all this to carefully reconstruct exactly which amino acids in these rhodopsins were the important ones that changed between major fish lineages, going back about 500 million years.

The authors' phylogenetic tree of fish and other species they analyzed rhodopsin molecules from. Note how mammals occupy the bottom small branch, indicating how deeply the rest of the tree reaches. The numbers in the nodes indicate the wavelength sensitivity of each (current or imputed) rhodopsin. Many branches carry the author's inference, from a reconstructed and measured protein molecule, of what precise changes happened, via positive selection, to get that lineage.

An alternative approach to evolutionary inference is a second target of these authors. That is a codon-based method, that evaluates the rate of change of DNA sites under selection versus sites not under selection. In protein coding genes (such as rhodopsin), every amino acid is encoded by a triplet of DNA nucleotides, per the genetic code. With 64 codons for ~20 amino acids, it is a redundant code where many DNA changes do not change the protein sequence. These changes are called "synonymous". If one studies the rate of change of synonymous sites in the DNA, (which form sort of a control in the experiment), compared with the rate of change of non-synonymous sites, one can get a sense of evolution at work. Changing the protein sequence is something that is "seen" by natural selection, and especially at important positions in the protein, some of which are "conserved" over billions of years. Such sites are subject to "negative" selection, which to say rapid elimination due to the deleterious effect of that DNA and protein change.

Mutations in protein coding sequence can be synonymous, (bottom), with no effect, or non-synonymous (middle two cases), changing the resulting protein sequence and having some effect that may be biologically significant, thus visible to natural selection.

This analysis has been developed into a high art, also being harnessed to reveal "positive" selection. In this scenario, if the rate of change of the non-synonymous DNA sites is higher than that of the synonymous sites, or even just higher than one would expect by random chance, one can conclude that these non-synonymous sites were not just not being selected against, but were being selected for, an instance of evolution establishing change for the sake of improvement, instead of avoiding change, as usual.

Now back to the rhodopsin study. These authors found that a very small number of amino acids in this protein, only 15, were the ones that influenced changes to the spectral sensitivity of these protein complexes over evolutionary time. Typically only two or three changes occurred over a shift in sensitivity in a particular lineage, and would have been the ones subject to natural selection, with all the other changes seen in the sequence being unrelated, either neutral or selected for other purposes. It is a tour de force of structural analysis, biochemical measurement, and historical reconstruction to come up with this fully explanatory model of the history of piscene rhodopsins. 

But then they went on to compare what they found with what the codon-based methods had said about the matter. And they found that there was no overlap whatsover. The amino acids identified by the "positive selection" codon based methods were completely different than the ones they had found by spectral analysis and phylogenetic reconstruction over the history of fish rhodopsins. The accompanying review is particularly harsh about the pseudoscientific nature of this codon analysis, rubbishing the entire field. There have been other, less drastic, critiques as well.

But there is method to all this madness. The codon based methods were originally conceived in the analysis of closely related lineages. Specifically, various Drosophia (fly) species that might have diverged over a few million years. On this time scale, positive selection has two effects. One is that a desirable amino acid (or other) variation is selected for, and thus swept to fixation in the population. The other, and corresponding effect, is that all the other variations surrounding this desirable variation (that is, which are nearby on the same chromosome) are likewise swept to fixation (as part of what is called a haplotype). That dramatically reduces the neutral variation in this region of the genome. Indeed, the effect on neutral alleles (over millions of nearby base pairs) is going to vastly overwhelm the effect from the newly established single variant that was the object of positive selection, and this imbalance will be stronger the stronger the positive selection. In the limit case, the entire genomes of those without the new positive trait/allele will be eliminated, leaving no variation at all.

Yet, on the longer time scale, over hundreds of millions of years, as was the scope of visual variation in fish, all these effects on the neutral variation level wash out, as mutation and variation processes resume, after the positively selected allele is fixed in the population. So my view of this tempest in an evolutionary teapot is that these recent authors (and whatever other authors were deploying codon analysis against this rhodopsin problem) are barking up the wrong tree, mistaking the proper scope of these analyses. Which, after all, focus on the ratio between synonymous and non-synonymous change in the genome, and thus intrinsically on recent change, not deep change in genomes.

• That all-American mix of religion, grift, and greed.
• Christians are now in charge.
• Mechanisms of control by the IMF and the old economic order.
• A new pain med, thanks to people who know what they are doing.