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.

The Climate is Changing

Fires in LA, and a puff of smoke in DC.

An ill wind has blown into Washington, a government of whim and spite, eager to send out the winged monkeys to spread fear and kidnap the unfortunate. The order of the day is anything that dismays the little people. The wicked witch will probably have melted away by the time his most grievous actions come to their inevitable fruition, of besmirching and belittling our country, and impoverishing the world. Much may pass without too much harm, but the climate catastrophe is already here, burning many out of their homes, as though they were made of straw. Immoral and spiteful contrariness on this front will reap the judgement and hatred of future generations.

But hasn't the biosphere and the climate always been in flux? Such is the awful refrain from the right, in a heartless conservatism that parrots greedy, mindless propaganda. In truth, Earth has been blessed with slowness. The tectonic plates make glaciers look like race cars, and the slow dance of Earth's geology has ruled the evolution of life over the eons, allowing precious time for incredible biological diversification that covers the globe with its lush results.

A stretch of relatively unbroken rain forest, in the Amazon.

Past crises on earth have been instructive. Two of the worst were the end-Permian extinction event, about 252 million years ago (mya), and the end-Cretaceous extinction event, about 66 mya. The latter was caused by a meteor, so was a very sudden event- a shock to the whole biosphere. Following the initial impact and global fire, it is thought to have raised sun-shielding dust and sulfur, with possible acidification, lasting for years. However, it did not have very large effects on CO2, the main climate-influencing gas.

On the other hand, the end-Permian extinction event, which was significantly more severe than the end-Cretaceous event, was a more gradual affair, caused by intense volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia. Recent findings show that this was a huge CO2 event, turning the climate of Earth upside down. CO2 went from about 400 ppm, roughly what we are at currently, to 2500 ppm. The only habitable regions were the poles, while the tropics were all desert. But the kicker is that this happened over the surprisingly short (geologically speaking) time of about 80,000 years. CO2 then stayed high for the next roughly 400,00 years, before returning slowly to its former equilibrium. This rate of rise was roughly 2.7 ppm per 100 years, yet that change killed off 90% of all life on Earth. 

The momentous analysis of the end-Permian extinction event, in terms of CO2, species, and other geological markers, including sea surface temperature (SST). This paper was when the geological brevity of the event was first revealed.

Compare this to our current trajectory, where atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm at the dawn of the industrial age to 420 ppm now. That is rate of maybe 100 ppm per 100 years, and rising steeply. It is a rate far too high for many species, and certainly the process of evolution itself, to keep up with, tuned as it is to geologic time. As yet, this Anthropocene extinction event is not quite at the level of either the end-Permian or end-Cretaceous events. But we are getting there, going way faster than the former, and creating a more CO2-based long-term climate mess than the latter. While we may hope to forestall nuclear war and thus a closer approximation to the end-Cretaceous event, it is not looking good for the biosphere, purely from a CO2 and warming perspective, putting aside the many other plagues we have unleashed including invasive species, pervasive pollution by fertilizers, plastics and other forever chemicals, and the commandeering of all the best land for farming, urbanization, and other unnatural uses. 

CO2 concentrations, along with emissions, over recent time.

We are truly out of Eden now, and the only question is whether we have the social, spiritual, and political capacity to face up to it. For the moment, obviously not. Something disturbed about our media landscape, and perhaps our culture generally, has sent us for succor, not to the Wizard who makes things better, but to the Wicked Witch of the East, who delights in lies, cruelty and destruction.

• The oligarchy is upon us. Oh, and they will help the working class!
• The attention economy.
• Which distorts our public understandings.
• Good coverage will never win in the attention economy.
• Keep Greenland white!

Eeking Out a Living on Ammonia

Some archaeal microorganisms have developed sophisticated nano-structures to capture their food: ammonia.

The earth's nitrogen cycle is a bit unheralded, but critical to life nonetheless. Gaseous nitrogen (N2) is all around us, but inert, given its extraordinary chemical stability. It can be broken down by lightning, but little else. It must have been very early in the history of life that the nascent chemical-biological life forms tapped out the geologically available forms of nitrogen, despite being dependent on nitrogen for countless critical aspects of organic chemistry, particularly of nucleic acids, proteins, and nucleotide cofactors. The race was then on to establish a way to capture it from the abundant, if tenaciously bound, dinitrogen of the air. It was thus very early bacteria that developed a way (heavily dependent, unsurprisingly, on catalytic metals like molybdenum and iron) to fix nitrogen, meaning breaking up the triple N≡N bond, and making ammonia, NH3 (or ammonium, NH4+). From there, the geochemical cycle of nitrogen is all down-hill, with organic nitrogen being oxidized to nitric oxide (NO), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3), and finally denitrification back to N2. Microorganisms obtain energy from all of these steps, some living exclusively on either nitrite or nitrate, oxidizing them as we oxidize carbon with oxygen to make CO2. 

Nitrosopumilus, as imaged by the authors, showing its corrugated exterior, a layer entirely composed of ammonia collecting elements (can be hexameric or pentameric). Insets show an individual hexagonal complex, in face-on and transverse views. Note also the amazing resolution of other molecules, such as the ribosomes floating about.

A recent paper looked at one of these denizens beneath our feet, an archaeal species that lives on ammonia, converting it to nitrite, NO2. It is a dominant microbe in its field, in the oceans, in soils, and in sewage treatment plants. The irony is that after we spend prodigious amounts of fossil fuels fixing huge amounts of nitrogen for fertilizer, most of which is wasted, and which today exceeds the entire global budget of naturally fixed nitrogen, we are faced with excess and damaging amounts of nitrogen in our effluent, which is then processed in complex treatment plants by our friends the microbes down the chain of oxidized states, back to gaseous N2.

Calculated structure of the ammonia-attracting pore. At right are various close-up views including the negatively charged amino acids (D, E) concentrated at the grooves of the structure, and the pores where ammonium can transit to the cell surface. 

The Nitrosopumilus genus is so successful because it has a remarkable way to capture ammonia from the environment, a way that is roughly two hundred times more efficient than that of its bacterial competitors. Its surface is covered by a curious array of hexagons, which turn out to be ammonia capture sites. In effect, its skin is an (relatively) enormous chemical antenna for ammonia, which is naturally at low concentration in sea water. These authors do a structural study, using the new methods of particle electron microscopy, to show that these hexagons have intensely negatively charged grooves and pores, to which positively charged ammonium ions are attracted. Within this outer shell, but still outside the cell membrane, enzymes at the cell surface transform the captured ammonium to other species such as hydroxylamine, which enforces the ammonium concentration gradient towards the cell surface, and which are then pumped inside.

Cartoon model of the ammonium attraction and transit mechanisms of this cell wall. 

It is a clever nano-material and micro-energetic system for concentrating a specific chemical- a method that might inspire human applications for other chemicals that we might need- chemicals whose isolation demands excessive energy, or whose geologic abundance may not last forever.

• Is reality getting through?
• Insurrection or not insurrection?
• The fluoride is OK.
• Cigarettes and ... wow!
• Bad judgement, ill discipline, and low morals. How did we get here?

Inside the Process of Speciation

Adaptive radiations are messy, so no wonder we have a hard time reconstructing them.

Darwin drew a legendary diagram in his great book, of lineage trees tracing speciation from ancestors to descendants. It was just a sketch, and naturally had clear fork points where one species turns into two. But in real life, speciation is messier, with range overlaps, inter-breeding, and difficulties telling species apart. Ornithologists are still lumping and splitting species to this day, as more data come in about ranges, genetics, sub-populations, breeding behavior, etc. And if defining existing species is difficult, defining exactly where they split in the distant past is even harder.

Darwin's notebook sketch of speciation, from ancestors ... to descendants.

The advent of molecular data from genomes gave a tremendous boost to the amount of information on which to base phylogenetic inferences. It gave us a whole new domain of life, for one thing. And it has helped sharpen countless phylogenies that not been fully specified by fossil and morphological data. But still, difficulties remain. The deepest and most momentous divergences, like the origin of life itself, and the origin of eukaryotes, remain shrouded in hazy and inconclusive trees, as do many other lineages, such as the origin of birds. It seems to be a rule that when a group of organisms undergoes rapid evolution / speciation, the tree they are on (as reconstructed by us from contemporary data) becomes correspondingly unclear and unresolved, difficult to trace through that tumultuous time. In part this is simply a matter of timing. If dramatic events happened within a few million years a billion years ago, our ability to resolve the sequence of those events is going to be weak in any case, compared to the same events spread out over a hundred million years.

A recent paper documented some of this about phylogeny in general, by correlating times of morphological change with times of phylogenetic haziness, which they term "gene-tree conflict". That is to say, if one samples genes across genomes to draw phylogenetic trees, different genes will give different trees. And this phenomenon increases right when there are other signs of rapid evolutionary change, i.e. changing morphology.

"One insight gleaned from phylogenomics is that gene-tree conflict, frequently caused by population-level processes, is often rampant during the origin of major lineages."

They identify three mechanisms behind this observation: incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), hybridization, and rapid evolution. Obviously, these need to be unpacked a bit. ILS is a natural consequence of the fact that species arise not from single organisms, but from populations. Gene mutations that differentiate the originating and future species happen all over the respective genomes, and enter the future lineage at different times. Some may happen well after the putative speciation event, and become fixed (that is, prevalent) later in that species. Others may have happened well before the speciation event, and die off in most of the descending lineages. The fact is that not every gene is going to march in lock step with the speciation event, in terms of its variants. So phylogenetic inference is best done using lots of genes plus statistical methods to arrive at the most likely explanation of the diverse individual gene trees.

Graphs drawn from different sources relating gene conflicts in lineage estimation, (top), versus rate of morphological change from the fossil record, (bottom), in birds, and over time on the X axis. There are dramatic upticks in all metrics going back towards the end-Cretaceous extinction event.

Similarly, hybridization means that proto-species are still occasionally interbreeding with their ancestors or other relatives, (think of Neanderthals), thereby mixing up the gene trees relative to the overall speciation tree. This can even happen by gene transfer mediated by viruses. "Rapid evolution" is not defined by these authors, and comes dangerously close to using the conclusion (of high morphological change during periods of "gene-tree conflict") to describe their premise. But generally, this would mean that some genes are evolving rapidly, due to novel selective pressures, thus deviating from the general march of neutral evolution that affects most loci more evenly. This rate change can mess up phylogenetic inferences, lengthening some (gene) tree branches versus others, and making a unitary tree (that is, for the species or lineage as a whole) hard to draw.

But these are all rather abstract ideas. How does this process look on the ground? A wonderful paper on the tomato gives us some insight. This group traced the evolutionary history of a genus of tomato (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon) in the South American Andes (plus Galapagos islands just off-shore, interestingly enough). These form a tight group of about thirteen species that evolved from a single ancestor over the last two million years, before jumping onto our lunch plates via intensive breeding by native South Americans. This has been a rapid process of evolution, and phylogenies have been difficult to draw, for all the reasons given above. The tomatoes are mostly reproductively isolated, but not fully, and have various specializations for their microhabitats. So are they real species? And how can they evolve and specialize if they do not fully isolate from each other?

Gene-based phylogenetic tree of Andean tomato species. The consensus tree is in black at the right, while alternate trees (cloud) are drawn from 2,745 windows of 100 kb across the tomato genomes, clearly giving diverse views of the lineage tree. Lycopersicon are the species under study, while Lycopericoides is an "outgroup" genus used as a control / comparison. 

In the graph above, there is, as they say, rampant discord among genomic segments, versus the overall consensus tree that they arrived at:

"However, these summary support measures conceal rampant phylogenetic complexity that is evident when examining the evolutionary history of more defined genomic partitions."

For one thing, much of the sequence diversity in the ancestor survives in the descendent lineages. The founders were not single plants, by any means. Second, there has been a lot of "introgression", which is to say, breeding / hybridization between lineages after their putative separation. 

Lastly, they find a high rate of novel mutations, often subject to clear positive selection. Ten enyzmes in the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway, which affects fruit color in a group that has evolved red fruits, carry novel mutations. A UV light damage repair gene shows strong signs of positive selection, in high-altitude species. Others show novel mutations in a temperature stress response gene, and selection on genes defending plants against heavy metals in the soil. 

Their conclusion (as that of the previous paper) is that adaptive radiations are characterized by several components that scramble normal phylogenetic analysis, including variably preserved diversity from the originating species, post-divergence gene flow (i.e. mating), and rapid adaptation to new conditions along with strong environmental selection over the pre-existing diversity. All of these mechanisms are happening at the same time, and each position in the genome is being affected at the same time, so this is a massively parallel process that, while slow in human time, can be very rapid in geologic time. They note how tomato speciation compares with some other well-known cases:

"Nonetheless, based on our crude estimates within each analysis, we infer that relatively small yet substantial fractions of the euchromatic genome are implicated in each source of genetic variation. We find little evidence that one of these processes predominates in its contribution, although our estimates suggest that de novo mutation might be relatively more influential and cross-species introgression relatively less so. This latter observation is in interesting contrast with several recent studies of animal adaptive radiations, including in Darwin’s Finches [18], Equids [14], and fish [13], where evidence suggests that hybridization and introgression might be much more pervasive and influential than previously suspected, and more abundant than we detect in Solanum."

Naturally, neither of these studies go back in time to nail down exactly what happened during these evolutionary radiations, nor what caused them. They only give hints about causation. Why the stasis of some species, and the rapid niche-finding and filling by others? Was the motive force natural selection, or god? The latter paper gives some clear hints about possible selective pressures and rationales that were at work in the Andes and Galapagos on the genus of Solanum. But it is always frustratingly a matter of abstract reasoning, in the manner of Darwin, that paints the forces at work, however detailed the genetic and biogeographic analyses and however convincing the analogous laboratory experiments on model, usually microbial, organisms. We have to think carefully, and within the discipline of known forces and mechanisms, to arrive at intellectually honest answers to these questions, insofar as they can be answered at all.

• Military procurement and production are hopelessly antiquated, and too slow for an actual crisis.
• The most basic rules of litigation, at the Supreme Court.
• Do wingnuts love the lockdown of educational institutions in Hungary because of the increased quality of research?

Aging and Death

Our fate was sealed a very long time ago.

Why do we die? It seems like a cruel and wasteful way to run a biosphere, not to mention a human life. After we have accumulated a lifetime of experience and knowledge, we age, decline, and sign off, whether to go to our just reward, or into oblivion. What is the biological rationale and defense for all this, which the biblical writers assigned to the fairy tale of the snake and the apple?

A recent paper ("A unified framework for evolutionary genetic and physiological theories of aging") discusses evolutionary theories of aging, but in typical French fashion, is both turgid and uninteresting. Aging is widely recognized as the consequence of natural selection, or more precisely, the lack thereof after organisms have finished reproducing. Thus we are at our prime in early adulthood, when we seek mates and raise young. Evolutionarily, it is all downhill from there. In professional sports, athletes are generally over the hill at 30, retiring around 35. Natural selection is increasingly irrelevant after we have done the essential tasks of life- surviving to mate and reproduce. We may participate in our communities, and do useful things, but from an evolutionary perspective, genetic problems at this phase of life have much less impact on reproductive success than those that hit earlier. 

All this is embodied in the "disposable soma" theory of aging, which is that our germ cells are the protected jewels of reproduction, while the rest of our bodies are, well, disposable, and thus experience all the indignities of age once their job of passing on the germ cells is done. The current authors try to push another "developmental" theory of aging, which posits that the tradeoffs between youth and age are not so much the resources or selective constraints focused on germ cell propagation vs the soma, but that developmental pathways are, by selection, optimized for the reproductive phase of life, and thus may be out of tune for later phases. Some pathways are over-functional, some under-functional for the aged body, and that imbalance is sadly uncorrected by evolution. Maybe I am not doing justice to these ideas, which maybe feed into therapeutic options against aging, but I find this distinction uncompelling, and won't discuss it further.

A series of unimpressive distinctions in the academic field studying aging from an evolutionary perspective.

Where did the soma arise? Single cell organisms are naturally unitary- the same cell that survives also mates and is the germ cell for the next generation. There are signs of aging in single cell organisms as well, however. In yeast, "mother" cells have a limited lifespan and ability to put out daughter buds. Even bacteria have "new" and "old" poles, the latter of which accumulate inclusion bodies of proteinaceous junk, which apparently doom the older cell to senescence and death. So all cells are faced with processes that fail over time, and the only sure bet is to start as a "fresh" cell, in some sense. Plants have taken a distinct path from animals, by having bodies and death, yes, but being able to generate germ cells from mature tissues instead of segregating them very early in development into stable and distinct gonads.

Multicellularity began innocently enough. Take slime molds, for example. They live as independent amoebae most of the time, but come together to put out spores, when they have used up the local food. They form a small slug-like body, which then grows a spore-bearing head. Some cells form the spores and get to reproduce, but most don't, being part of the body. The same thing happens with mushrooms, which leave a decaying mushroom body behind after releasing their spores. 

We don't shed alot of tears for the mushrooms of the world, which represent the death-throes of their once-youthful mycelia. But that was the pattern set at the beginning- that bodies are cells differentiated from the germ cells, that provide some useful, competitive function, at the cost of being terminal, and not reproducing. Bodies are forms of both lost energy and material, and lost reproductive potential from all those extra cells. Who could have imagined that they would become so ornate as to totally overwhelm, in mass and complexity, the germ cells that are the point of the whole exercise? Who could have imagined that they would gain feelings, purposes, and memories, and rage against the fate that evolution had in store for them?

On a more mechanistic level, aging appears to arise from many defects. One is the accumulation of mutations, which in soma cells lead to defective proteins being made and defective regulation of cell processes. An extreme form is cancer, as is progeria. Bad proteins and other junk like odd chemicals and chemically modified cell components can accumulate, which is another cause of aging. Cataracts are one example, where the proteins in our lenses wear out from UV exposure. We have quite intricate trash disposal processes, but they can't keep with everything, as we have learned from the advent of modern chemistry and its many toxins. Another cause is more programmatic: senescent cells, which are aged-out and have the virtue that they are blocked from dividing, but have the defect that they put out harmful signals to the immune system that promote inflammation, another general cause of aging.

Aging research has not found a single magic bullet, which makes sense from the evolutionary theory behind it. A few things may be fixable, but mostly the breakdowns were never meant to be remedied or fixed, nor can they be. In fact, our germ cells are not completely immune from aging either, as we learn from older fathers whose children have higher rates of autism. We as somatic bodies are as disposable as any form of packaging, getting those germ cells through a complicated, competitive world, and on to their destination.

• Climate policy as foreign policy.
• The future of home and grid energy.
• Sometimes AI is not so impressive.
• Are Christians better than other Americans?

Putting Body Parts in Their Places

How HOX genes run development, on butterfly wings.

I have written about the HOX complex of genes several times, because they constitute a grail of developmental genetics- genes that specify the identity of body parts. They occupy the middle of a body plan cascade of gene regulation, downstream from broader specifiers for anterior/posterior orientation, regional and segment specification, and in turn upstream of many more genes that specify the details of organ and tissue construction. Each of the HOX genes encodes a transcriptional regulator, and the name of one says it all- antennapedia. In fruit flies, where all this was first discovered, loss of antennapedia converts some legs into antennae, and extra expression of antennapedia converts antennae on the head into legs.

The HOX complex (named for the homeobox DNA binding motif of the proteins they encode) is linear, arranged from head-affecting genes (labial, proboscipedia) to abdomen-affecting genes (abdominal A, abdominal B; evidently the geneticist's flair for naming ran out by this point). This arrangement is almost universally conserved, and turns out to reflect molecular mechanisms operating on the complex. That is, it "opens" in a progressive manner during development, on the chromosome. Repression of chromatin is a very common and sturdy way to turn genes off, and tends to affect nearby genes, in a spreading effect. So it turns out to be easy, in some sense, to set up the HOX complex to have this chromatin repression lifted in a segmental fashion, by upstream regulators, whereby only the head sections are allowed to be expressed in head tissues, but all the genes are allowed to be expressed in the final abdominal segment. That is why the unexpected expression of antennapedia, which is the fifth of eight HOX genes, in the head, leads to a thoracic tissue (legs) forming on the head.

A recent paper delved a little more deeply into this story, using butterflies, which have a normal linearly conserved HOX cluster and are easy to diagnose for certain body part transformations (called homeotic) on their beautiful wings. The main thing these researchers were interested in is the genetic elements that separate one part of the HOX cluster from other parts. These are boundary or "insulator" elements that separate topologically associated domains (called TADs). Each HOX gene is surrounded by various regulatory enhancer and inhibitor sites in the DNA that are bound by regulatory proteins. And it is imperative that these sites be directed only to the intended gene, not neighboring genes. That is why such TADs exist, to isolate the regulation of genes from others nearby. There are now a variety of methods to map such TADs, by looking where chromatin (histones) are open or closed, or where DNA can be cut by enzymes in the native chromatin, or where crosslinks can be formed between DNA molecules, and others.

The question posed here was whether a boundary element, if deleted, would cause a homeotic transformation in the butterflies they were studying. They found, unfortunately, that it was impossible to generate whole animals with the deletions and other mutations they were engineering, so they settled for injecting the CRISPER mutational molecules into larval tissues and watching how they affected the adults in mosaic form, with some mutant tissues, some wild-type. The boundary they focused on was between antennapedia (Antp) and ultrabithorax (Ubx), and the tissues the forewings, where Ubx is normally off, and hindwings, where Ubx is normally on. Using methods to look at the open state of chromatin, they found that the Ubx gene is dramatically opened in hindwings, relative to forewings. Nevertheless, the boundary remains in place throughout, showing that there is a pretty strong isolation from Antp to Ubx, though they are next door and a couple hundred thousand basepairs apart. Which in genomic terms is not terribly far, while it leaves plenty of space for enhancers, promotes, introns, boundary elements, and other regulatory paraphernalia.

Analysis of the site-to-site chromosomal closeness and accessibility across the HOX locus of the butterfly Junonia coenia. The genetic loci are noted at the bottom, and the site-to-site hit rates are noted in the top panels, with blue for low rates of contact, and orange/red for high rates of contact. At top is the forewing, and at bottom is the hindwing, where Ubx is expressed, thus the high open-ness and intra-site contact within its topological domain (TAD). Yet the boundary between Ubx and Anp to its left (dotted lines at bottom) remains very strong in both tissues. In green is a measure of transcription from this DNA, in differential terms hindwing minus forewing, showing the strong repression of Ubx in the forewing, top panel.

The researchers naturally wanted to mutate the boundary element, (Antp-Ubx_BE), which they deduced lay at a set of binding sites (featuring CCCTC) for the protein CTCF, a well-known insulating boundary regulator. Note, interestingly, that in the image above, the last exon (blue) of Ubx (transcription goes right to left) lies across the boundary element, and in the topological domain of the Antp gene. This means that while all the regulatory apparatus of Ubx is located in its own domain, on the right side, it is OK for transcription to leak across- that has no regulatory implications. 

Effects of removing the boundary element between Ubx and Antp. Detailed description is in the text below. 

Removal of this boundary element, using CRISPER technology in portions of the larval tissues, had the expected partial effects on the larval, and later adult, wings of this butterfly. First, note that in panel D insets, the wild type larval forewing shows no expression of Ubx, (green), while the wild type hind wing shows wide-spread expression. This is the core role of the HOX locus and the Ubx gene- locate its expression in the correct body parts to then induce the correct tissues to develop. The larval wing tissue of the mosaic mutant, also in D, shows, in the forewing, extensive patchy expression of Ubx. This is then reflected in the adult (different animals) in the upper panels, in the mangled eyespot of the fully formed wing (center panel, compared to wild-type forewing and hindwing to each side). It is a small effect, but then these are small mutations, done in only a fraction of the larval cells, as well.

So here we are, getting into the nuts and bolts of how body parts are positioned and encoded. There are large regions around these genes devoted to regulatory affairs, including the management of chromatin repression, the insulation of one region from another, the enhancer and repressor sites that integrate myriad upstream signals (i.e. other DNA binding proteins) to come up with the detailed pattern of expression of these HOX genes. Which in turn control hundreds of other genes to execute the genetic program. This program can hardly be thought of as a blueprint, nor a "design" in anyone's eye, divine or otherwise. It resembles much more a vast pile of computer code that has accreted over time with occasional additions of subroutines, hacks, duplicated bits, and accidental losses, adding up to a method for making a body that is robust in some respects to the slings and arrows of fortune, but naturally not to mutations in its own code.

• How it looks from abroad.
• Was Mawmaw paranoid, or bipolar?
• China is plowing its investment excess into renewable energy.
• Visions of man.
• The health insurance system is dysfunctional.