Are they embryos or not?

Once again, news about fossils (I promise that I'm not turning this into a paleontology blog).

The Doushantuo Formation in China is one of the most important sites for pre-Cambrian microfossils. These date back to before the Cambrian Explosion of animal life in prehistoric seas, exactly where you'd want to go looking if you were interested in the origins of animal diversity. What's important about Doushantuo is that the fossils recovered are microscopic and preserve fine structural detail, the original cells having been replaced by phosphate minerals. 

Many of the Doushantuo microfossils were interpreted as fossilized animal embryos encased within ornamented walls (see image below, via Ministry of Science and Technology, China). If so, they would represent some of the earliest evidence for metazoan (i.e. multicellular animal) life. It is a particularly appealing idea, because they would then pre-date the known adult animal fossils.

But as always, fossilized forms are notoriously difficult to interpret, especially globs of microscopic spheres. Some others have suggested that they could be giant bacteria, analogous to the modern Thiomargarita namibiensis, which achieves its great size by accumulating nitrate in a big vacuole in the cell, which it uses as a source of energy. 

To investigate this hypothesis, one group of scientists decided to go with the approach of experimental taphonomy. Taphonomy is the science that studies the process of fossilization, so essentially what they did was to kill the giant bacteria Thiomargarita and also some sea urchin embryos, and then see what they looked like as they decayed. 

Well, that was the plan, anyway. According to their paper (recently published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, B):

Attempts to kill the bacteria in a consistent manner using strongly reducing conditions induced with beta-mercaptoethanol (BME) were ineffective. ... Consequently, we relied on a decay pathway from the natural taphonomic spectrum in the population.

I.e. "we couldn't kill the bugs, so we fished out the dead ones from the mud instead."

They found that dead Thiomargarita look nothing like the Doushantuo fossils: because of their internal vacuole, they collapse readily. And so it seems that the "giant bacterium" theory is quite unlikely.

But does that mean that they're embryos? Another research group (sharing at least one team member as the previous group), this time publishing in Science, claims that they aren't, based on the patterns of cell division that they found by peering into the fossils using X-ray tomographic microscopy. (Blog post on Scientific American)

Reassuringly, they found structures that they interpret to be eukaryotic cell nuclei within the compartments. It's worth quoting their "criteria for biogenicity" to appreciate the reasoning that goes on "under the hood":

The nucleus-like bodies fulfill relevant criteria for biogenicity: Their occurrence is consistent and repeated (12 of the 14 specimens have one such body in each cell); they are regularly positioned in the cells within any single individual (central to the cells in four of the specimens, peripherally in the others); they have a consistently globular shape; and the volumetric ratio between bodies and cells corresponds to that of nuclei and cells in eukaryotes (fig. S6 and table S1). Furthermore, one specimen (Fig. 2 and fig. S1, D to H) has two elongated and one dumbbell-shaped nucleus-like body, suggesting that they are in the process of division.

In an observational science, as opposed to an experimental science, like paleontology, the standard of proof (to borrow the legal term) is more akin to "preponderance of evidence" (used in civil cases) than "beyond a reasonable doubt" (used in criminal cases). This is not to criticize the validity of their work, but just a comment on the practical limits of knowledge.

But the pattern of cell division that they observed wasn't like metazoan embryos. Embryos undergo a period of "palintomic division", where the overall size of the cell mass doesn't change but is simply subdivided into more and more cells. At some point, however, morphogenesis takes over and higher-order structures such as epithelial sheets start to form. In these fossils, they found no such differentiation. The pattern they found was instead of further and further undifferentiated cell division, and in some cases protrusions containing lots of small cells. Perhaps these might be propagules waiting to be released into the environment, they hypothesize.

In the title of their paper, the researchers interpret the Doushantuo microfossils to be a kind of "protist". The term is used as a grab-bag for all eukaryotes that are not plants, animals, or fungi. That is to say, they think it's an eukaryote, but don't quite know what kind.  More observations will probably be necessary, and perhaps we may never know what it is.

Yet they're still valuable, because you don't always need to be able to slap a name on something to learn interesting things about it. These microfossils still represent an interesting example of multicellularity. It may or may not be the complex multicellularity exhibited by animals and plants, but it still gives a glimpse into the morphological organization that can be achieved by "simpler" living organisms.

Sources

• JA Cunningham et al. Experimental taphonomy of giant sulphur bacteria: implications for the interpretation of the embryo-like Ediacaran Doushantuo fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B. Online before print, 7 Dec 2011. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2064
• T Huldtgren, JA Cunningham et al. Fossilized nuclei and germination structures identify Ediacaran "animal embryos" as encysting protists. Science 334 (6063): 1696-1699. 23 Dec 2011. doi: 10.1126/science.1209537

Imitation, flattery, and body-plans

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then ants might be among the most celebrated creatures of the insect world. A delightful essay in Current Biology describes some of the more uncanny cases of ant-mimicry among arthropods, among them the treehopper Cyphonia clavata.

Ant-mimicking treehopper Cyphonia clavata. Via Flickr.

The 'ant' that's apparently riding on the back of the treehopper is actually an extension of its headshield. The green coloration of the rest of its body blends in with its leafy background, so on first glance you only see the black 'ant'. The mimic is seated in reverse: if you look carefully at the 'abdomen' of the 'ant', you'll see the green eye of the treehopper staring right back at you. This makes sense because in their defensive posture, ants move backwards.

Creatures that mimic ants are called myrmecomorphs ('ant-shaped', from Greek). There are certainly a lot of ants out there to be imitated (Antweb has high-resolution scans of ant specimens from around the world). One statement in this essay got me thinking:

"... there are about 2,000 species that mimic ants. Not surprisingly, these are nearly all insects or spiders, as a certain degree of body plan resemblance to ants is probably a prerequisite to becoming a myrmecomorph. ... ant mimicry must have evolved many times independently."

Treehoppers are true bugs (Hemiptera) in the family Membracidae. They are known for their headshields, also called helmets, which are responsible for the great diversity of form in this family. Some of them look like they may have inspired the fascinators worn by some of the women at the recent Royal wedding.

Diversity of treehopper headshield forms - Cyphonia clavata is at bottom right. Via Nature

Developmental biologists have now found that the helmet is actually a body plan innovation (original paper abstract), something that's incredibly rare in evolution. New structures are typically formed by modifying or reducing existing parts of anatomy, but innovations such as new appendages or new body segments are much rarer.

Insects typically have a pair of legs on each of the three thoracic segments (T1 to T3), and wings on the 2nd and 3rd (T2 and T3). The helmet arises from the 1st thoracic segment (T1), and anatomical observations have suggested in the past that they might be homologues of wings. By looking at gene expression in a developing treehopper, biologists found that wing-specific transcription factors (which control the expression of other genes), especially Nubbin, are expressed in the developing helmet, which indicates that it's developmentally homologous to wing appendages. They suggest that the Hox genes responsible for suppressing wing formation in T1 have been suppressed in treehoppers, allowing the evolution of the helmet. Because they aren't needed for flight, they aren't faced with the same physical constraints and so have been able to develop into a wild variety of shapes and sizes.

So coming back to the statement about body plan resemblances quoted above, perhaps the idea is more beguiling than it actually should be. An ant mimic for sure will have to be bilaterally symmetrical, of the right ant size, but beyond that I don't think the prerequisites for mimicry can be quantified. For conceptual proof of this, watch this famous octopus species mimic in turn a brittlestar, lionfish, and sea snake.

Highlights of the Week

Some interesting news and articles from around the web for this week:

Cicadas are emerging en masse in the Midwestern United States after yet another 13-year cycle.
Cicadas are insects which are known for their loud and distinctive sounds produced by a mechanism called 'tymbalization' in their abdomens. Several species in the genus Magicicada in the US are called 'periodical cicadas' because they transition into the adult phase of their life cycle in a synchronized manner in cycles of 13 or 17 years. This summer the time has come for the emergence for the so-called brood XIX. These emergences happen in such numbers that early European settlers thought that the cicadas were the pestilential "locusts" of the Bible, and their carcasses litter forests in a deep crunchy layer. Find out more about cicadas at this website from the University of Michigan.

Mathematics and biology have a deep and subtle relationship. 
Viruses, for example, have self-assembling coats made up of protein subunits, which tile together in specific geometric forms. Disrupt these geometries, and one might be able to render a virus harmless.... Other fields of mathematics, such as chaos theory, can help in modeling natural phenomena such as plankton dynamics in the ocean. (I wish this essay was illustrated, though.)

How do flatworms regenerate their missing body parts?
The planarians (flatworms) are favorite classroom examples for regeneration because of their freakish ability to regenerate a complete worm when cut into multiple pieces. New research shows that cells in the worms called neoblasts, which can be thought of as analogous to stem cells in other animals, are pluripotent, meaning that they can develop into any cell type in the body. Researchers have also found some of the factors that determine whether a newly divided cell in a regenerating animal will develop into part of the head or the tail.

Picture this - Drosophila germ band formation

Explaining Drosophila development just after the cellularisation process to a student can be tough. I tried to and ended up searching youtube for animations. It's mentally difficult to picture the invagination of the mesoderm and then the migration of blastoderm cells to initiate germ band formation from worded descriptions. I am quoting this segment from the wikipedia on germ band extension "During this process the ventral germ-band extends around the posterior end of the embryo, effectively folding over onto the dorsal side of the egg. Multiple individual cells intercalating mediolateral to the anterior-posterior axis drive the resulting global elongation of the embryo." How does one get a handle on that?

Developmental Biology was one of my favorite subjects in NUS, taught by the enthusiastic and nurturing Prof Lim Tit Meng (now director of the Singapore Science Centre). Those days we had plasticine models to play with to help us figure out gastrulation. If you didn't have good spatial cognitive skills, good luck to you. So I am highlighting this video from the Garland Science channel that immediately solves the problem. Two thumbs up. It gets five popcorns from me.