Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random

[Jim__]

From phys.org:

Studying the genome of thale cress, a small flowering weed, led to a new understanding about DNA mutations. Credit: Pádraic Flood


A simple roadside weed may hold the key to understanding and predicting DNA mutation, according to new research from University of California, Davis, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany.

The findings, published January 12 in the journal Nature, radically change our understanding of evolution and could one day help researchers breed better crops or even help humans fight cancer.

Mutations occur when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired, creating a new variation. The scientists wanted to know if mutation was purely random or something deeper. What they found was unexpected.

"We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome," said Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences who is lead author on the paper. "It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it's non-random in a way that benefits the plant. It's a totally new way of thinking about mutation."

more ...

[Irish_Dem]

1. Wow, amazing. Does this mean there is more adaptability to climate change?

There is more protective ability to protect species?

I am still trying to wrap my head around this new finding.

[Jim__]

4. My reading of this is that mutations are not random means that are not equally likely across the ...

... whole genome.

Certain critical genes seem to reside in places in the genome that are far less likely to experience mutation. I'm not a biologist and I'm not sure how my reading squares with Grey Monroe's statement:

... It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it's non-random in a way that benefits the plant....

You can read the full paper here

[Irish_Dem]

5. Yes that was the money shot that prompted my question.

Non random mutations which benefit the plant.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. Personally I've long wondered if the creature's environment can actually affect mutations

I.E. that some creatures can micro-evolve in a somewhat purposeful way (not saying 'consciously', that's a big stretch) depending on conditions where they live, constraints on resources, prevalence/types of predation in the area, etc.

I ponder whether it can happen during the development/gestation of the offspring potentially, or some semblance of a 'choice' happening in terms of which eggs (or similar concept for plants) are available and/or favored for fertilization under certain environmental constraints or conditions.

For the present case in the article, it kinda just makes sense that the most mission-critical (respiration being an obvious example) functions are also the sturdiest in terms of resisting mutation (potentially into forms that are unworkable), if for no other reason than because this will be the most ancient 'system' in the genome, evolution-wise.

But that leads me to wonder ... could the types of mutations that are 'likely to happen' in a given genome ... actually be encoded in the genome itself?

[SCantiGOP]

3. I won't claim to understand this

But I believe it upsets a fundamental understanding of evolution if it is true. It seems to at least partially negate Survival of the Fittest as a prime driver of evolutionary change and adaptability.

[hunter]

6. Life has evolved to evolve.

That's a much less controversial position now than it was a few years ago.

Certain genes are highly conserved. Other genes tend to get swapped about or modified when conditions are stressful.

This is something more than epigenetic inheritance, a theory which was also rejected at first because it smacked of Lamarckism.