DOCSLIB.ORG

Perspective Default Taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's View of the Microbial World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perspective Default Taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's View of the Microbial World Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 11043–11046, September 1998 Perspective Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr’s view of the microbial world (taxonomic domainsyphylogenyyuniversal ancestorybiological classification) Carl R. Woese* Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, B103 Chemical and Life Sciences Laboratory, MC-110, 601 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801 Contributed by Carl R. Woese, July 29, 1998 ABSTRACT This perspective is a response to a taxonomic was never in doubt). These early microbiologists were troubled, proposal by E. Mayr [“Two empires or three?” (1998) Proc. for one, by the fact that “prokaryote” (a term they rarely used) Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9720–9723]. Mayr has suggested that was defined on the basis of “entirely negative characteris- the now accepted classification of life into three primary tics”—as not possessing certain eukaryotic traits (7). For domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya—originally pro- another, the morphological and physiological diversity they posed by myself and others—be abandoned in favor of the encountered among bacteria readily led them intuitively to earlier Prokaryote–Eukaryote classification. Although the consider that the various major bacterial groups “are of matter appears a taxonomic quibble, it is not that simple. At polyphyletic origin” (8). issue here are differing views as to the nature of biological Nevertheless, microbiologists eventually did come around, classification, which are underlain by differing views as to accepting that “prokaryote,” like “eukaryote,” was indeed a what biology is and will be—matters of concern to all biolo- monophyletic taxon. The apparent reason for this remarkable gists. change in the microbiologist’s outlook was that by the 1960s technology had reached the point where it was possible to In his article “Two empires or three?” recently published in this define the prokaryote in positive rather than solely in negative journal (1), Ernst Mayr rejects the three-domain structuring of terms (4). Yet, on closer examination this conceptual reversal the living world—Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya—that has seems more a matter of a new-found faith than of any emerged from molecular studies over the past two decades (2). new-found facts (3): in defining the prokaryote in the new He would return to the older Prokaryote–Eukaryote classifi- cytological and molecular terms, there were “remarkably few cation, which shaped biology’s overview of life on this planet comparative studies, [which means that] the application of the for the last half century. I have argued previously that, from the newer [techniques] for taxonomic purposes entails generali- outset, the prokaryote–eukaryote dichotomy was an idea zation from limited cases” (9). In other words, nobody at the never properly tested (3). And I believe the complacency that time felt it necessary to ask whether certain properties of this simplistic formulation generated adversely affected the Escherichia coli and occasionally a few other bacteria were development of biology, for it served among other things to actually properties of prokaryotes in general. The monophy- mask the fact that the basis for a true science of microbiology, letic nature of prokaryotes was simply taken for granted! Why “the concept of a bacterium” (4), was never developed. To would microbiologists do this; why would they trade their return to the prokaryote–eukaryote dogma (with its lingering previous scientific skepticism for an untested belief? The false connotations) would have a similarly negative effect now, reason, I think, is that a monophyletic prokaryote appeared to once again on microbiology, but this time too on the study of relieve microbiologists of the necessity of determining phylo- evolution—both of these fields currently in states of revolu- genetic relationships in order to develop a “concept of a tionary development. bacterium” (3, 4). I am not inclined to reply to Dr. Mayr’s article in detail or For at least the first half of this century determining in kind, although some of the former is required. Dr. Mayr and microbial phylogenetic relationships had proven impossible, I see things from very different perspectives, and it is this and their repeated failures to do so seem to have brought some difference in perspective, not some local taxonomic dispute, (perhaps most) microbiologists to believe that these relation- that needs to be aired. Therefore, I will respond to what Dr. ships were inherently indeterminable, at least at the higher Mayr’s article really is—i.e., a pronouncement concerning the taxonomic levels (6, 10, 11). As a consequence, a default future direction biology should take. position was taken, in which the prokaryotes were simply assumed to be specifically related to one another (4). From The History of the Eukaryote–Prokaryote Dichotomy this, microbiologists of the 1960s then argued that prokaryotes could be defined biologically—that the much needed concept The idea that the living world is divided in the first instance of a bacterium could be developed—simply by cataloging the into two very different types of organisms, prokaryotes and differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (4). Of eukaryotes, is generally attributed to Chatton in the 1930s (4, course this did not work, and no one at the time seemed to have 5), but the notion that bacteria (schizomycetes) are somehow appreciated that it could not, which left microbiology and the unique, are the “first and simplest division of living beings,” rest of biology saddled with the false notion that all pro- goes back to the great microbiologist Ferdinand Cohn in the karyotes are of a kind, are specifically related (3). last century (6). Microbiologists of the early twentieth century, however, were loath to accept the principal implication of a Lessons from Genes prokaryote–eukaryote dichotomy—i.e., that all prokaryotes are of a kind (although the monophyletic nature of eukaryotes Technology ultimately came to the rescue, and through the use of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence comparisons it proved © 1998 by The National Academy of Sciences 0027-8424y98y9511043-4$2.00y0 PNAS is available online at www.pnas.org. *e-mail: [email protected]. 11043 11044 Perspective: Woese Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (1998) possible to determine microbial phylogenetic relationships. At exist on Earth. Now is definitely not a time to alter our the molecular level both the higher and lower prokaryotic taxa classification of organisms so as to suggest that biology’s readily revealed themselves, as did their relationships to one primary focus be on animals and plants and that all bacteria are another and to the eukaryotes (2, 12–15). The resulting of a kind (1). The primary interest today is in cells and universal phylogeny unexpectedly showed that the taxon “pro- molecules, and our study of animals and plants necessarily karyote,” which all biologists (including myself) had hereto- operates in the first instance from this platform. Biology, like fore assumed to be monolithic, in reality comprises two physics before it, has moved to a level where the objects of fundamentally distinct groups of organisms, each no more like interest and their interactions often cannot be perceived the other than they are like eukaryotes (12, 13). Thus, there are through direct observation. And, as in the case of physics, actually three, not two, primary phylogenetic groupings of biology’s “subatomic” (subcellular) level is rich in information, organisms on this planet (2, 12). Moreover, a phylogenetic tree rich in understanding, and rich in beauty. It is at the level of based upon the molecular data shows that the newly recog- molecules that biologists are able to expand their perspective nized one, the Archaea, is, if anything, more closely related to to genuinely encounter the microbial world, the full extent of eukaryotes than to the familiar bacteria (2, 14, 15). Here then which we have still to experience, a world whose metabolic and was biology’s first glimpse of the full evolutionary landscape. phylogenetic diversity completely dwarfs that seen in the Within the framework of a universal phylogenetic tree the animal and plant kingdoms combined. But more important (to study of evolution could now move beyond the confines of the me) is that biology’s incursions into molecules and genomes plant and animal kingdoms and into the enormous realm of have transformed an otherwise rather stale and isolated microorganisms. discipline of evolutionary study into one of the most vibrant, This universal tree, this beautiful and compelling image, has central, and important facets of our science. seen some rough weather of late, not because of Dr. Mayr, but because of the complexity introduced into the picture by the On the Nature of a Biological Classification large amounts of additional sequence data now available, data that reveal the extent to which lateral gene transfer has shaped The nature of biological classification figures heavily in Dr. the evolutionary course over the long haul. As a result, Mayr’s argument, and so must be addressed. In his view the phylogenetic trees based upon protein genes tend not to show present issue can and should be defined and settled in terms deep phylogenetic branchings consistent with the rRNA tree. of established classificatory formalisms. If there were ever an But neither do the branchings in these dissonant trees tend to issue in biological classification that cannot be settled by agree with one another. pedantry, it is this one. Never before has there been a less This state of seeming confusion has given rise to skepticism: subjective highest taxonomic level than that defined by the as to the validity of the rRNA-based phylogenies (16); as to universal phylogenetic tree. To Mayr, the issue is one of whether the deep evolutionary record might have been erased, whether we should define two or three domains and what the and therefore we will never know the nature of the universal classificatory precedents or rules for deciding this are.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (1928-2012), Who Revol
    15/15/22 Liberal Arts and Sciences Microbiology Carl Woese Papers, 1911-2013 Biographical Note Carl Woese (1928-2012), who revolutionized the science of microbiology, has been called “the Darwin of the 20th century.” Darwin’s theory of evolution dealt with multicellular organisms; Woese brought the single-celled bacteria into the evolutionary fold. The Syracuse-born Woese began his early career as a newly minted Yale Ph.D. studying viruses but he soon joined in the global effort to crack the genetic code. His 1967 book The Genetic Code: The Molecular Basis for Genetic Expression became a standard in the field. Woese hoped to discover the evolutionary relationships of microorganisms, and he believed that an RNA molecule located within the ribosome–the cell’s protein factory–offered him a way to get at these connections. A few years after becoming a professor of microbiology at the University of Illinois in 1964, Woese launched an ambitious sequencing program that would ultimately catalog partial ribosomal RNA sequences of hundreds of microorganisms. Woese’s work showed that bacteria evolve, and his perfected RNA “fingerprinting” technique provided the first definitive means of classifying bacteria. In 1976, in the course of this painstaking cataloging effort, Woese came across a ribosomal RNA “fingerprint” from a strange methane-producing organism that did not look like the bacterial sequences he knew so well. As it turned out, Woese had discovered a third form of life–a form of life distinct from the bacteria and from the eukaryotes (organisms, like humans, whose cells have nuclei); he christened these creatures “the archaebacteria” only to later rename them “the archaea” to better differentiate them from the bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Portrait: Otto Kandler Und Die Moderne Mikrobiologie
    PORTRAIT Otto Kandler und die moderne Mikrobiologie Hans E. Müller, Braunschweig Regime hielt ihn davon ab, die für Abiturienten damals fast obligaten Off,rzierskurse zu absolvieren. So kam er zu Kriegsende als Unteroffizier in amerikanische Gefangen- schaft und wurde bereits im Juni 1945 wieder entlassen. Studium Nach kurzer Tätigkeit in der väterlichen Gärtnerei schrieb sich Otto Kandler im April 1946 an der Universilät Mün- chen ein und begann ein Snrdium der Biologie und Chemie ftir das höhere Lrhrfach. Um die verlorene Zeit nachzuho- len, wurde damals in Trimestern studiert, und er konnte bereits mit Beginn des vierten Trimesters im Herbst 1947 seine Doktorarbeit beginnen. Die Anregung dazu stammte von dem Virologen und Hygieniker Prof. Gustav Seiffert, der zu dieser Zeit Leiter der Gesundheitsabteilun3 im Bayerischen Innenministerium war. Während gemeinsamer Exkursionen mit der Bayerischen Botanischen Gesellschaft hatte ihm Seiffert von seiner jahrelangen Suctle nach den Urbakterien erzählt, bei der ihm 1936 allerdings Laidlaw und Elford zuvorgekommen waren (52). Die beiden Eng- Einleitung länder hatten damals ebenso wie Seiffert (6L, 62) Abwas- ser filtriert und darin Acholeplasma laidlawii entdeckt. Die naturwissenschaftliche Mikrobiologie ist erst Jahr- Heute wissen wir, daß es zwar nicht die ältesten Lebewe- zehnte nach der medizinischen ein eigenes Fach gewor- sen, wohl aber die primitivsten und kleinsten Saprophyten den, und so hat sie ihre Methoden zunächst von der sind. "Am liebsten hlitte ich gleich mit Arbeiten an diesen medizinischen Mikrobiologie übernommen. Doch längst Organismen begonnen, um Zugang zu Fragen der Evolu- hat sich das Verhältnis umgekehrt. Seit die Molekularbio- tion und Phylogenie zu erhalten", erinnerte sich Otto logie die Forschung dominiert, bekam die medizinische Kandler noch 45 Jahre später (40), denn dieses Thema Mikrobiologie ihre wichtigsten Impulse aus dem wurde zum Leitmotiv in seiner wissenschaftlichen Lauf- naturwissenschaftlichen Fach, und hier war Otto Kandler bahn.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification.Pdf
    Hickman−Roberts−Larson: 4. Classification and Text © The McGraw−Hill Animal Diversity, Third Phylogeny of Animals Companies, 2002 Edition 4 •••••• chapter four Classification and Phylogeny of Animals Order in Diversity Evolution has produced a great diversity of species in the animal kingdom. Zoologists have named more than 1.5 million species of animals, and thousands more are described each year.Some zoologists estimate that species named so far constitute less than 20% of all living animals and less than 1% of all those that have existed. Despite its magnitude, diversity of animals is not without lim- its. There are many conceivable forms that do not exist in nature, as our myths of minotaurs and winged horses show.Animal diversity is not random but has a definite order.Characteristic features of humans and cattle never occur together in a single organism as they do in mythical minotaurs. Nor do the characteristic wings of birds and bodies of horses occur together naturally as they do in the myth- ical horse Pegasus. Humans, cattle, birds, and horses are distinct groups of animals, yet they do share some important features, includ- ing vertebrae and homeothermy,that separate them from even more dissimilar forms such as insects and flatworms. All human cultures classify familiar animals according to pat- terns in animal diversity.These classifications have many purposes. Animals may be classified in some societies according to their useful- ness or destructiveness to human endeavors. Others may group ani- mals according to their roles in mythology.Biologists group animals according to their evolutionary relationships as revealed by ordered patterns in their sharing of homologous features.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspective Default Taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's View of the Microbial World
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 11043–11046, September 1998 Perspective Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr’s view of the microbial world (taxonomic domainsyphylogenyyuniversal ancestorybiological classification) Carl R. Woese* Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, B103 Chemical and Life Sciences Laboratory, MC-110, 601 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801 Contributed by Carl R. Woese, July 29, 1998 ABSTRACT This perspective is a response to a taxonomic was never in doubt). These early microbiologists were troubled, proposal by E. Mayr [“Two empires or three?” (1998) Proc. for one, by the fact that “prokaryote” (a term they rarely used) Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9720–9723]. Mayr has suggested that was defined on the basis of “entirely negative characteris- the now accepted classification of life into three primary tics”—as not possessing certain eukaryotic traits (7). For domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya—originally pro- another, the morphological and physiological diversity they posed by myself and others—be abandoned in favor of the encountered among bacteria readily led them intuitively to earlier Prokaryote–Eukaryote classification. Although the consider that the various major bacterial groups “are of matter appears a taxonomic quibble, it is not that simple. At polyphyletic origin” (8). issue here are differing views as to the nature of biological Nevertheless, microbiologists eventually did come around, classification, which are underlain by differing views as to accepting that “prokaryote,” like “eukaryote,” was indeed a what biology is and will be—matters of concern to all biolo- monophyletic taxon. The apparent reason for this remarkable gists. change in the microbiologist’s outlook was that by the 1960s technology had reached the point where it was possible to In his article “Two empires or three?” recently published in this define the prokaryote in positive rather than solely in negative journal (1), Ernst Mayr rejects the three-domain structuring of terms (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Beyond: Scientific, Historical, and Conceptual Significance of the first Tree of Life
    PNAS CLASSIC PERSPECTIVE Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life Norman R. Pacea,1, Jan Sappb, and Nigel Goldenfeldc aDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; bBiology Department, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3; and cInstitute for Genomic Biology and Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Edited by Edward F. DeLong, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved December 20, 2011 (received for review November 29, 2011) In 1977, Carl Woese and George Fox published a brief paper in PNAS that established, for the first time, that the overall phylogenetic structure of the living world is tripartite. We describe the way in which this monumental discovery was made, its context within the historical development of evolutionary thought, and how it has impacted our understanding of the emergence of life and the characterization of the evolutionary process in its most general form. fundamental breakthrough in Several aspects of the paper by Woese species and organism and bringing to the biological science occurred in and Fox (1) sparked skepticism. One fore the deep limitations of earlier ac- A 1977, and most biologists did was the arcane nature of the molecular counts of the evolutionary process. not notice. The paper by Woese data, which few could appreciate. The re- and Fox (1) in 1977 was 2.5 pages in length liance on a single gene to trace major Lead Up to the Paper and contained a single table of numbers trends in evolution was an equally alien The 1977 paper by Woese and Fox (1) was that compared sequence snippets derived concept.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computer Scientist's Guide to Cell Biology
    A Computer Scientist’s Guide to Cell Biology A Computer Scientist’s Guide to Cell Biology A Travelogue from a Stranger in a Strange Land William W. Cohen Machine Learning Department Carnegie Mellon University William W. Cohen Machine Learning Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA [email protected] Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921580 ISBN 978-0-387-48275-0 e-ISBN 978-0-387-48278-1 Printed on acid-free paper. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com To Susan, Charlie, and Joshua. Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................... xi Introduction............................................................................. xiii How Cells Work........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific, Historical, and Conceptual Significance of the First Tree of Life
    PNAS CLASSIC PERSPECTIVE Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life Norman R. Pacea,1, Jan Sappb, and Nigel Goldenfeldc aDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; bBiology Department, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3; and cInstitute for Genomic Biology and Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Edited by Edward F. DeLong, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved December 20, 2011 (received for review November 29, 2011) In 1977, Carl Woese and George Fox published a brief paper in PNAS that established, for the first time, that the overall phylogenetic structure of the living world is tripartite. We describe the way in which this monumental discovery was made, its context within the historical development of evolutionary thought, and how it has impacted our understanding of the emergence of life and the characterization of the evolutionary process in its most general form. fundamental breakthrough in Several aspects of the paper by Woese species and organism and bringing to the biological science occurred in and Fox (1) sparked skepticism. One fore the deep limitations of earlier ac- A 1977, and most biologists did was the arcane nature of the molecular counts of the evolutionary process. not notice. The paper by Woese data, which few could appreciate. The re- and Fox (1) in 1977 was 2.5 pages in length liance on a single gene to trace major Lead Up to the Paper and contained a single table of numbers trends in evolution was an equally alien The 1977 paper by Woese and Fox (1) was that compared sequence snippets derived concept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Microbial Evolutionary Theory
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 38 (2007) 780–795 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc The structure of microbial evolutionary theory J. Sapp Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Engineering, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada Abstract The study of microbial phylogeny and evolution has emerged as an interdisciplinary synthesis, divergent in both methods and con- cepts from the classical evolutionary biology. The deployment of macromolecular sequencing in microbial classification has provided a deep evolutionary taxonomy hitherto deemed impossible. Microbial phylogenetics has greatly transformed the landscape of evolutionary biology, not only in revitalizing the field in the pursuit of life’s history over billions of years, but also in transcending the structure of thought that has shaped evolutionary theory since the time of Darwin. A trio of primary phylogenetic lineages, along with the recogni- tion of symbiosis and lateral gene transfer as fundamental processes of evolutionary innovation, are core principles of microbial evolu- tionary biology today. Their scope and significance remain contentious among evolutionists. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Microbial evolution; Microbial phylogeny; Procaryote; Superkingdoms; Symbiosis; Lateral gene transfer When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1. Introduction microbes, their relationships to one another and to other organisms, than they did in the time of Pasteur and Koch. The evolutionary synthesis of the first half of the twen- The emergence, of microbial phylogenetics, based on tieth century crafted a sterile conception of evolution: one macromolecular sequencing, has brought great change to without microorganisms.
    [Show full text]