Development of multicellular organism

  • Thread starter Monique
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Organism
In summary, the development of multicellular organisms involves a simple repetitive process with different outcomes under different conditions. This is exemplified by the nematode worm C. elegans, where asymmetric divisions and cross talk between cells lead to the formation of different cell types. The HOX complex, a group of genes that are expressed sequentially to determine the anterior-posterior axis, adds to the complexity of development. The fruitfly's mechanosensory bristle also originates from a single sensory mother cell through asymmetric cell division and lateral inhibition. The incorporation of single-celled organisms, such as mitochondria, into the genetic expression of multicellular organisms further adds to their complexity. This may also be related to the presence of introns and exons in
  • #1
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,219
67
I have always wondered how an multicellular organism develops into such a complex, but highly reproducible being.. now, I’ve been reading ‘Development of Multicellular Organisms’from the book: Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al. and it all seems so simple! (the basic ideas at least :D)

The nematode worm C. elegans, for instance:

The hermaphrodite exists of 1031 somatic cells and ~1000 germline cells, the male of 959 somatic cells and ~2000 germline cells.

The entry point of the sperm will define the future posterior pole of the worm. Asymmetric divisions organize the cellular molecules in such a way, that at the 16-cell stage, the molecules needed for the germline cells are all located in a single cell (and remember that there is no transcription during these early stages of nematode development). Cross talk between cells creates new cell types, for instance: two cells types have developed next to each other. One excretes “A” and the other excretes “B” the cells in the middle will be exposed to “AB” and thus start excreting “C” cell directly next to “C” now get an “AC” or an “CB” signal, and will again produce a different cell types like extraembryonic tissue, dorsal epidermis, neurogenic ectoderm, mesoderm.

The HOX complex is interesting too, homeotic selector genes. It is a complex of genes on some chromosomes, and the genes are expressed sequentially according to their order in the complex. There are about 10 genes in one complex, the upstream genes code for the anterior of the animal, and the downstream genes for the posterior, nice graded in between.

And then the mechanosensory bristle of the fruitfly (Drosophila), it is a complex structure of a neuron, covered with a sheet cells, in a shaft cell, held in place by a socket cell, where the mechanosensory bristle is an extension of the shaft cell. It turns out that these four cell types all originate from a single sensory mother cell.

The division of that cell is assymetric, thus giving one cell the advantage over the other, that one will become the neuron. The neuron destined cell will inhibit the other cell to become neuron by lateral inhibition. Asymmetric cell division continues and the other cell types are born. So lateral inhibition forces cells to act in opposite ways.

So basically a simple repetitave process that has different effects under different conditions creates all this complexity.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Monique
I have always wondered how an multicellular organism develops into such a complex, but highly reproducible being.. now, I’ve been reading ‘Development of Multicellular Organisms’from the book: Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al. and it all seems so simple! (the basic ideas at least :D)

The nematode worm C. elegans, for instance:

The hermaphrodite exists of 1031 somatic cells and ~1000 germline cells, the male of 959 somatic cells and ~2000 germline cells.

The entry point of the sperm will define the future posterior pole of the worm. Asymmetric divisions organize the cellular molecules in such a way, that at the 16-cell stage, the molecules needed for the germline cells are all located in a single cell (and remember that there is no transcription during these early stages of nematode development). Cross talk between cells creates new cell types, for instance: two cells types have developed next to each other. One excretes “A” and the other excretes “B” the cells in the middle will be exposed to “AB” and thus start excreting “C” cell directly next to “C” now get an “AC” or an “CB” signal, and will again produce a different cell types like extraembryonic tissue, dorsal epidermis, neurogenic ectoderm, mesoderm.

The HOX complex is interesting too, homeotic selector genes. It is a complex of genes on some chromosomes, and the genes are expressed sequentially according to their order in the complex. There are about 10 genes in one complex, the upstream genes code for the anterior of the animal, and the downstream genes for the posterior, nice graded in between.

And then the mechanosensory bristle of the fruitfly (Drosophila), it is a complex structure of a neuron, covered with a sheet cells, in a shaft cell, held in place by a socket cell, where the mechanosensory bristle is an extension of the shaft cell. It turns out that these four cell types all originate from a single sensory mother cell.

The division of that cell is assymetric, thus giving one cell the advantage over the other, that one will become the neuron. The neuron destined cell will inhibit the other cell to become neuron by lateral inhibition. Asymmetric cell division continues and the other cell types are born. So lateral inhibition forces cells to act in opposite ways.

So basically a simple repetitave process that has different effects under different conditions creates all this complexity.

Pretty outragious, Monique! I have often wondered if, at times, a single celled orgaism would wiggle its way into the organization of a group of these differenciating cells and provide a unique feature that is later incorporated, either genetically, morphologically or chemically, into the species and its offspring.

We see an example somewhat like this when we look at the mitochondria carrying its own genome in our own cells and other animal cells. It just looks like a smaller (organelle sized) single celled organism that has worked its way into the metabolic and reproductive phazes of the animal cell.

Somehow, the whole chemical, genetic and morphological structure of these single celled, intruding organims is adopted into the genetic sequencing of its host. The presence of what once was an intruding organism becomes a part of the host's genetic expression during mitosis. Absolutely fascinating!
 
  • #3
Originally posted by Monique
So basically a simple repetitave process that has different effects under different conditions creates all this complexity.

Nice write up BTW, but curiosity, is any of what you have revealled got anything to do with 'introns' and 'exons' (SP?) and the difference(s) between the two?
Are they perhaps active, in a nacent state, and later some become dormant as they are no longer required for the purpose of differentiation?
 
  • #4
Well, exons are DNA regions that code of proteins, introns are the piece of non-coding DNA that are inbetween exons. Higher eucaryotes will have more of the intervening sequences, after translation these non-coding regions will be spliced out leaving only a string of exons that will be transcribed to a protein.

The importance of these seemingly unnecessary intervening sequences (introns) is that they mediate the differential translation of the same gene! One gene will code for many proteins since sometimes a piece of the exon is taken out - alternative splicing.

So basically introns and exons are part of a single gene and don't really have much to do with the differentiation of a single organism.

Maybe you were thinking about a promotor of a gene? That is a non-coding region upstream of a gene, which can be activated by proteins which will lead to the expression/inhibition of transcription.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Monique
Maybe you were thinking about a promotor of a gene? That is a non-coding region upstream of a gene, which can be activated by proteins which will lead to the expression/inhibition of transcription.
No, actually, I was just asking a question.
 
  • #6
Just to continue to attempt to "pick your brains" on this subject, are the introns/exons involved, in a sense of, pleiotropic effects?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pleiotropic" (link For definition, for readers who might not know that word)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
A very sharp and interesting question, first, here is a link to a publication which discusses 'Seven types of pleiotropy' http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/fulltext.9803/ft501.pdf

I don't really know all the details of pleiotropy, but I am very sure the alternative splicing of the introns out of the exons plays a major role in the phenomena.

Humans 'only' have about 30.000 genes, while the plant genome can be 5 times as large (I am having trouble with finding the estimated number of genes on the NCBI website.. if someone can help me out). This means that the organization of the human genome is much more efficient, and it is well known that a single gene has the ability to code for multiple proteins. Multiple proteins means multiple functions, thus pleiotropy.
 
  • #8
Looks neat, Thanks, will read it all if/when I can find the time, and chance.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Monique
Humans 'only' have about 30.000 genes, while the plant genome can be 5 times as large (I am having trouble with finding the estimated number of genes on the NCBI website.. if someone can help me out).

Arabidopsis thaliana has 35 00 genes but its genome is quite small for a plant (5 chromosome for 125-megabase genome)
http://arabidopsis.org/info/agilinks.jsp
Oryza sativa L. ssp. indica (Rice) has 46,022 to 55,615 genes for 466 megabases and 12 chromosomes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
NCBI used to give a tally with updates on these things, where did it go?
 
  • #11
About the introns and exons, I just saw a news story (sorry, I don't have the link) about the sequencing of the dog genome. And it turns out that dogs have introns and exons that closely match human ones. So these noncoding regions have been preserved across a long span of mammalian evolution, whereas if they were truly nonproductive, they would have been affected by random variation. So they may look like junk, but apparently they are not junk.
 
  • #12
hmm.. I'd have to see a publication which actually shows the similarity of the orthologous genes in humans and dogs. I'd doubt that the introns would be completely homologous.

An important thing to keep in mind: how big is the genome, which fraction is coding, and which fraction of that is intervening sequence? I think about 2% of the human genome is coding, so let's say that 1% is made up of introns..

So the chance a mutation would affect an intron is not that great.. so is the sequence of an intron conserved because it serves a purpose, or another mechanism?
 
  • #13
The paper is in Science. Here is a description (9/25/03) from Venter's Institute of Genomic Research.
 
  • #14
It's a bit of a topic shift but I'll ask anyway.

I seem to recall that in Earth's history, simple life evolved relatively quickly, but multicelled life took a relatively long time to evolve. First, am I recalling correctly? Second, was the capacity to make multi-use cells from a single parent cell the breakthrough that allowed complex life?

If so, is this suprising to anyone else? To me, it seems like a bigger leap from no life to single celled life than from single celled life to multifunction cells. One guess I have is that the capacity could have occurred but the multipurpose cells were hindrances rather than benefits until there were lucky mutations. I suppose the original life had no competitors, so any self-replicating thing was "a winner" evolutionary speaking.

Njorl
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Njorl
I seem to recall that in Earth's history, simple life evolved relatively quickly, but multicelled life took a relatively long time to evolve. First, am I recalling correctly? Second, was the capacity to make multi-use cells from a single parent cell the breakthrough that allowed complex life?

Well, first: exactly where does the information come from the simple life evolved quickly and multicellular life took much longer? There are absolutely no records preserved to indicate these things.

Second, I guess it is the fact that for a multicellular organism to evolve a cell has to change its tactics.

For example: a very simple eucaryote, the yeast, is a single-celled organism. When the DNA is the yeast gets damaged, the cell will keep on dividing. Growth is more important than DNA integrity.

For a multicellular organism to survive, a cell needs to sacrifice itself for the benifit of the other cells. If DNA damage occurs, programmed cell-death will have to be initiated otherwise the organism would die.

Such a mechanism has to evolve and that will take time. Then there is the need of cell-signalling, intensive communication between cell to decide what to do, how to differentiate.

A single-celled organism is self-governing, a multicellular organism will eventually have to specialize different cell types.

Ofcourse there is a transition state, the sponge is a very good example, which is an aggregate of single cell, but I wouldn't say a multicellular organism..
 
  • #16
Now that I've had some time to think about it, I'm pretty sure I'm remembering stuff from the booklet that came with "SIM-Earth" . Not the most reliable source I'm sure.

Njorl
 
  • #17
ha, funny :P

Yes, just think about it.. what traces did the first single cells leave behind? None. How about the first multicellular organisms? None either.. The only thing one can do is speculate how much time different processes would require to evolve.

A definition of a single cell can be very simple, nucleic acids encapsulated by a lipid layer.

The definition of a multicellular organism requires cell signaling, otherwise there is just a aggregate of cells, and is thus immediately immensely more complex.
 
  • #18
ingestion, infection, symbiosis

read "MICROCOSMOS" by Lynn Margullis and Dorion Sagan. All spelled out.
 
  • #19
Could you elaborate on what is discussed in the book?
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Monique
Could you elaborate on what is discussed in the book?

Lynn is Dorion's mom. They wrote the theory of Symbiosis, and MICROCOSMOS takes it from precambrian to modern development. An excellent read...very interesting.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Monique
(SNIP) Yes, just think about it.. what traces did the first single cells leave behind? None. (SNoP)
Aren't the blue green algae considered 'single celled'? cause they are still around today...
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Monique
Yes, just think about it.. what traces did the first single cells leave behind? None. How about the first multicellular organisms? None either.. The only thing one can do is speculate how much time different processes would require to evolve.

A definition of a single cell can be very simple, nucleic acids encapsulated by a lipid layer.

The definition of a multicellular organism requires cell signaling, otherwise there is just a aggregate of cells, and is thus immediately immensely more complex.
While a difficult field of study, with some controversies to show for it, isn't there a solid body of data on Precambrian life? even before 2 Ga? For example, from the University of Münster:
http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.html

IIRC, there's also a growing number of scientists looking to tease out aspects of Precambrian cell chemistry from RNA studies of archaea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Aren't the blue green algae considered 'single celled'? cause they are still around today...
From the website that Nereid provided: The very beginning is probably one of the most fascinating parts of the story of life. The oldest fossils are the approximately 3.465 Billion-year-old (Ga) microfossils from the Apex Chert, Australia. These are colonies of cyanobacteria (formerly called blue-green algae) which built real reefs. The oldest stromatolites were found in Australia and are dated 3.45 Ga.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, to put things is perspective. I had never heard of these fossils, but they must already have been well underway in the evolutionary path?
 
  • #24
One of the controversies is whether those 3.465 Ga 'fossils' are really fossils at all However, the Australian stromatolites fossils are well accepted.

It's unlikely that much older fossils will be found; there appear to be no rocks from that time any more (some crystals, a few highly metamorphised outcrops in Greenland; not good places to find fossils!).

The reconstruction of the chemical evolution of life through studying archaea may be a window into an earlier time.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Nereid
The reconstruction of the chemical evolution of life through studying archaea may be a window into an earlier time.

How are they going to do study chemical evolution if archea have emerge after bacteria?
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Monique
(SNIP) cyanobacteria (formerly called blue-green algae)(SNIP)...stromatolites... (SNoP)
Yes, present in the Himalayas (sp?) in fossils in the rock at 14,000', (saw it on TV) and still present, and active, in a bay in Australia.
From a websites info listing
"hyper-saline water of Hamelin Pool at the base of Shark Bay in WA"
 
  • #27
Originally posted by iansmith
How are they going to do study chemical evolution if archea have emerge after bacteria?
Ian, I sure could use your expertise here. My understand is that archaea preceed bacteria, not the other way around.
E.g.: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html

Could you please point me to some recent research which shows that, in fact, the Eubacteria domain is more ancient than the Archaea domain?
 
  • #28
First eubacteria and acheabacteria are not used anymore because it is misleading.

Check these papers writting by CR Woese a specialist of rRNA and Archea.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=2112744 (Towards a Natural System of Organisms: Proposal for the Domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya)
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract&artid=26958 (Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree)
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract&artid=48777 (On the Nature of Global Classification)

This is the classification based on the 16S/18S rRNA that is commonly used nowadays.

Also the three show on your website is an unrooted three which does not show when each group evolve. According to CR Woese bacteria where the first group to separate from the groups then came the archea and then eucaryotes. You should also read the following article

On the evolution of cells
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
some remarks on the initial topic

1. Please do not forget that during the development of multicellular life, Earth's atmosphere was heavely poluted with a very strong poison: oxygen. In a way, life had to re-invent itself to be able to live in a situation where the atmosphere is poisonous.

2. About C. elegans. Monique neatly describes what happens to the cells during development. Sulston (Nobel price medicin, 2002) described this end of the '70 in a morphological (and much more detailed) manner, because every C. elegans organism develops exactly the same: Cell A devides horizontally in B and C, C devides along the Z-axis and so on... : A nerve cell is made at the place a nerve cell will be needed. But whatch out: almost nothing is known about the attractants of this process! Everytime the exact number of cells is reached, and every time the same cells die (programmed cell death). This fixed number situation is called Euthely. It was known as a rather primitive way of development (it's not really flexible to variations).
But. Recent research revealed something else (Lab of Borgonie, Ghent, Belgium and others). They compared the development of closely related species (shoot me, I forgot the name,s but they're not Caenorhabditis). They noticed that all other species developed according to the other strategy known: just make a bunch of cells, and when you have enough (totipotent) cells transport the not-yet-nerve-cells to the place where you might need some and transform them into nerve cells. You have to much nerve cells? kill some. Y'know: not at all euthely! The idea is now that by highly organising it's development, C elegans is much faster adult (indeed, it takes only 2 days in C. elegans, over more than 2 weeks for the other species).
The explanation is that C. elegans is actually a very evolved species, and an exeption among Nematodes. But to man it's known as a model organism! Brenner just took C. elegans as a lab organism back in 1974 because it was not harmful, easy to breed, and they had plenty of them.
Compare: if we would take snakes, the kiwi and the bat as model organisms, we would find that reptiles have no legs, birds can't fly and mammels do can fly!
 
  • #30
A very warm welcome to you Cryo.

You already described it, but let me point this out specificallÿ:

The fate of EVERY single cell in the nematode worm C. elegans is known, researchers have a cell-lineage tree that exactly describes whether a cell will be part of the gut or is a reproductive cell.

Also very interesting, there are ALWAYS 131 cells that commit suicide of the 1030 somatic cells in the worm.

About model systems, the fruitfly is actually a better model organism for as as the worm, as I read somewhere:

"lineages leading to nematodes, insects and vertebrates diverged from one another at about the same time, but the rate of evolutionary change in the nematode lineage has been substantially greater: both its genes and its body structure are most divergent from our own than are those from Drosophila (the fruifly).

Interesting huh?
 
  • #31
btw, that exerpt came from Alberts et al, Molecular biology of the cell.
 
  • #32
Originally poste by Monique (Phonetic engineer?)
(SNIP) Also very interesting, there are ALWAYS 131 cells that commit suicide of the 1030 somatic cells in the worm. (SNoP)
That is kinda interesting.
In my viewing of television I had also seen someone playout the sequence of someones DNA on a piano..."phonetics engineering" anyone? (It's sort of just a thought...)
 
  • #33
Well, isn't that interesting? I am not sure where that comment came from, but anyway: I'd wonder how long it would take to play the sequence of ACGTs and where the T lies on the piano, how the person dealt with methylated bases, mis-matched bases, dimerized thymines, depurinations, missing nucleotides and the boring long stretches of GC islands.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Monique
Well, isn't that interesting? I am not sure where that comment came from, but anyway: I'd wonder how long it would take to play the sequence of ACGTs and where the T lies on the piano, how the person dealt with methylated bases, mis-matched bases, dimerized thymines, depurinations, missing nucleotides and the boring long stretches of GC islands.
"Selective quotation"...I would suppose...
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Monique

Also very interesting, there are ALWAYS 131 cells that commit suicide of the 1030 somatic cells in the worm.

not always just 131, but always THE SAME 131!
 

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
9K
  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
Back
Top