Goods-thinking vs. tree-thinking: Finding a place for mobile genetic elements

Networked collective microbiomes and the rise of subcellular 'units of life'

Microbiomes are generally conceived of as one element of a pair - their partner being the habitat they occupy. I call this common scientific practice 'pair-thinking'. Research into antimicrobial resistance and its underlying anthropogenic drivers highlights the growing footprint occupied by mobile genetic elements (MGEs). Furthermore, these MGEs are known to circulate widely between microbiomes. Using a pluralistic framework anchored within a processual microbial ontology, these observations point to a reframing of microbiomes as networked and collective, thus challenging pair-thinking. Such a shift has implications for the future of microbiome research, from conceptual and methodological perspectives, and exposes the impacts of anthropogenic forces on the evolution of microbiomes and the functions they carry out.

Tempos and modes of collectivity in the history of life

Collective integration and processing of information have increased through the history of life, through both the formation of aggregates in which the entities may have very different properties and which jointly coarse-grained environmental variables (ranging from widely varying metabolism in microbial consortia to the ecological diversity of species on reefs) and through collectives of similar entities (such as cells within an organism or social groups). Such increases have been implicated in significant transitions in the history of life, including aspects of the origin of life, the generation of pangenomes among microbes and microbial communities such as stromatolites, multicellularity and social insects. This contribution provides a preliminary overview of the dominant modes of collective information processing in the history of life, their phylogenetic distribution and extent of convergence, and the effects of new modes for integrating and acting upon information on the tempo of evolutionary change.

Viruses and mobile elements as drivers of evolutionary transitions

The history of life is punctuated by evolutionary transitions which engender emergence of new levels of biological organization that involves selection acting at increasingly complex ensembles of biological entities. Major evolutionary transitions include the origin of prokaryotic and then eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms and eusocial animals. All or nearly all cellular life forms are hosts to diverse selfish genetic elements with various levels of autonomy including plasmids, transposons and viruses. I present evidence that, at least up to and including the origin of multicellularity, evolutionary transitions are driven by the coevolution of hosts with these genetic parasites along with sharing of ‘public goods’. Selfish elements drive evolutionary transitions at two distinct levels. First, mathematical modelling of evolutionary processes, such as evolution of primitive replicator populations or unicellular organisms, indicates that only increasing organizational complexity, e.g. emergence of multicellular aggregates, can prevent the collapse of the host–parasite system under the pressure of parasites. Second, comparative genomic analysis reveals numerous cases of recruitment of genes with essential functions in cellular life forms, including those that enable evolutionary transitions.

This article is part of the themed issue ‘The major synthetic evolutionary transitions’.

Rings Reconcile Genotypic and Phenotypic Evolution within the Proteobacteria

Although prokaryotes are usually classified using molecular phylogenies instead of phenotypes after the advent of gene sequencing, neither of these methods is satisfactory because the phenotypes cannot explain the molecular trees and the trees do not fit the phenotypes. This scientific crisis still exists and the profound disconnection between these two pillars of evolutionary biology--genotypes and phenotypes--grows larger. We use rings and a genomic form of goods thinking to resolve this conundrum (McInerney JO, Cummins C, Haggerty L. 2011. Goods thinking vs. tree thinking. Mobile Genet Elements. 1:304-308; Nelson-Sathi S, et al. 2015. Origins of major archaeal clades correspond to gene acquisitions from bacteria. Nature 517:77-80). The Proteobacteria is the most speciose prokaryotic phylum known. It is an ideal phylogenetic model for reconstructing Earth's evolutionary history. It contains diverse free living, pathogenic, photosynthetic, sulfur metabolizing, and symbiotic species. Due to its large number of species (Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ. 1998. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 95:6578-6583) it was initially expected to provide strong phylogenetic support for a proteobacterial tree of life. But despite its many species, sequence-based tree analyses are unable to resolve its topology. Here we develop new rooted ring analyses and study proteobacterial evolution. Using protein family data and new genome-based outgroup rooting procedures, we reconstruct the complex evolutionary history of the proteobacterial rings (combinations of tree-like divergences and endosymbiotic-like convergences). We identify and map the origins of major gene flows within the rooted proteobacterial rings (P < 3.6 × 10(-6)) and find that the evolution of the "Alpha-," "Beta-," and "Gammaproteobacteria" is represented by a unique set of rings. Using new techniques presented here we also root these rings using outgroups. We also map the independent flows of genes involved in DNA-, RNA-, ATP-, and membrane- related processes within the Proteobacteria and thereby demonstrate that these large gene flows are consistent with endosymbioses (P < 3.6 × 10(-9)). Our analyses illustrate what it means to find that a gene is present, or absent, within a gene flow, and thereby clarify the origin of the apparent conflicts between genotypes and phenotypes. Here we identify the gene flows that introduced photosynthesis into the Alpha-, Beta-, and Gammaproteobacteria from the common ancestor of the Actinobacteria and the Firmicutes. Our results also explain why rooted rings, unlike trees, are consistent with the observed genotypic and phenotypic relationships observed among the various proteobacterial classes. We find that ring phylogenies can explain the genotypes and the phenotypes of biological processes within large and complex groups like the Proteobacteria.