Not a cell wall

So, for example, when I am developing computational metagenomics analysis tools, they invariably tend to target both bacteria and archaea. However, these tools are usually not good for microbial eukaryotes, due to different rRNA size, the larger genomes with more non-coding regions, lack of operons, organelles genomes, introns, etc. So for this utilitarian purpose, “prokaryotes” would be a good verbal shortcut to the cumbersome “bacteria and archaea” when describing or documenting the software. So can we all agree on “prokaryotes” as a verbal shortcut of necessity but not as a taxonomic definition? Or am I missing something substantial here?

An illustrative example of the rational, cool-headed debate that may ensue:

Herpetology Credit: xkcd.com

We refer to DNA as “the book of life”; some geeks refer to it as the “operating system of life”. Just like in a computer’s operating system, DNA contains all the instructions on how to “execute” life and to keep things humming.  Many genes make proteins or RNA than act as switches to activate the synthesis of other proteins, sometimes in a two- three- or higher level hierarchy.  These switches are conditional, based on environmental conditions, or whether it’s time to replicate the DNA and divide into two daughter cells, and so on. Some genes activate the transcription of other genes, but are not regulated themselves by other genes, those can be dubbed  “master regulators”. Some genes are both activated by other genes, and activate other genes themselves: “middle management”. Finally, there are genes that are activated, but do not regulate other genes: the “workhorses”. This information, known as the transcriptional regulatory network exists for 1,378 genes of the E. coli bacterium.

Paralleling this in Linux, there are programs that call other programs; again, in a hierarchical fashion.  According to the calling structure, they also can be dubbed Master Regulators (calling other programs but not being called themselves), Middle Management (calling other programs and being called), and  Workhorse (only being called).

Koon-Kiu Yan and his colleagues from Yale mapped the program call graph in Linux by setting each program as a node and drawing lines to the programs that call it, and to the programs it calls. They did the same thing for E. coli‘s transcriptional regulatory network. Here are the graphs they got:

So it seems like Linux is middle-management heavy, whereas E. coli is workhorse heavy. 30% of Linux programs are top management, as opposed to only 5% in E. coli.

Looking at the actual functions for the genes/programs, it seems that Linux programs also have much more of a  functional redundancy than in E. coli: 3.5% of E. coli‘s genes have “reusable” functions, as opposed to 8.4% of Linux programs. But if we look at entire working subgraphs of these two graphs, the subgraph overlap in Linux is 87%, whereas in E.coli the overlap is only 4.3%. This means that the division of labor in E. coli is much more distinct than in Linux. There are many ways of activating the same hierarchy in Linux, but in E. coli there is rarely more than one way to do it. Note that Linux is top-heavy, whereas E. coli has a pyramid-like structure. It is pretty obvious that the Workhorse modules in Linux go through heavy reuse while those in E. coli do not.

The scientists then decided to look into how these two networks developed.  The oldest genes in E. coli are the Workhorses, whereas the regulatory genes in middle and top management arrived more recently. In contrast, the newest programs — the most heavily rewritten ones– in Linux are the Workhorses, whereas the ones in the management echelons are  less changed than their predecessors. The oldest programs are those that are in Middle Management. they are also the most abundant type in Linux’s call graph.

Who are the Workhorses in E. coli? Those are mostly enzymes, the proteins that catalyze specific biochemical functions.  As a rule, enzymes are very specific: an enzyme would catalyze only one type of reaction, and only with a very specific chemical (substrate). Examples are enzymes that break up sugars: there is a specific enzyme for every type of sugar molecule. Who are the Workhorses in Linux? Those are the functions that get used all the time in thousands of different programs: strlen (measuring a character string’s length) or malloc (allocating memory for a data structure).  The Workhorses in Linux are non-specific while the Workhorses in E. coli are very specific.

So how to account for these differences? Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, and we have to look to the evolutionary history of both the bacterial and the computational systems for answers.  The major constraint in E. coli‘s evolution is fitness. If something breaks down in E. coli‘s Workhorse it wont get passed on to the next generation: the cell with the lethal mutation would never reproduce and will get thrown into Darwin’s rubbish bin. This leads to single-function workhorses because a multi-functional Workhorse would be too prone to messing too many systems up when it  mutates, and would never make it to the next generation, which is why the Workhorses in  E. coli‘s call graph have a lower connectivity that those in Linux’s call graph.

The authors conclude that the E. coli‘s call graph evolved bottom-up, with system robustness being the main selective trait. In contrast, Linux evolved top-bottom, with reusability of the Workhorses being the main selective trait. Reusability and robustness are tradeoffs. In the case of a man-made system like Linux, bugs in reusable modules are is not a problem, since Workhorse bugs are easily fixed in the next release. It is much less costly, in coding time, to tweak existing Workhorses than to build new ones.  Mutations in reusable workhorses in E. coli would weed out those kinds of proteins from the gene pool, and therefore E. coli‘s Workhorses are not reusable.

I’m not exactly sure what insight we can get by comparing natural vs. man-made networks. But hey, sometimes science is not about insight – sometimes is just about being totally cool; and The Coolness is strong with this work.

There are more microbial cells in our body than our own. Those microbes are not just passive hitchhikers or conversely, malicious agents of disease. They affect our well-being and health in a much broader spectrum than simply “bad” or “passive”. Among other things our gut microbes play an important role in digestion, have been linked to obesity, conditions as severe as certain inflammatory bowel syndromes or as relatively mild as traveler’s diarrhea. The microbes living on our skin also affect many things: from body odor and dandruff and acne to dermatitis and psoriasis. Also, being the most exposed microbial population means that they are themselves affected by our constant exposure to various agents,and their population varies by our own behavior –  such as how often, and with what, do we wash our hands: antibacterial soap has been named as a major culprit in the development of resistant bacterial strains. In all organs the native flora, relatively benign, protects us against colonization by more virulent bacteria.

Indeed, our gut, skin, mouth and genital microbiomes can be viewed as  additional organs in the way that they affect us. If you take a long course of powerful systemic antibiotics, the ensuing diarrhea and sometimes mouth thrush are the result of these “organs” — in your mouth and gut — being removed temporarily from your body.

Credit: David Gregory&Debbie Marshall. Wellcome Images images@wellcome.ac.uk

Today, another big step has been taken towards understanding the role of our microbiomes play. Just how big, in what direction, or what will be the consequences of this step is unclear, and will remain unclear for quite some time. A group of Chinese and European researchers have published the largest sequencing effort yet of gut bacteria. Their current yield, 576 Gigabases of DNA from the feces of 124 European people is considerably larger than the previous large effort in the US: 3GB from sequenced from 33 US and Japanese adults. Also, Qin and colleagues looked at obese, lean, healthy and sick (inflamatory bowel syndrome) individuals. They identified 1,000 to 1,100 different bacterial species, with about 160 different species per individual. Healthy individual’s bacterial population was markedly different that those with inflammatory bowel syndromes, and the populations of those with IBS differed depending on disease type.

What does this all mean? Well, like in the human genome project, it will take a while before  we understand not only what these data contain, but what are the limits of our ability to interpret them, and how best they can serve us. What we have right now is the equivalent of the outline of a newly discovered continent. It is up to many individual explorers to discover and chart the myriad living things in terra excreta. Which genes are most associated with obesity or with ulcerative colitis? How prevalent is gene transfer between gut bacteria, and how much of a role does this play in antibiotic resistance? Are there microbial species more prone to changes in their genomes than others? Are there metabolic pathways that are shared between different microbial species? Are some genes faster evolving than others, what would be the ecological role different species play in the gut? And how do different microbial populations ultimately affect their human hosts? Do different bacterial species have a preference with whom they share our guts? These broad questions can be broken down into individual questions relating to a lab’s pet genes, metabolic pathways, microbial species and metabolic conditions. There is a lot to sift through here and these data will keep us busy for years to come.

Pathogenic E. coli on the intestinal lining. Credit: S. Schuller.

In other blogs Carl Zimmer has a great post on how he, for one welcomes our bacterial overlords, while Ed Yong talks about the science of things to come.

Oh, and for those of you who, like me, can’t wait to plug the data into your favorite analysis pipeline, you can get the gene and assembled and annotated sequence data data from Peer Bork’s lab at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, or the Beijing Genome Institute. The raw sequence data are available from the European Bioinformatics Institute under the accession ERA000116. (I can’t find the latter myself right now, hopefully they will show up in a couple of days). Update March 7, 2010: the sequences are now deposited at EBI. Also, on BioTorrents (hat tip to Morgan Langille).

The voices in the song are sampled from this KFC employee training tape. The video won a prize in machinima.com. So if you like World of Warcraft, bacteria, KFC, sampled music, or any combination of the above, you’re gonna love this.