SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Evolving Useful Bacteria

by Steven Novella, Jul 27 2009

Genetically modified bacteria are already a common and useful component of chemical production. Many drugs, food additives, and industrial chemicals are churned out by engineered bacteria in large vats. Bacteria are little protein and chemical factories and we put them to good use.

But engineering a strain of bacteria to do exactly what we want is laborious and expensive. Traditionally engineers have tweaked one or two genes at a time and then looked for the results. But the production of many substances by bacteria may be controlled by 20 or more genes, and so the permutations of various mutations are enormous – to many to test individually.

But now genetic engineers have developed a new technique known as MAGE – multiplex automated genome engineering. What they do is to essentially evolve bacteria with optimized or at least greatly improved production of the substance of interest. The technique causes bacteria to rapidly mutate – causing thousands of mutations and billions of different strains.

This technique allows us to do some amount of rapid evolution,” says Harris Wang, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, who led the project along with colleagues Farren Isaacs and George Church.

They then select for the strains that produce the most of whatever they are looking for. Wang and Isaacs use lycopene as an example. Conveniently, lycopene stains bacteria red, so they can just select the reddest strains. For other end products other markers will have to be used. For example, for some protein products genetic engineers have incorporated bits of DNA into the target gene that produce fluorescence, so that the cells that glow the most have the highest concentration of the target protein.

This technology has a great deal of promise, as does anything that makes it cheaper and faster for industrial development of new products and methods. In addition to speeding up the production of new drugs, it may help our quest for biofuels. Some scientists think that biofuels may be a solution to our dependence on fossil fuels. Biofuel crops can be homegrown and they are a renewable resource. However, if we use existing farmland and farm crops this will raise the price of food, and corn and other such crops are not efficient sources of biofuel – it is still debatable if they even produce as much energy as they consume.

Attention is therefore shifting to biomass that has a higher energy density, a higher crop density (more biomass per acre), is currently a crop waste product (like stalks) or grows wild (like switchgrass). The problem with these sources of biofuel is that we need to develop an industrial process that can convert the tough fibers into ethanol – in a massive and cost effective way. Economics and scale are the keys – if it costs too much to make the biofuel, it won’t happen on a large scale while gasoline is relatively cheap.

While there are many research programs going on right now, no one has developed a complete and cost effective industsrial scale process for extracting biofuel from switchgrass or a similar source. One of the best hopes, however, are bacteria. If we can engineer a bacteria to eat the grass and produce some substance, like ethanol or something close to ethanol, that can then be easily refined into biofuel, we are off to the races.

Since optimization of yield and efficiency is key to the success of any such process, the MAGE technique may prove essential to the success of biofuels.

The MAGE technique is also interesting because it is a direct application of evolutionary principles. The process works by increasing diversity randomly through mutations and then selecting those bacteria that by chance have the desirable trait. This clearly demonstrates that the two step process of evolution – random diversity and selection – works.

Creationists have argued that evolution cannot work because random mutation cannot provide specificity and direction, and that selection cannot increase information because it is a negative process – it only removes information. This argument is nothing but a diversion from logic and reality, however. It should be obvious that mutations increase information and selection provides non-random specificity and direction.

In response to MAGE as an example of evolutionary principles, creationists are likely to argue that the MAGE technique allows for the inclusion of genetic mutations already known to be desirable into the mix – including introducing genes from other species. So the diversity does not have to be entirely random. But even when it is, the process still works. Also, the selection is artifical, not natural. This is an old objection by creationists to artifical selection as an anology of evolution. This is a non sequitur, however – the analogy is that selection can drive non-random change in a randomly varying system. It doesn’t matter if the selection is artificial or natural, all that matters is differential survival.

By itself, of course, MAGE does not prove that evolution is true. No single line of evidence can do this. But is does support basic evolutionary principles with a practical application. Creationists often charge that evolution has no practical application, as if utility is a marker of scientific truth. Not only is this argument fallacious, it is factually incorrect. Creationists excel at being wrong in two or more ways simultaneously. At least they are good at something.

10 Responses to “Evolving Useful Bacteria”

  1. Ben says:

    I will be watching for further developments in this area with interest. The potential is incredible and has possible applications for so many different industries and on so many levels. Biofuel, medicine, synthetic chemicals, etc… the list goes on. Science FTW!

    Most Creationists have already taken steps to seperate their belief from logic and reason… This will be no different.

    ~Ben

  2. Brian M says:

    MAGE seems fascinating. But this Biofuels thing utterly baffles me. They still burn and produce CO2. How does this solve the problem? It doesn’t. Sure, it is renewable, but you are not helping the environment. Its funny how the environmentalist shell game collapses. They seem to substitute “renewable” for “environmentally friendly”, then things like biofuels appear to be helping the environment when they really are not.

  3. John Powell says:

    Biofuels are carbon neutral – when you burn them, you are only returning to the atmosphere the carbon the plants extracted while living. They neither add or subtract from the total atmospheric carbon.

    • oldebabe says:

      What about the energy etc. that is used in making the biofuel?

      • LovleAnjel says:

        Biofuels are NOT carbon neutral. The carbon that goes into them includes that used by the farm equipment and manufacturing of fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention production (turning the plant into liquid fuel) and transport (just like fossil fuels). You are producing more than you save no matter what. The merits rest more on satisfying demand without importing fuel and employing Americans.

      • Brian M says:

        Exactly.

        How is producing the fuel from the biomass any different from, say, letting those crops grow wild and not harvesting them but getting them from the infinitely more efficient oil wells?

        If that crop, in a single field, did some how remove as much CO2 as was produced, and someone proved that, then perhaps it would make sense. Thus far, it doesn’t. Especially since biofuels often cannot be transported via pipeline, so they require more fuel consuming transportation. The last time I looked for some studies on this showed that biofuels from corn were actually worse then standard oil, and getting it from corn is a lot more efficient then current ways to extract it from biomass.

        Ultimately, I think biofuels will be a dead end. I won’t invest in them.

      • You are correct only to the point that if it takes the same or more energy input to create a gallon of biofuel as you get out of it, then it is no different than just burning the oil directly as energy. That is the real question of biofuels – can they be produced efficiently enough so that you can get more energy out of them than is put into them.

        Any NET energy produced by biofuels is carbon neutral (to clarify my point). If biofuels cannot be made to produce excess net energy, then they are a worthless dead end. Right now ethanol made from corn produces little or no net energy – it is a worthless endeavor, and may even be net energy negative.

        But – if we can make biofuel from stuff that would be left on the field anyway, or from grasses that don’t need fertilizer and produce more energy than corn, in an efficient enough process, then we can net energy that would be carbon neutral.

        The whole point of domestic production is irrelevant, because it is really the same point – it only helps to the extent that biofuel energy content exceeds input from fossil fuels.

  4. John is right, but to finish the story – fossil fuels are not carbon neutral because burning them is putting carbon in the atmosphere that had been sequestered underground for millions of years. Burning biofuels only returns what was just taken by growing the plants.

  5. Feralboy says:

    Of course, the creationists have begun differentiating between “micro-evoloution” and “macro-evolution” (sound of goalpoasts being uprooted and moved). Gah.

    • Ben says:

      @Feralboy
      Creationists don’t seem to realize that they are essentially the same thing. Macro is just the small steps of Micro extended over geologically epic spans of time! Some Creationists accept the small variations but not the direct result of those variations stacked over a long period.

      An analogy: “I get how one tree can drop seeds that grow more trees… but there is NO way that it would make a forest! It’s just not possible!”
      Sciences Response: “Um, give it enough time and, Yes… Yes it is! *grumble stupid people grumble*”

      ~Ben