Thursday, October 23, 2014

Joshua Everett's Phylogenetic Anaylsis Article

Joshua Everett
AP Biology  
Mr. Hammer
October 24, 2014
Phylogenetic Analysis Article
For this phylogenetic lab, I studied different species of animals that I thought would be similar to one another, not only based on appearance but on the type of gene they all had in common. The question I was addressing in this lab is how are Mus musculus (house mouse), Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees), and Sus scrofa (wild boars) similar to Ambystoma mexicanum (Mexican salamander). To make this comparison, I looked at the msh homeobox 1 gene, also known as MSX1 in each of these species. The MSX1 gene provides instructions to make a protein that regulates the activity of other genes. Specifically, the MSX1 gene controls the normal development of fingernails, toenails, teeth, and other structures of the mouth. I formulated this question based on interesting characteristics of these species like their differences in appearances and their homologous structures. In prior knowledge, I was aware that humans and chimpanzees are very similar to each other not only through their shared structures but also through their DNA sequences. In this lab, however, I wanted to find another species of organisms that were also similar to chimpanzees. Although none of the species I chose to analyze in my lab seem very similar based on their appearance, structures, and ecological locations, that is what makes this lab interesting. This lab will reveal how similar these different species really are to one another based on the MSX1 gene that they all share.
In order to compare the Mexican salamander, the mouse, the chimpanzee, and the wild boar, I decided to compare their nucleotide sequences, or specifically their mRNA sequences. The MSX1 gene is found on the short end of chromosome four at position 16.2. Because this gene is found on a chromosome and is found from base pair 4,859,664 and 4,863,935, it would make more sense to compare these species based on their nucleotide sequences rather than, possibly, protein sequences (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MSX1). Before I performed my experiment I looked up organisms that had the MSX1 gene and I picked the ones that I knew the least information about. I did this because I wanted to be able to discover something new and interesting about these species instead discovering information I already had prior knowledge about. After I found my different species, I found each of their mRNA sequences by using the NCBI database that could be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore. In order to align these sequences to view similarities and differences between all these types of organisms and to draw a phylogenetic tree, I used the program ClustalX2. To view the results in a phylogenetic tree, I used the program njplot to view the phylogenetic tree which allowed me to form conclusions and make inferences on the relatedness of these species.
After forming conclusions and making inferences, my results showed that chimpanzees and wild boars are more similar in the way that they develop teeth, fingernails, and toenails from the MSX1 gene. According to my phylogenetic tree, it seems are if chimpanzees and wild boars share a more recent ancestor than the mouse and the Mexican salamander. The Mexican salamander is the outgroup in my tree which means that they are the least similar to the chimpanzee, mouse, and wild boar. The mouse, however, is more similar to the chimpanzee and the wild boar than the Mexican salamander. The reason in which the mouse is not as similar to the chimpanzee and wild boar is because I am able to infer from the phylogenetic tree that they have a less recent common ancestor. The chimpanzee and the wild boar branch off at a more recent point which could mean that they have a more recent common ancestor which makes them more similar. My question is answered from the phylogenetic tree because it shows that the mouse, the chimpanzee, and the wild boar are not closely related to the Mexican salamander. The most closely related species, however,  are the chimpanzee and the wild boar.
Chimpanzees and wild boars, also known as wild pigs, are the two most closely related species based off of the phylogenetic tree. There is a report that was done by John Hewitt that supports that chimpanzees and wild pigs could actually be more related than what individuals might think. Dr. Eugene McCarthy specializes in hybridization in animals and he hypothesized that it would be possible for a male boar (Sus scrofa) and a female chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) to cross and reproduce and have offspring. McCarthy proposes that” hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans” (http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html). Scientists believe that humans arose from multiple generations of chimpanzee crossings and or reproducing. McCarthy is newly introducing that wild pigs could have contributed to the earliest hominids as well, based on nucleotide sequence data comparisons (http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html). The fact that wild pigs and chimpanzees are able to reproduce and have hybrid offspring, means that both species of organisms would have to be similar in a way in which they had compatible reproductive parts. Another hypothesis that McCarthy proposed was that chimps and wild pigs had separate crosses that led to the production of separate hominids (http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html). If pigs and chimps cross separately and produce hominids, regardless of the differences between them, scientists and other individuals can deduce that wild pigs are similar to chimpanzees because of the similar organisms that can be produced by both of them. This report would support the results from the experiment because it proves that wild boars and chimpanzees are indeed similar as represented by the phylogenetic tree.
An experiment was performed to see if a mouse, a chimpanzee, and a wild boar are closely related to a Mexican salamander. Nucleotide sequences were found using the NCBI database and  data comparisons were done between all the organisms using ClustalX2. A phylogenetic tree was made from njplot  and the results came back revealing that chimpanzees and wild boars are the most closely related and that the Mexican salamander is the outgroup, or least similar out of the four species. The mouse was similar to the chimpanzee and wild boar but a more recent common ancestor was shared between the chimp and the wild boar which made the ultimate difference between the two groups. The conclusion that chimpanzees and wild boars are more closely related and similar is supported by the hypotheses made by Dr. Eugene McCarthy about hybridization in animals. Overall this experiment proved that comparing DNA sequences or other types of sequences can lead to formations of phylogenetic trees which can reveal common ancestry and relatedness among species of organisms.

Phylogenetic Tree:

Work Cited
Hewitt, J. (2013, July 3). A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html

MSX1 gene. (2014, October 20). Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MSX1

Sara Phyologenetic Article

Sara Bearden
October 23, 2014

Evolutionary Relationships Between Animals

    Which animals are more related to each other, a pig, horse, dog, cattle, or a chicken? The reason for the investigation on this question is because all the animals beside the chicken give live birth where the chicken lays eggs and that’s where their babies develop.  These animals can be seen on a farm which, means that they live in similar environments with each other.  With similar environmental pressures they may have more similarities in how their muscle is developed in how it can move. Their common ancestor would have passed down traits that enabled them to live in those condition.  For instance, a horse and a dog can run for long distances and can be used for that aspect so, those traits may be similar between them since they use their leg muscles for similar functions.  The gene that controls how the muscle moves is myosin.  There are many strands of this gene so I decided to focus on only  one of the main strands of the gene.  I compared heavy strain seven which, is for the cardiac muscle in the animals.  The way that their muscles move for their heart may be similar because of the animals body types or how the animal interacts within their environment.
    In this investigation I used the programs ClustalX2 to align the sequences and NJPlot in order to create the phylogenetic tree.  The sequences I compared were the protein sequences of the gene in each animal.  In order to find these sequences I used www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore.  When using this website I typed in the scientific name of each animal and myosin and clicked on the result that said their scientific name myosin, heavy chain 7, cardiac muscle, beta.  From there on I copied the sequences onto a word document and saved it as a text file and uploaded it onto ClustalX2.  The sequences were aligned and then NJ Plot presented the tree for the similarities.   I used these programs in order to get accurate information and to have accurate results in my investigation because if I was to do it myself I would of had more errors doing the alignments and comparisons than with a program doing them.
    The results after the phylogenetic tree was drawn was that a pig and cattle are the most related animals out of the five.  The chicken became my out group since it was the first one to diverge from the common ancestor among the animals.  The pig and cattle were the last ones to diverge from the most common ancestor between the dog, horse, pig, and cattle.  A horse is more closely related to the cattle and pig than a dog is in this gene by looking at the tree.  What this means is that there were less differences in their protein sequences for myosin.  The pig and cattle had even fewer differences which, is why they are more closely related to each other than to other animals in the investigation.  Based on the evolutionary relationship between the cow and pig one could predict that the movement of their cardiac muscles are very similar to each other since the sequencing for the gene in both have few differences.  The function of this muscle is doing similar things in both animals.
There has been research done on the evolution of both the cattle and pig.  Both animals were domesticated about 10,000 bp. The domestications occurred in Europe as well. However how these two animals adapted to the new environments from the domestication was different. Cattle had to adapt to environments that were arid or wet tropics depending on where they were taking based on the colonization of the humans.  Researches have found that farmers are selecting for certain traits in the cattle like fertility and tenderness of their meat for production reasons, since they have been seeing some “production diseases” like lameness and reproductive disorders (O’Neil 1).  Now as for pigs they had different adaptations when they were domesticated by humans.  One is that their back elongated the number of vertebrae increased (Groenen 1).  This could possibly be due to the demand for the pigs meat, the ones that had longer backs were more favorable to keep around at first so that there were more to have for later and then use for food.  Also there are great genetic difference between the pig and their relative the wild boar and that is due to their separation from about one million years ago and being domesticated.  
    What that research proves is that even though pigs and cattle have similarities in the muscle that controls their cardiacs doesn’t me that they are actually that closely related. Based on the research done these two animals were both domesticated but, were in different environments and they adapted differently to being domesticated.  Both did have mutations that allowed them to become more suitable for the environment but, they were different. Cattle had adaptations to become more suited live in the climate they were in where pigs adapted by how they were used.  Their backs started to elongate over time because those with longer backs were more desirable for the farmers. They experienced similar environmental pressures that would have lead to similar adaptations to their cardiac muscles to be more related in the phylogenetic tree but, these animals in reality are not that much related.  They do not have the same type of bodies and developed in different areas from mutations that made them more desirable for the humans.
    In conclusion, my results from the comparing of the seventh strand of the myosin gene in a horse, dog, pig, cattle, and chicken were that the cattle and pig were the most related organisms.  The chicken ended up the out group because it was the least related animal out of the five form diverging first from the common ancestor.  Even though the phylogenetic tree shows that the cattle and pig are the most related they are not actually that close related in reality.  Even though both experienced domestication by humans the animals were used differently which,  accounts for why they adapted differently from each other.  My results were not as accurate in depicting the relatedness of the animals and if more comparisons were done on the genes then the more accurate result would have occurred. This investigation shows that even if two animals are more related based on one piece of evidence there may be more out there to disprove it which, is why more phylogenetic tests should be done on different genes to show the relatedness of the animals and then compare results to get an accurate result.

Phylogenetic Tree:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MZK9-7aAY-R7CZKButImKmD8Aay5AXzsARK65JcNnew/pub

Citations:

Color Variation in Venezuelan Guppies Argument

Color Variation in Venezuelan Guppies Argument

Jazmean's Hardy Weinberg Model Presentation

HWE Model