Hologenomic Theory: Microbes Influencing Evolution

 "You are not just yourself. You are also the thousands of microbes that you carry. In fact, they represent an invisible majority that may be more you than you realize." - Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718142417.htm)

In a study by Robert M. Brucker and Seth R. Bordenstein, recently published in Science, evidence supports the hologenomic theory of evolution, proposing organisms evolve as a result of their individual traits and characterists, and it's associated microbial community. Their study provides the strongest evidence to date, for the hologenomic theory of evolution.

While the hologenomic theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologenome_theory_of_evolution) remains somewhat controversial, would it not seem obvious that microbial symbiosis would affect evolution, considering that humans are eighty-something percent water, and crawling with microbes? After all, humans are composed from all sorts of symbiotic relationships. Take the mitochondria for example, which are not only symbionts, but endosymbionts. With the exception of chloroplasts in photosynthetic organisms, mitochondria are the only organelles within most every cell of the human body which originated as a separate prokaryotic organism at one time.

Mitochondria are endosymbionts that contain their own DNA and replicate independently of the cell in which it inhabits. It's function is provide energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, to regulate cellular metabolic processes. While this once free-form organism has now been integrated into most every cell in the human body, it still has genetic similarity to bacteria.

Another human process that is almost entirely dependent on microbial communities is the digestive system. Without bacteria breaking down digested food to produce vitamins and minerals for absorption, humans, as well as many other organisms, would die of malnutrition.

There are also bacteria on skin that aid in the protection of infection, and scent. Yes, scent. The microbes on the skin directly affect body odor. The chemistry of the fluids your glands secret with the assistance of bacterial activity, create a particular scent or body odor. And, as science has shown, the odor of an organism influences social interactions and evolution.

In 2012, J. Havlicek and C. Roberts wrote The perfume body-odor complex: an insightful model for gene-culture evolution? (http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~scr/pdf/2012_Havlicek_CSiV.pdf), speaking of the olfactory cues providing information for the genetic make-up of an individual, and its linkage to sexual attraction, thus reproduction. While the article doesn't discuss this, I am going to postulate that thought genetic make-up plays a role in the chemicals excreted from the fluids in your body, the types of bacteria metabolizing said chemicals also play a role. It could be assumed, then, that your geographical location affects an individual scent because of the difference in bacteria an individual might be exposed to.

Bringing it back to the original theory of hologenetic evolution, it would seem intuitive to consider microbial influence on evolution throughout time, because organisms are compositions of microbial communities.

Deep Sea Mining- Capitalism or Progress?

While watching BBC News this morning, enjoying a cup of tea, a story about new oceanographic findings in hydrothermal vents came on that piqued my interests. At first I was feeling a sense of pride, having come from a biological oceanographic background, I felt connected to the story in understanding the technicalities of the research and the dedication of the scientists' work. However, the story took a turn that left me in tears-- a strong emotional reaction I would not have expected, nor do I admit to without embarrassment-- a sure sign that has motivated me to create a blog for Environmental Perspective.

Not able to find the exact story I saw on the news this morning, I have been able to find two BBC articles that pieced together, gets to the heart of my distraught:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21774447

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21782277

Source: Lockheed Martin

"A new and controversial frontier in mining is opening up as a British firm joins a growing rush to exploit minerals in the depths of the oceans." - David Shukman, BBC

While I am not an expert, but taking a moment to digest the information and seeking more, three things came to mind.

One: Scientists do not know the effects mining will have on the sea floor ecosystem and what detriments it may have, long-term. There is a possibility that the ecosystems may be destroyed irrecoverably, having a domino effect up the food chain, eventually causing further issues that damage future generations. As said by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute: 
"The argument for protecting species is the same as that on land—diversity is at the heart of functioning ecosystems; it helps life adapt to changing conditions." (http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=62986)

Two: Seafloor mining by Lockheed Martin is currently supported by the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and as of March 2013, has been given a license to contract an investigation for 58,000 square-kilometers of ocean floor in search of mineral-rich polymetallic nodules (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/march/0314uk-polymetallic-nodules.html). 
But, here's my question: for what purpose? 

According to Prime Minister, David Cameron, “The UK is leading the way in this exciting new industry which has the potential to create specialist and supply chain jobs across the country and is expected to be worth up to £40bn to the UK economy over the next 30 years. With our technology, skills, scientific and environmental expertise at the forefront, this demonstrates that the UK is open for business as we compete in the global race."

Yet, a striking dominance of scientists from all disciplinary backgrounds have explicitly said the environmental impacts of deep sea mining are poorly understood, constituting an unacceptable risk. I have been able to find Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for a Canadian mining company called, Nautilus Mining Inc., and all have concluded mining is not recommended. I have yet to find EISs completed for Lockheed Martin regarding the exploration of said 58,000 square kilometers of sea floor. 

If there is a loud scientific voice saying it is ill advised to proceed with deep sea mining, what is the point in exploring the ocean floors for potential exploitation? Again... what is the purpose of the UK politicians supporting Lockheed Martin in deep sea mining?

Three: We humans have exhausted the limits of the biosphere at the expense of the successive future generations. On a philosophical level, at what point will we reconsider our lifestyles and relationship with Nature? How far are we willing to irrecoverably damage our planet to obtain perceived power and control through capitalism? 

I realize this last thought is a controversial and largely debatable topic... I do not believe there are "right" answers, but I do believe we have an opportunity to do what is right for the betterment of our children and our children's children, as each successive generation continues... the question is, how far are we willing to let others exploit our planet in the name of something such as 'the global race', when it appears to be underlined by politics, money, and selfish greed?

... And, this is the underlying reasoning for my tears.

If nothing else, I hope that the blog of Environmental Perspectives can bring minds, thoughts, and ideas together through dialog, in efforts to raise awareness and inspire realistic sustainability for our future generations.