3 ms·

Yes! Electroporation is literally just subjecting the cells to a strong electrical potential. A lightning can definitely do the trick in some conditions. Many c

Yes! Electroporation is literally just subjecting the cells to a strong electrical potential. A lightning can definitely do the trick in some conditions. Many cells will die, but it is a sacrifice natural selection is willing to make. Although, this doesn't mean you zapping someone with enough lightning and they can become the flash. The electroporation process is one way of damaging the cell just enough to make them take in foreign DNA. Think of it like poking holes in the cell and DNA got in. Whether that DNA get recombined or not depends on other processes, which might also get activated as a stress response to the damage. But it is entirely random. So the DNA coding that specific function/protein must be available in the environment first, and the cell must survive the process of getting struck by Zeus and be lucky enough to do the recombination just right to retain that piece of DNA to produce a proper mutant. Lots of entropy here, like someone said elsewhere. But that is life. Do it enough time and maybe something fun come out of it.

karim79 3y ago
So then, I suppose, the 'lethal zone' would be heavily dependant on the power of the lightning strike, the volume of the available body of water, the density of life within the water, and probably thousands of other factors. It would perhaps be much worse for ocean-dwellers than for fresh-water life due to the conductivity differences. I would love to see a computer simulation of this, e.g., for each type of aquatic ecosystem, what would be the recombination sweet-spot or optimal conditions for genetic recombination within a lightning-affected area.
gumby 3y ago
> A lightning can definitely do the trick in some conditions. Many cells will die, but it is a sacrifice natural selection is willing to make. While I agree with Dennett,* I don’t think agency is correctly ascribed here, unless you can find selection for locations of increased lightning incidence(!). It’s more like “any survivors remain subject to natural selection, as did those unfortunates that did not survive” * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
- cariaso 3y ago
  It's more than natural selection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation enables gene transfer.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Yes, that was the topic of the article. I am just dubious that a location that got a lot of lightning could be selected for, though lightning is not uniform across the globe. But it's a rather crude factor and hard to defend against on a micro scale!
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      In the past there were periods of billions of years at a stretch with not much else going on that single celled organisms being zapped by lightning. You'd think that in those conditions it happened and probably frequently enough to make a difference. For multi-cellular organisms the picture is completely different and it likely wouldn't matter nearly as much.
      - gumby 3y ago
        Let me phrase it a different way: I don't think there are any organisms selecting for being genetically modified in petri dishes by researchers in research labs. I consider the gene transfers by lightning to be the equivalent of that. Unsurprisingly there are organisms that seem to preferentially strike (and mutate) in hospitals, but have they (yet?) selected for some special preference for, say, urban hospitals? I doubt it, though it would be cool (and probably frightening) if so. That situation would be more likely to evolve than the researcher case.
        mannykannot 3y ago
        I feel there is a useful analogy in what happens in toxic environments. In areas where there are high levels of arsenic, for example, you find a limited ecology of organisms adapted to tolerate it, and I think I am right to say that they do not do well outside of this environment, as the mechanisms of tolerance are sub-optimal where they are not needed. The most relevant situation would be where the environmental toxin is mutagenic. My uninformed guess is that adaptation to that environment would typically involve mechanisms to reduce susceptibility to the toxin's mutagenic effect, and, as in the case with other toxins, organisms so adapted would be out-competed in areas where the toxin is not present. I guess we have examples in the microbes which have adapted to live in areas of high radiation, but I do not know how they fare elsewhere. Update: D. radiodurans is an example, but it has been suggested that its tolerance is simply a side effect of a mechanism for dealing with prolonged cellular desiccation - another sort of environment where they do well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans#Evolution_of_ionizing-radiation_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans#Evolut...
klyrs 3y ago
Proper mutant, hell. Mama's gettin' chloroplasts. Just... zap me up in a vat of algae.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Hum... I know it's a joke, but just to point, chloroplasts aren't expressed by genes.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    sigh... I know, I know.

karim79 3y ago

So then, I suppose, the 'lethal zone' would be heavily dependant on the power of the lightning strike, the volume of the available body of water, the density of life within the water, and probably thousands of other factors. It would perhaps be much worse for ocean-dwellers than for fresh-water life due to the conductivity differences. I would love to see a computer simulation of this, e.g., for each type of aquatic ecosystem, what would be the recombination sweet-spot or optimal conditions for genetic recombination within a lightning-affected area.

gumby 3y ago

> A lightning can definitely do the trick in some conditions. Many cells will die, but it is a sacrifice natural selection is willing to make. While I agree with Dennett,* I don’t think agency is correctly ascribed here, unless you can find selection for locations of increased lightning incidence(!). It’s more like “any survivors remain subject to natural selection, as did those unfortunates that did not survive” * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

cariaso 3y ago
It's more than natural selection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation enables gene transfer.
- gumby 3y ago
  Yes, that was the topic of the article. I am just dubious that a location that got a lot of lightning could be selected for, though lightning is not uniform across the globe. But it's a rather crude factor and hard to defend against on a micro scale!
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    In the past there were periods of billions of years at a stretch with not much else going on that single celled organisms being zapped by lightning. You'd think that in those conditions it happened and probably frequently enough to make a difference. For multi-cellular organisms the picture is completely different and it likely wouldn't matter nearly as much.
    - gumby 3y ago
      Let me phrase it a different way: I don't think there are any organisms selecting for being genetically modified in petri dishes by researchers in research labs. I consider the gene transfers by lightning to be the equivalent of that. Unsurprisingly there are organisms that seem to preferentially strike (and mutate) in hospitals, but have they (yet?) selected for some special preference for, say, urban hospitals? I doubt it, though it would be cool (and probably frightening) if so. That situation would be more likely to evolve than the researcher case.
      - mannykannot 3y ago
        I feel there is a useful analogy in what happens in toxic environments. In areas where there are high levels of arsenic, for example, you find a limited ecology of organisms adapted to tolerate it, and I think I am right to say that they do not do well outside of this environment, as the mechanisms of tolerance are sub-optimal where they are not needed. The most relevant situation would be where the environmental toxin is mutagenic. My uninformed guess is that adaptation to that environment would typically involve mechanisms to reduce susceptibility to the toxin's mutagenic effect, and, as in the case with other toxins, organisms so adapted would be out-competed in areas where the toxin is not present. I guess we have examples in the microbes which have adapted to live in areas of high radiation, but I do not know how they fare elsewhere. Update: D. radiodurans is an example, but it has been suggested that its tolerance is simply a side effect of a mechanism for dealing with prolonged cellular desiccation - another sort of environment where they do well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans#Evolution_of_ionizing-radiation_resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans#Evolut...

klyrs 3y ago

Proper mutant, hell. Mama's gettin' chloroplasts. Just... zap me up in a vat of algae.

marcosdumay 3y ago
Hum... I know it's a joke, but just to point, chloroplasts aren't expressed by genes.
- klyrs 3y ago
  sigh... I know, I know.