Evolution and Immunity: Same Story?

Bookmark and Share

May 28, 2010 Related topics: Evolutionary Biology | Genetics |

"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Kathryn Applegate. Kathryn Applegate is Program Director at The BioLogos Foundation. She received her PhD in computational cell biology at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. At Scripps, she developed computer vision software tools for analyzing the cell's infrastructure, the cytoskeleton.

Evolution and Immunity: Same Story?

I’ve had ample opportunity this week to reflect on God’s goodness in providing me a working immune system; I’m nearing the end (hopefully) of a bad cold. Normally I would bewail the havoc caused by the virus itself, but after writing my last post on how antibody diversity is generated, I have become increasingly grateful for this life-protecting process.

Antibody fine-tuning

At this moment, millions of B cells are patrolling my spleen and lymph nodes, each sporting a different antibody on its surface. If a foreign molecule from the cold virus happens to stick to an antibody on a particular B cell, the cell can get “activated.”

Pathogens are like cockroaches. If you see one roach, you can bet there are many more lurking under cupboards and between walls. Just as one shoe won’t kill them all, one B cell can’t make enough antibodies to deal with an infection. Activation causes the B cell to reproduce, creating more and more B cells that can produce the same kind of antibody.

As is typical during cell division, most of the DNA in dividing B cells is copied with extremely high accuracy. But in the gene segments coding for the variable region of the antibody, mutations accumulate about a million times more often than normal. Why would this be? Isn’t the point of B cell replication to make more identical antibodies?

Almost. It turns out that these frequent random mutations contribute to optimize the antibody. A shopping story helps to illustrate. I was recently at the mall and found a fabulous pair of shoes on sale. Sadly they were out of my size, but it was such a good sale that I decided to buy the half-size down, figuring the shoes might stretch out a little and grow more comfortable with time. Bad idea! That great bargain turned out to be pretty expensive when I got blisters and never wore the shoes again. Clearly this was not an optimized choice.

Just because you can get your foot into a shoe does not mean it fits. Likewise, just because an antibody binds to an antigen does not mean the two are perfectly complementary. Descendents of the activated B cell have a mechanism to induce mutations so each one can make a slightly different version of the antibody. If one of the resulting B cells makes a better-fitting antibody than its kin, it will have a selective advantage and proliferate. The other cells will not become activated as often and will end up dying by apoptosis, a kind of cellular suicide. This mechanism of mutation and selection, called affinity maturation, produces a highly specific, strong interaction between the antigen and the antibody.

Antibody production and evolution both involve mutation and selection

I believe God is sovereign over all of creation, but I don’t imagine he is presently curing my cold by directly controlling the specific gene rearrangements and optimizing mutations in each of the millions of B cells in my body. Could he do so? Of course! But if that were the case, why bother making billions of antibodies in the first place? The evidence suggests that God has chosen to work through a random process, one which involves the routine creation and destruction of millions of cells that never get used. This is the ordinary means by which God maintains our health. The miracles of healing recorded in the Bible are miraculous precisely because they don’t occur by this normal, natural process.

In my last post, I stated that the generation of antibody diversity is an example in which God uses a “blind” system to sustain and preserve life. I then suggested a link to evolution by asking, “If God uses natural mechanisms that work over short time scales (less than a week) to evolve life-giving solutions to disease, could he also use a similarly elegant approach to create life over long periods of time?”

Some may argue that a small-scale process like antibody production isn’t comparable to the processes of mutation and natural selection that are supposed to have caused macro-evolution. Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe, for example, accepts that all creatures (including humans) have a common ancestor, but he believes random mutations are not powerful enough to have brought about the diversity of life we see today. He argues that there is an “edge” of evolution: mutation can bring about drug resistance and other small-scale adaptations, but beyond a certain point it can’t really produce anything new.

Clearly, antibody production creates something new: the random recombining of whole gene segments generates highly specific, never-before-seen protein functionality within just a few days. The body can respond to any foreign entity, simply by sorting through billions of ready-made possibilities. Furthermore, a pretty-good solution can be made even better by generating many variations on a theme and sorting through these for the optimal antibody.

Evolution works by the same kinds of mechanisms, except the mutations occur in germ cells (which give rise to egg and sperm) rather than in B cells, and the sorting (selection) process occurs at the population level rather than the cellular level.

Though often neutral or destructive, mutations sometimes create new functionality

Most people are familiar with point mutations, in which a single DNA “letter,” or base, gets changed. However, mutations come in several other varieties. Short sequences of DNA can be inserted or deleted at random. Chunks of DNA can get cut out and inserted in the opposite direction. Individual genes or even whole chromosomes can get lost or duplicated. In rare cases, the entire genome can get duplicated!

The effect of a mutation principally depends on where it occurs, not on the size of the DNA segment affected. A large deletion occurring within a long stretch between two genes may do nothing at all. On the other hand, a single point mutation within a critical gene may cause a devastating disease. There is also a third possibility though: new functionality may emerge as a result of a mutation.

Let’s consider the protein hemoglobin, for example, which binds oxygen and transports it throughout the body in the blood. Hemoglobin is made from two pairs each of two amino acid chains, called α and β (blue and red in the figure at right). The corresponding genes that code for α and β have similar sequences to each other, and are believed to have arisen when an ancestral globin gene (still present in marine worms, insects, and some fish) duplicated and slowly changed over time. While the ancestral form can bind oxygen just fine, the four chains of hemoglobin cooperate to do so even better.

Both the α and β genes have undergone further duplications followed by smaller mutations. As expected, many of the resulting genes have become irreparably damaged by mutations, but they continue to exist in the genome as inert DNA “fossils.” Others, however, remain active and now perform specialized functions. For instance, one set of β genes binds more tightly to oxygen than the others; it becomes active only during development to ensure that the fetus gets enough oxygen from the mother’s bloodstream. A few months after birth, fetal hemoglobin turns off and the adult form turns on.

To summarize, mutations come in many forms (e.g. rearrangements, insertions, deletions, duplications) and can lead to good, bad, or neutral effects within an individual. B cells depend on random mutations to produce novel antibodies. A few are productive, but the vast majority of B cells die unused. Yet the entire process works for our good! In the same way, mutations in germ cells can lead to no effect, disease, or new and better solutions, as we saw in the hemoglobin example. These are the ordinary (but masterful!) means by which God creates and sustains life.

Editor's Note: For more on the evolution of the immune system, read Randy's Isaac's post "Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source" at the ASA website.

For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
Mike Gene - #15416

May 28th 2010

The evidence suggests that God has chosen to work through a random process, one which involves the routine creation and destruction of millions of cells that never get used.

Some people may read this and think, “What a wasteful process!”  If so, chances are they are thinking of these millions of cells as being tossed into a garbage disposal.  But that’s not how life works.  It’s more like the millions of cells are being tossed into a recycling bin and headed for a highly efficient process of recycling.  That is, the millions of unused cells are broken down and the many pieces and parts can be used to generate millions of news cells.  This is the brilliance of designing life around humble little subunits that can be channeled into a bottom-up process of emergence.

Reply to this comment
Mike Gene - #15417

May 28th 2010

In my last post, I stated that the generation of antibody diversity is an example in which God uses a “blind” system to sustain and preserve life. I then suggested a link to evolution by asking, “If God uses natural mechanisms that work over short time scales (less than a week) to evolve life-giving solutions to disease, could he also use a similarly elegant approach to create life over long periods of time?”

Sure.  But we ought not so myopically focus on the random mutations at the price of ignoring the larger context.  Antibody production is a very intelligent process - the controlled use of randomness.  Randomness is being actively exploited and recruited to serve an end.  And yes, that very theme may very well apply to the design of evolution through front-loading.

Reply to this comment
John - #15423

May 28th 2010

Very very cool !!!

Reply to this comment
Dennis Venema - #15424

May 28th 2010

Mike, I agree that antibody production is an elegant process, but the mutations have all the hallmarks of randomness (randomness with respect to the future binding of the antibody - I am aware that the mutations are not perfectly random in every sense). Also, the process by which B cells undergo affinity maturation (somatic hypermutation) induce B cell cancers (at a low frequency) by mutating non-antibody genes.

Reply to this comment
Glen Davidson - #15425

May 28th 2010

How do you know that antibody production isn’t directed by intelligence?

Actually, for ID it seems that the answer is “if it’s in the present, it’s not done by God.  If it was in the past and seems remotely difficult, it was done by God.”

It is, in effect, the denial of divine operations today.

Glen Davidson

Reply to this comment
Mike Gene - #15429

May 28th 2010

Hi Dennis,

Mike, I agree that antibody production is an elegant process, but the mutations have all the hallmarks of randomness (randomness with respect to the future binding of the antibody - I am aware that the mutations are not perfectly random in every sense).

Sure.  The search better be random otherwise how would the cell find the perfect match?  It’s not as if the cell can study and reason its way to the perfect match.  Billions of cells known as brain cells function as a team and do this all day, yet still struggle with that problem.  wink

The trick is to intelligently capture and exploit this randomness to serve an objective.  The mutating antibody genes effectively act as feelers, probing the antigen such that when the best feeler is found, the whole system rallies around it.  And when we factor in the elegant mechanisms of control when making those feelers (first targeted recombination, then targeting the tweaking to things at the periphery, all built around a special protein fold), it’s not the fact that randomness is used that is interesting, it’s how it is used.  And these lessons may apply to evolution itself.

Reply to this comment
Mike Gene - #15430

May 28th 2010

Also, the process by which B cells undergo affinity maturation (somatic hypermutation) induce B cell cancers (at a low frequency) by mutating non-antibody genes.

All designs come with trade-offs.  In this case, if we want to make the best feeler, we’ll have to play with fire and turn up the mutation rate.  But we better make sure to target this accelerated mutation to the correct locus.  The price to pay is the same price as with any control of complex systems – the possibility of breakdown at some regulatory node.  But if we balance the B cell cancers against the B cell success at fighting off infection, the trade-off would be tipped far toward the “it’s an intelligent design” side of the spectrum.

Reply to this comment
Charlie - #15431

May 28th 2010

Kathryn,

Great science lesson, although I’m not sure how it’s tied to religion.  Just that you believe these scientific processes are the result of God?  Because that belief is unscientific, I’d be interested to know why you believe in the natural process of evolution with a “supernatural” initiation of it?

Reply to this comment
Kathryn Applegate - #15433

May 28th 2010

Charlie,

Thanks for the question.  You’re right that my belief in and love for the God of the Bible is unscientific, but it isn’t without a rational basis.  The Christian worldview has great explanatory power for many of the “big questions” in life (Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? How should I relate to God, if there is one, and to my neighbor? What should I live for?), which IMHO are more important than how the immune system works.

That said, how the immune system works provides a good platform for thinking about how God interacts with his world.  Many Christians who, like me, emphasize God’s sovereignty are highly uncomfortable with the idea that anything happens outside of his DIRECT control.  I’m arguing that he uses MEANS, thereby working indirectly, to accomplish his providential care of his creation.  And he seems to have chosen to do this not only in the micro sense inside our bodies, but throughout deep time to make all living things.

Kathryn

Reply to this comment
Bilbo - #15434

May 28th 2010

Hi Kathryn,

You end your opening post with what amounts to a statement of faith, never really addressing Behe’s arguments in detail.  Lynn Margulisl expresses the same doubts about neo-Darwinism as Behe.  Perhaps you intend on addressing the key issues in the future.  I hope so.  I would hate to think that so mammoth a theory of how life evolved depends upon analogy to the immune system.  Especially since the mutation rates of most organisms is much, much lower.

Reply to this comment
Brian in NZ - #15642

May 30th 2010

Kathryn, thanks for the very interesting example of evolution on the micro scale.

Reply to this comment
Charlie - #15986

June 2nd 2010

Kathryn,

So regarding the “big questions”, is it your belief that we’ll never have a natural explanation for these?  And if you think we’ll never have an explanation for these, why does the Christian worldview hold the answer (as opposed to it just being an unanswered question)?  Other “big questions” for you, I don’t necessarily consider big.  How should I relate to my neighbor or what should I live for are personal choices, there is no correct answer.  Don’t you think for these questions there is no true or false, only good or bad (and even these are subjective)?  I think religion gets cloudy when it intertwines morality with truth, do you agree?

Reply to this comment
Bilbo - #16101

June 3rd 2010

Hi Charlie,

Ww were discussing this issue on a different thread, though I can’t remember which one.  Did you ever answer my question there?  Should we go back there and discuss it, or tread all over Kathryn’s thread?

Reply to this comment
Charlie - #16421

June 4th 2010

Bilbo,

Sorry I can’t remember the tread or your question, there are a lot of threads on this site.  Regardless, I was asking Kathryn her opinion.  Feel free to ask your question again though.

Reply to this comment
Rich - #39333

November 10th 2010

For those interested, a pair of articles, providing a polite but critical response to this article, have been posted by Dr. Donald Ewert, research immunologist/virologist, at:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/adaptive_immunity_chance_or_ne040181.html

and

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/generation_of_antibody_diversi040211.html#more

Reply to this comment
Larry - #39375

November 11th 2010

Rich, it’s no good insisting Intelligent Design is purely a scientific movement, unrelated to creationism, and then linking to endless essays by creationists, such as Donald Ewart and Caroline Crocker - both of whom have made known their ignorance of evolutionary science (and even basic biology - I also heard his dreadful testimony at the Texas Schools Board meetings a while back). I can find no mention of him on the Wistar Institute’s site, so he is clearly no longer a “research immunologist/virologist.”

Reply to this comment
Page 1 of 1   1
  • Add Your Comment

  • The BioLogos Forum welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

  • Users are required to log in using a BioLogos or social media account in order to comment. If you already have an account, please log in. If you do not have an account, you may learn about creating your free account here.