In Article <69on0a$t6e at net.bio.net>, newsmgr at merrimack.edu wrote:
>Thanks for the refs. This is a topic that I hadn't heard about
>since undergrad bacterial genetics, and I must say at the time I was
>surprised at the attention it received, as well as incredulous of
>some of the claims made. Anyway, I had just recently been wondering
>about the current state of the controversy again last week as I
>prepared a lecture for an intro evolution class on mutation. Thanks
You might also want to do a search for papers from Susan Rosenberg's lab in
the last few years. They show (convincingly I think) that the "adaptive"
mutations are not directed to specific loci, but rather are due to
activation of non-mitotic recombination systems by the stress of the
selection conditions. The revertant mutations are consistent with that
pathway mutations in the recombination systems abolish the observed
phenomenon. Although the mutations are adaptive, they are not directed in a
>January Weiner wrote in message <69lc5j$ssb at net.bio.net>...
>>> Can anyone suggest a good topic concerning evolutionary emphasis
>>> fairly controversial.
>>>> Maybe the directed mutation controversy?
>> There have been some new articles in Nature last year concerning
>>this subject. Here are some older references to start with:
>> Sniegowski and Lenski, 1995. Mutation and adaptation: the directed
>>mutation controversy in evolutionary perspective. Annu. Rev. Evol.
>> Cairns J., Foster PL. Adaptive reversion of a frameshift mutation
>>in E. coli. Genetics 128:367-81
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9
wgallin at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca