As this is my first molecular evolution post, I would appreciate any feedback on clarity. No question is too trival either.
Vertebrates have an amazing capacity to produce proteins called antibodies. These form an important part of our immune system. It has been estimated that humans can produce up to 10 billion different antibodies. In our life time, we will produce antibodies that neutralise toxins (eg tetanus toxin) and recognise components of bacteria, viruses and parasites. If we are unlucky, we can produce antibodies to our own molecules (eg systemic lupus erythyamatosis and some forms of arthritis). We may also produce antibodies to food substances or pollen and develop allergies. We can even produce antibodies to chemicals that do not occur in nature. This is even more amazing when we consider that antibodies are proteins, and proteins are encoded by genes. Why is this amazing? Well, estimates suggest that humans may contain as few as 25 000 genes. How this large antibody repertoire is possible will be explained shortly. But I better introduce these molecules first.
Antibody structure
Antibodies are generally made up of 4 protein chains that are stuck together to form a Y shaped molecule. Each antibody consists of two identical heavy and two identical light chains. This molecule shown in Figure 1 is called an immunoglobulin and has two binding sites for recognising other molecules (called antigens). It is differences these sites (also called the variable regions) that determine what molecules an antibody can bind to. Some types of immunoglobulin (called Ig for short) can also consist of 2 (Ig A) or 5 (IgM) copies of these Y shaped immunoglobulins stuck together. This can increase their ability to keep antigens bound.
Figure 1
Vertebrates have an amazing capacity to produce proteins called antibodies. These form an important part of our immune system. It has been estimated that humans can produce up to 10 billion different antibodies. In our life time, we will produce antibodies that neutralise toxins (eg tetanus toxin) and recognise components of bacteria, viruses and parasites. If we are unlucky, we can produce antibodies to our own molecules (eg systemic lupus erythyamatosis and some forms of arthritis). We may also produce antibodies to food substances or pollen and develop allergies. We can even produce antibodies to chemicals that do not occur in nature. This is even more amazing when we consider that antibodies are proteins, and proteins are encoded by genes. Why is this amazing? Well, estimates suggest that humans may contain as few as 25 000 genes. How this large antibody repertoire is possible will be explained shortly. But I better introduce these molecules first.
Antibody structure
Antibodies are generally made up of 4 protein chains that are stuck together to form a Y shaped molecule. Each antibody consists of two identical heavy and two identical light chains. This molecule shown in Figure 1 is called an immunoglobulin and has two binding sites for recognising other molecules (called antigens). It is differences these sites (also called the variable regions) that determine what molecules an antibody can bind to. Some types of immunoglobulin (called Ig for short) can also consist of 2 (Ig A) or 5 (IgM) copies of these Y shaped immunoglobulins stuck together. This can increase their ability to keep antigens bound.
Figure 1

Generation of Antibody Diversity
As mentioned above, it is the chemistry of the variable regions that determines which antigens a particular antibody can bind. Both the heavy and light chains contribute to antigen binding, so, juggling different heavy and light chain combinations is one way of increasing the number of possible different antibodies an organism can produce. This however is not the main mechanism employed.
Antibodies are the products of different gene segments that are stuck together in different combinations at random. These segments fall into three different classes called Variable (V) Diversity (D) and Junctional/Joining (J) genes. The human heavy chain variable region has 50 functional V segments, 30 D segments, and six J segments to choose from. These segments all occur on the same chromosome. Also on the same chromosome, are the constant region genes of the heavy chain (basically the non variant part of the heavy chain). The light chains also have a constant region. They however do not use D segments. Their V and J segments also occur on the same chromosomes as their constant regions. The light gene situation however is slightly more complicated. There are two types of constant chain, termed the kappa and lambda chains - each antibody contains only one or the other. The Kappa chain can choose from 40 V and 5 J genes and the lambda chain can choose from 30 V and 4 J genes.
So, to summarise, and antibody is made up from a light chain that is stuck together from either a kappa or a lambda gene stuck to a randomly chosen J gene, which is then stuck to a randomly chosen V gene. The protein chain that this codes for is then stuck to a heavy chain that is coded for by a constant region gene (one of either a,b,g,d or e) fused to a randomly chosen V,D and J gene segment. These joining events can also be imprecise, further increasing the antibody repertoire. This can be increased yet further by an enzyme called Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase, which can incorporate up to 15 new nucleotides in to the heavy chain V and J gene segments. The cell then turns these chains into a Y shaped immunoglobulin molecule. Once the genes have been rearranged, further mutations can occur. This can help select for B cells producing higher affinity antibodies by a natural selection like process.
The intervening DNA that is not used is cut out and discarded (figure 2)
Figure 2

Michael Behe uses the above process as an example as an irreducibly complex system that he claims could not arise by natural means and must require a “designer” (euphemism for the Christian god). At the Dover county intelligent design trial, he boasted in his ignorance that “the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by natural selection and random mutation”. A problem with claims made from the argument from incredulity (I prefer the term personal ignorance) is that it is easily dismissed in an instant – not to mention that it shows a distinct lack of imagination and intellectual laziness. Behe was presented with a tiny fraction of the scientific literature that he claimed did not exist. This included a pile of peer reviewed research papers and text books on the subject.
Behe claims that to generate antibodies, you need the gene segments, recombination signals and the Recombination Activating Genes (called RAG1 and RAG2) all present at once, or the system cannot work. This also displays a lack of understanding about how evolution works – it tinkers and refines what is already there. Behe’s claim displays as big a misunderstanding of evolution as the creationists who claim the eye evolved in one step.
After the long introduction, it is the RAG1 protein that I wish to concentrate on.
Mechanism of RAG action
As mentioned previously, when antibody gene segments are chosen at random, the intervening DNA is cut out. This is achieved by the RAG proteins, and animals with function destroying mutations in these genes are severely immuno-deficient. Figure 3 shows the mechanism of action. The enzyme recognizes the Recombination Signal Sequences (yellow or orange triangles) that are located before or after the gene segments to be spliced together. Any combination of segments can occur and the process is random. The RAG proteins then cut out the intervening stretch of DNA and other DNA repair enzymes stick the two ends of the gene segments together (in this case V49 to D28).
Figure 3
Evolution of recombination
So, what would we need to evolve such a system? Firstly, an antibody like molecule. Interestingly, antibodies belong to an ancient family of proteins called the immunoglobulin superfamily. The family is defined on the basis of of a common structural feature called the immunoglobulin domain. Furthermore, this class of protein is found throughout the animal kingdom from sponges up, where their function is molecular recognition. So, we have a starting material to evolve an antibody gene. Michael Behe has claimed that since the chance that an antibody of a single specificity would be unlikely to recognise anything of importance, it would be of little advantage and could not evolve (Darwin’s black box pp. 130-131) . This is where the ignorance and intellectual laziness of the creationist is exposed. The immune system is packed with single specificity proteins, such as the Toll like receptors that recognise repeating molecular patterns. Secondly, If the ancestral antibodies recognised a more restricted set of molecules like a particular carbohydrate structure that is only found in pathogens (and there are plenty), it would be of significant advantage. Many invertebrates use a group of carbohydrate recognising proteins called lectins to recognise infectious agents.
The next thing a primitive recombination system would need would be the RAG genes. It has been hypothesised for about 25 years that the RAG genes may have evolved from pieces of selfish (or if you wish, parasitic) DNA called transposons. There are two interesting features of transposons; they insert into genomes and often encode genes that allow them to cut themselves out and paste themselves elsewhere in the genome. They often contain structures at either end called Terminal Inverted Repeats, which are essential for function. These are structurally very similar to Recombination Signal Sequences. Many transposons also make copies of themselves and these become incorporated throughout the genome – this is also a possible source of V,D and J gene segments.
To test this hypothesis, we would predict that RAG like sequences exist in transposons elsewhere and that they pre-date the evolution of jawed vertebrates. Both these predictions have recently been realised. A family of transposons (called Transib) that contain structural similarities to RAG1 and Recombination Signal like Sequences has been described from the sea slug Aplysia californica. These Transib family members have now been shown to be present in insects, nematodes, fungus and hydra, so they clearly are of ancient origin.
One further line of evidence confirms the link between RAG and transposons: RAGs have recently been shown to be able to act as transposons.
Interestingly, if RAG genes and antibody gene fragments are put into an organism that does not rearrange antibody genes – like yeast, they are perfectly able to. This points out that the rest of the machinery needed to stick the broken ends of gene segments together was already present – that’s what evolution does, it uses material already there and builds upon it.
Finally, it would appear that the ancestral RAG gene was originally of viral origin.
This illustrates the weakness of the argument of personal ignorance. Behe could not conceive how antibody rearrangement could evolve – shame he did not look at the available evidence.
14 comments:
WOW - pretty pictures...
Not had chance to read it yet, "just" go into work and I'm off to a meeting already.
Thanks for writing this.
So this is the test, if I can understand it, anyone can.
Lee
Hi Billy,
Thanks again for the post…
OK, feedback?
First piece of feedback is that I hate to give feedback… it scares me if I offend anyone because I sometimes sound too critical when I don’t mean to be.
So I hope what follows is ‘light’ and constructive because I really appreciate the effort you put into this and want to read more. (Anything that I can use to kick IDiots down with is warmly received by me.)
My confession though is this - much of the details you wrote went WAY over my head but this is probably my fault for lacking even GCSE biology as you know. So Oops... I failed the test I set.
However I enjoyed reading the details, just didn’t get much of it. Though it is good to know that there are people out there who do understand this stuff - I particular like how you demonstrated Behe was merely arguing from ignorance – that was nice (but hey, he is a Biochemist, so what does he know about evolution?)
One good thing, this thread got me to listen to a ‘biology’ podcast I downloaded this week – what are the chances of your thread and this podcast BOTH talking about the
immune system and antibodies…
The link to the podcast is here if you are interested… (it’s Australian just to warn you :)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/
ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2239255.htm
Though again, with so many letters and types being talked about – I got lost here as well. It also reminded me of a lecture by Dr Jones on “why evolution is right and creationism is wrong” – he talked about the evolution of the HIV virus as great evidence for evolution.
Anyway… keep threads like this coming.
I’ll either have to learn some biology at long last or ask you nicely to dumb down (without dumbing down of course – never easy that) for idiots like me.
On my part, I’ve got a lecture to watch by Sean Carroll - Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the ‘making of the fittest’ for my train journey home tonight(ipods are great) – I will try and learn some of this biology stuff, even if it kills me. (I will also get his book one day, I think it is out in paperback now.)
Cheers
Lee
Great.
Read through it, and I think I managed to follow the bouncing ball, for the most part.
I'll read through it again a bit later with more of an eye for criticism :-)
Rian wrote:
Read through it, and I think I managed to follow the bouncing ball, for the most part.
I lost the bouncing ball - that was were I went wrong. Got it :)
Lee
Nice recent post on antibody evolution Billy. I just did my Immunology exam and wrote a 4 page essay on complement. My hand totally cramped up. The pen is a silly archaic device. Give me a laptop. lol.
Hyper variable regions FTW!
lol
I actually have a question!
You mentioned that heavy chains use V, D and J genes, while light chains use V and J. Why do they not use D genes?
Thanks for the feed back guys. Antibody rearrangement might not have been the best choice as it is complicated :-)
The basic message is that Behe claims that this is too complicated to have arisen by evolution - take one bit out and it is all ueless. It shows his ignorance of evolution. The fact is that the system evolved a piece at at time, using components that were already there. In the case of this system, transposons. This conferres an advantage (ability to recognise more antigens) that is later refined by further changes. Behe's claim that all the components have to be there displays a fundamental ignorance of what evolution actually is.
Lee do you have a linl to the Sean Carroll talk. He is the daddy of molecular evolution at the moment - and he is a good communicator.
"You mentioned that heavy chains use V, D and J genes, while light chains use V and J. Why do they not use D genes?"
They probably just did not evolve any. The fact that the heavy and light chain genes are on different chromosomes suggest a different evolutionary history. Those in the heavy chain locus evolved D segments, whereas those at the light chain loci probably did not.
Hi Billy,
Lee do you have a link to the Sean Carroll talk. He is the daddy of molecular evolution at the moment - and he is a good communicator.
It was a good public lecture… he talked about ice fish and their anti-freeze blood. Good stuff…
I just typed Sean Carroll into itunes and it popped up.
Did a search on Google and I think I have found it, it was part of the “Vanderbilt Chancellors Lecture series” – it’s a video as I said so it a bit big, but well worth it.
Try this link, you will have to scroll down almost to the bottom
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/
Social-Sciences/Current-Events/
Vanderbilt-Chancellors-Lecture-Series/26029#
Lee
Cheers Lee,
I am planning a future post on ice fish - their lack of haemoglobin genes and antifreeze proteins make a good example of evolution by reduction of non essential genes and generating new genes from old ones respectivly.
There is a talk by him here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,232,
The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll-
-NPR-Science-Friday
Help - this doesn't look like a particularly occasional blog to me!
Just to say, I didn't mean to imply the other day that what matters most is 'diplomacy'; I believe just as much as you that truth matters a lot.
And I've added your blog as a link to mine now, returning the compliment; it was just the title of the first post that initially put me off...
Hi Bruce,
Did the article make sense to you? I should probably have chosen an easier topic to start with.
You are right, the term ocacasional is a misnomer - I'm shocked how much I've put up so far. Off for a few days soon, so there should be a slowing down.
I've actually got lots of thinks already written from when I was planning that book, so I'm not at the keyboard that long.
I should pace my posts:-)
Billy wrote:
You are right, the term ocacasional is a misnomer
Not really, you never defined ‘occasional’ after all :)
Every day may be occasional for you.
Oh, and thanks for the Sean Carroll link - when I put his name into Itunes, I found there is another Sean Carroll talking about Dark Matter - excellent. I'll watch that tomorrow.
Lee
Post a Comment