Stone-Age ‘Chewing Gum’ Reveals Human DNA

A lump of gum has revealed a dark-skinned, blue-eyed, hunter-gatherer who inhabited Scandinavia thousands of years ago. This is the first time a full ancient human genome has been extracted from anything other than bone.


Researchers from Denmark have extracted a complete human DNA sample from a piece of birch bark tar believed to be more than 5,000 years old and used as chewing-gum in the Neolithic era.

The DNA revealed that the young female living in southern Denmark during the Stone Age probably had dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes.

“It is the first time that an entire ancient human genome has been extracted from anything other than human bones,” Hannes Schroeder, a molecular anthropologist at the University of Copenhagen, told French news agency AFP.

Schroeder, the co-author of the study, published her findings in the review Nature Communications.

Also read: Timeline for Speech Evolution Pushed Back 27 Million Years

The bark was found during an archaeological dig at Syltholm on Lolland Island, southern Denmark.

The team of scientists also concluded that the girl was genetically more closely related to hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe than those living in central Scandinavia at the time.

The DNA could also indicate what the source had last eaten and the kinds of bacteria in her mouth.

In addition to the DNA, the team also found genetic materials from hazelnut and ducks, presumed traces of a recent meal and around  40 types of microbes, confirming what archaeologists already know about the people who lived in southern Denmark 5,000 years ago.

Well-preserved

Researchers also detected pathogens such as the Epstein-Barr virus, which can cause glandular fever, but does not necessarily mean she was ill as the virus can be present without causing illness.

Also read: The Science of How Human Bodies Decay

“It can help us understand how pathogens have evolved and spread over time … it could help us predict how the pathogen will behave in the future and how it might be contained or eradicated,” Schroeder said.

However, the scientists are not entirely sure why the source chewed the bark, saying that while it could have been simply used as chewing gum, she might have also been chewing it as a method to turn it into a type of glue, to clean her teeth, or even to fight off hunger.

It is impossible to know her age from the DNA, but the scientists concluded that given children seemed to chew birch tar, it is likely that she was young.

“Syltholm is completely unique,” Tehis Jensen, one of the authors, said. “Almost everything is sealed in mud, which means that the preservation of organic remains is absolutely phenomenal.”

The article was originally published on DWYou can read it here

A Study of Human History Through the Lives of Disease-Causing Bacteria

Phylogenetics compares the genomes of extant organisms to reconstruct their ancestries, and their impact on humans. This is not very different from comparing languages and finding common or different origins between them.

Phylogenetics compares the genomes of extant organisms to reconstruct their ancestries, and their impact on humans. This is not very different from comparing languages and finding common or different origins between them.

Two researchers working with the plague in Philippines, 1912. Credit: Otis Historical Archives National Museum of Health and Medicine/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Two researchers working with the plague in Philippines, 1912. Credit: Otis Historical Archives National Museum of Health and Medicine/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

We live in an era of big data in everything, including biology. The most prominent arm of big science in biology is genomics, the science of reading the entire genetic material of an organism, most touted for its ability to predict predisposition to disease, identify targets for personalised medicine, and rather tentatively even diet. And, of course, for its potential to add to the arsenal that we have to probe ancient history. Yes, ancient history.

Since the first full genome – that of a bacteriophage – was known in the 1970s, genomics has taken great strides culminating in the publication of the human genome, a project that took fifteen years and the toils of hundreds of scientists. This project was accompanied by the sequencing of the genomes of all sorts of other organisms, including bacteria, fungi, flies and mice.

What became apparent over the course of this journey was the fact that a single genome sequence, on its own and in the absence of other knowledge of biology and genetic sequences, is not terribly useful. But add more genetic data from other organisms to the mix and the genome sequence becomes a magic wand. One area that best illustrates the power of analysing and interpreting multiple genome sequences together is what is known as phylogenetics – comparing genomes, using the principles of evolution, to trace ancestries and origins.

A fundamental tenet of evolution is that the genetic pool of life on Earth changes over time, often in response to their changing circumstances. This is reflected in genome sequences. An oft quoted example is the rapid mutability of the flu virus: it changes so rapidly that even immunisation against this virus is seasonal. Genome sequences of these viruses year to year will show this variation. Similarly, variation among humans and between, say, humans and chimps are also reflected in their genomes.

Phylogenetics often compares the DNA or genome sequences of extant organisms to describe relationships between them, and also attempt to reconstruct their ancestries. This is not very different from comparing languages and finding common or different origins among them. The one crucial difference is the better tractability of DNA sequences, whose lexicon is a four-letter alphabet across all known forms of life. Our ability to reconstruct ancestries gets better when the organisms being compared are more closely related to each other. As the evolutionary distance between two compared genomes increases, the molecular events that resulted in their divergence become murkier and the confidence in building accurate relationships between them. Knowing what their ancestors might have looked like genetically becomes harder.

In recent times, new techniques and technologies have permitted not only the rapid and economic sequencing of the genomes of a large number of organisms, but also allowed us to dig (literally) the genetic material of long-lost creatures from fossils and other remains. In other words, we now have the means to directly sequence the DNA of some of our ancestors long lost. For example, a few years ago, scientists sequenced the genome of the 38,000 year old remains of a Neanderthal woman. Comparison of the neanderthal genome with those of humans helped find evidence for interbreeding between humans and the Neanderthals before human migration into Eurasia. Thus, the Neanderthals appear to have contributed to the genetic material of modern humans. This is one prominent example of DNA sequences being used to study the distant past.

History is a murky subject, and often dominated by the influences of prominent humans on the course of events. Humans never lived alone. They have lived not only among animals and plants but also among a vast excess of microbial life, the unseen backstage players that – well beyond being also-rans – have often changed the course of history. Beside the fact that there would be no human life as we know it without microbial life, the plethora of infectious diseases that microbes cause have irreversibly altered the course of history. These have been elegantly traced in at least two books: William McNeill’s Plagues and Peoples (Anchor Books) and Irwin Sherman’s Twelve Diseases that Changed our World (ASM Press).

The most prominent example of the indelible impact of disease on human history is what might have been a smallpox epidemic that killed many Aztec warriors, who earlier had been successful in warding off an attack of the Spanish Conquistadors. The immunological naivety of the South American people eventually resulted in a rapid spread of the contagion killing over a quarter of the population. As highlighted by McNeill, “the psychological implication” of an epidemic that killed their own people leaving the Spanish invaders untouched is “worth considering”. This could only be explained by the “supernatural”, and the “superior power of the Gods that the Spaniards worshipped”. This in turn would have paved the way for the establishment of Christianity among the South Americans!

A second great epidemic, which ironically might have helped slow down the advance of the form of Christianity that produced the Dark Ages of Europe was the plague. The plague infection that caused the 14th century’s Black Death ravaged Europe and erased millions of people from the population registers. Many priests who performed the last rites on the victims of the plague were also consumed by the disease, presumably causing widespread scepticism over the power of their religious fervour in fighting off an ‘evil’ infection.

Now, it is thought that there have been at least three great plague epidemics (referred to pandemics to indicate their global impact). The first hit the sixth century Eastern Roman empire during the rule of the emperor Justinian. The second was Black Death, and the third being a 19th-20th century pandemic probably of Chinese origin. Europe had its many bouts of localised plague epidemics till the 18th century. India had a taste of plague when it ran amok in Surat for two weeks in 1994, displacing a hundred thousand people.

Today, we know that the plague is a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which infects rodents and is transmitted among them and to humans by blood fleas. In fact, the discovery of the causative agent of the disease and the vehicle of its spread, under the watchful eyes of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, is a cornerstone in the history of infectious disease biology. Now, an engaging story of the genetic ancestry of the plague bacterium doing the rounds today, and its link to the first two great plague epidemics, is emerging thanks to the advent of genomics.

In 2011, Kirsten Bos – then at the McMaster University in Canada and now at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History at Jena in Germany – and coworkers sequenced the genome of Yersinia pestis isolated from four exhumed victims of the Black Death. By comparing this historic genome sequence with the DNA sequence of currently circulating versions of the bacterium, these researchers found a staggering result. The causative agent of the Black Death and the extant versions of Yersinia pestis differed at less than a 100 letters, out of the 4.5 million letter long DNA sequence of this bacterium. This squarely placed the agent that caused the Black Death as the ancestor of the currently circulating variants of the bacterium. In fact, the genome of the Black Death bacterium differed from that of the inferred common ancestor of the extant Yersinia pestis at only two letters.

Later work from Bos, sequencing the plague bacterium derived from later European epidemics, showed that the ancestral Yersinia pestis that caused Black Death spread through Europe, travelling to Asia and finally nucleating the later pandemic in our continent. Finally, what of the plague of the Justinian Roman Empire? It was distinct from the agent of Black Death and is probably extinct or not sampled in extant populations, as found by another genomic study by Henrik Poinar, who was involved in Bos’s first study of the Black Death, and his colleagues.

Getting to the today and now, rapid genome sequencing has enabled tracing the origins of raging epidemics and pandemics, and at times within timescales that have allowed for the implementation of effective containment procedures. As DNA sequencing becomes cheaper and more accessible, the day may not be too far when a genome sequencer will be part of the toolkit of a standard diagnostic laboratory in the country.

Aswin Sai Narain Seshasayee runs a laboratory researching bacterial biology at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru. Beyond science, his interests are in classical art music and history.

Can We Harness Bacteria to Help Clean Up Future Oil Spills?

With a better understanding of how human intervention affects oil-eating bacteria, we may be able to reap more benefit from their natural oil-degrading abilities.

With a better understanding of how human intervention affects oil-eating bacteria, we may be able to reap more benefit from their natural oil-degrading abilities.

Surface oil slick from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Credit: Andreas Teske, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Surface oil slick from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Credit: Andreas Teske, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil spill released an estimated 4.2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico – the largest offshore spill in U.S. history. The spill caused widespread damage to marine species, fisheries and ecosystems stretching from tidal marshes to the deep ocean floor.

Emergency responders used multiple strategies to remove oil from the Gulf: They skimmed it from the water’s surface, burned it and used chemical dispersants to break it into small droplets. However, experts struggled to account for what had happened to much of the oil. This was an important question, because it was unclear how much of the released oil would break down naturally within a short time. If spilled oil persisted and sank to the ocean floor, scientists expected that it would cause more extensive harm to the environment.

Before the Deepwater Horizon spill, scientists had observed that marine bacteria were very efficient at removing oil from seawater. Therefore, many experts argued that marine microbes would consume large quantities of oil from the BP spill and help the Gulf recover.

In a recent study, we used DNA analysis to confirm that certain kinds of marine bacteria efficiently broke down some of the major chemical components of oil from the spill. We also identified the major genetic pathways these bacteria used for this process, and other genes, which they likely need to thrive in the Gulf.

Altogether, our results suggest that some bacteria can not only tolerate but also break up oil, thereby helping in the cleanup process. By understanding how to support these natural occurring microbes, we may also be able to better manage the aftermath of oil spills.

Finding the oil-eaters

Observations in the Gulf appeared to confirm that microbes broke down a large fraction of the oil released from BP’s damaged well. Before the spill, waters in the Gulf of Mexico contained a highly diverse range of bacteria from several different phyla, or large biological families. Immediately after the spill, these bacterial species became less diverse and one phylum increased substantially in numbers. This indicated that many bacteria were sensitive to high doses of oil, but a few types were able to persist.

We wanted to analyse these observations more closely by posing the following questions: Could we show that these bacteria removed oil from the spill site and thereby helped the environment recover? Could we decipher the genetic code of these bacteria? And finally, could we use this genetic information to understand their metabolisms and lifestyles?

Individual puzzle pieces of DNA making up a bacterial genome. Each colour represents an individual genome and each dot depicts one piece of DNA.

Individual puzzle pieces of DNA making up a bacterial genome. Each colour represents an individual genome and each dot depicts one piece of DNA.

To address these questions, we used new technologies that enabled us to sequence the genetic code of the active bacterial community that was present in the Gulf of Mexico’s water column, without having to grow them in the laboratory. This process was challenging because there are millions of bacteria in every drop of seawater. As an analogy, imagine looking through a large box that contains thousands of disassembled jigsaw puzzles, and trying to extract the pieces belonging to each individual puzzle and reassemble it.

We wanted to identify bacteria that could degrade two types of compounds that are the major constituents of crude oil: alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons. Alkanes are relatively easy to degrade – even sunlight can break them down – and have low toxicity. In contrast, aromatic hydrocarbons are much harder to remove from the environment. They are generally much more harmful to living organisms, and some types cause cancer.

Microscopy image of oil-eating bacteria. Credit: Tony Gutierrez, Heriot-Watt University

Microscopy image of oil-eating bacteria. Credit: Tony Gutierrez, Heriot-Watt University

We successfully identified bacteria that degraded each of these compounds, and were surprised to find that many different bacteria fed on aromatic hydrocarbons, even though these are much harder to break down. Some of these bacteria, such as Colwellia, had already been identified as factors in the degradation of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill, but we also found many new ones.

This included Neptuniibacter, which had not previously been known as an important oil-degrader during the spill, and Alcanivorax, which had not been thought to be capable of degrading aromatic hydrocarbons. Taken together, our results indicated that many different bacteria may act together as a community to degrade complex oil mixtures.

Neptuniibacter also appears to be able to break down sulphur. This is noteworthy because responders used 1.84 million gallons of dispersants on and under the water’s surface during the Deepwater Horizon cleanup effort. Dispersants are complex chemical mixtures but mostly consist of molecules that contain carbon and sulphur.

Their long-term impacts on the environment are still largely unknown. But some studies suggest that Corexit, the main dispersant used after the Deepwater Horizon spill, can be harmful to humans and marine life. If this proves true, it would be helpful to know whether some marine microbes can break down dispersant as well as oil.

Cleaning an oiled gannet, Theodore, Alabama, June 17, 2010. Credit: Deepwater Horizon Response/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Cleaning an oiled gannet, Theodore, Alabama, June 17, 2010. Credit: Deepwater Horizon Response/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Looking more closely into these microbes’ genomes, we were able to detail the pathways that each appeared to use in order to degrade its preferred hydrocarbon in crude oil. However, no single bacterial genome appeared to possess all the genes required to completely break down the more stable aromatic hydrocarbons alone. This implies that it may require a diverse community of microbes to break down these compounds step by step.

Back into the ocean

Offshore drilling is a risky activity, and we should expect that oil spills will happen again. However, it is reassuring to see that marine ecosystems have the ability to degrade oil pollutants. While human intervention will still be required to clean up most spills, naturally occurring bacteria have the ability to remove large amounts of oil components from seawater, and can be important players in the oil cleanup process.

To maximise their role, we need to better understand how we can support them in what they do best. For example, adding dispersant changed the makeup of microbial communities in the Gulf of Mexico during the spill: the chemicals were toxic to some bacteria but beneficial for others. With a better understanding of how human intervention affects these bacteria, we may be able to support optimal bacteria populations in seawater and reap more benefit from their natural oil-degrading abilities.

The Conversation

Nina Dombrowski is Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Texas at Austin, and Brett J. Baker is Assistant Professor of Marine Science, University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.