Evolutionary Biology Online Journal Club


“World’s First Online Journal Club”

Today Morgan Jackson alerted us to a recent piece in the journal Nature entitled “Online journal club” (Nature 496, 261 – 11 April 2013 – doi:10.1038/nj7444-261c). The main thrust of this short “Career Brief” article is that another group called Fertility and Sterility has recently stated up an online journal club using a platform called Journal Club Live™ (http://journalclublive.com/). This website has created the “world’s first online Cyber-Journal Club™ platform”, which basically does the same thing as we have been doing with G+ Hangouts™ and YouTube™. Devin Drown rightly pointed out that this short blurb in Nature reads like an advertisement for  Journal Club Live™.

I think for most of us the headline in Nature was both exiting and disheartening. We are all happy to see the idea of an online journal club approach gaining more general interest, but it is disappointing to see the high-profile exposure gained by another group for doing essentially the same thing that we have been doing since September 2012 (https://evobiojournalclub.wordpress.com/2012/09/).

However, since September we have grown and matured as a group. We have overcome issues relating to technology, topic selection, discussion format and more. I think we all see the inherent value of an online journal club, and I also see us as people who are uniquely positioned to write a piece on the topic. A few of us have decided that it is worth trying to publish a short paper that explicitly spells out the value of online journals clubs, and the practical steps to implementing one.

If you have any suggestions or comments that you think might be relevant for this paper please feel free to add them in the comment section below. Specifically, what do you think should be in this paper? What are the main strengths & weaknesses of online journal clubs? What are the main technological challenges that need to be overcome?


Leave a comment

Food for thought: geography as (just another) isolating mechanism

Hey everyone, I thought I’d post this here as it might be interesting to us. I mentioned this paper briefly in the last discussion, and though it might be too theoretical for our group (though I am open to have that questioned), I thought some thoughts in here would be helpful to us.

So even though I think we have mostly agreed that while interesting, focusing too much in geographical aspects of speciation (sympatry/parapatry/allopatry) as very crucial can be distracting, and confusing if treated as an alternative hypothesis to other processes (such as ecology) driving diversification. Nonetheless, we keep on coming back to this topic, and I started wondering if it could be just because we lacked a more formal framework that we could have to substitute the one we’ve been exposed to so far.

I was reading a paper by Mark Kirkpatrick and Virginie Ravigné (Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection, The American Naturalist 2002 159:S22-S35) and I think they might offer just that. In the paper, they list five conditions necessary to speciation via selection (natural or sexual), of which the second one, “A Prezygotic Isolation Mechanism”, deals with the element of geography. From the paper (emphasis are mine):

Here again there is the opportunity to unify models of speciation. Assortment and mating preferences can be treated as a single form of prezygotic isolation by regarding assortment as the special case where a mating preference acts on itself.

The Geographical Setting

One of Mayr’s great legacies for our understanding of speciation was his emphasis on the importance of biogeography (Mayr 1963; see Coyne 1994). As a result, the geographical context of speciation—the allopatry versus parapatry versus sympatry continuum—is traditionally viewed as the most important factor in speciation (table 1, sec. II.C).

Our list of fundamental elements for speciation can be simplified, however, if we view geography as simply another form of assortative mating. Consider geography as a genetic locus. Each geographical location then represents a different allele. Migration is replaced by a form of frequency‐dependent mutation at the geography locus; movement between populations is equivalent to mutation of both alleles at the geography locus. That locus enforces the most extreme form of assortative mating since only individuals that carry the same allele at the geography locus are allowed to mate.

The evolutionary dynamics of a population with this form of assortative mating are exactly equivalent to those of a geographically structured population. Although this equivalence may at first seem obscure, it is useful for three reasons. First, it shows that we can simplify thinking about speciation by treating geography as just one more type of assortative mating; geography does not need to be modeled separately.Second, allopatry and sympatry do not need to be treated as qualitatively distinct situations. Third, the correspondence between geography and assortment helps make clear why allopatric speciation is so powerful and so prevalent: it is an exceedingly accurate form of assortative mating. Very few other types of assortative mating guarantee that only individuals carrying the same allele at a single locus will mate together. Combining this with ubiquitous spatial variation in selection produces a potent engine for generating new species. It may well be critical to the great majority of speciation events, as argued by Mayr (1963).

Although this might seem like just a “modeling trick”, I think the conceptual basis for it can be very helpful: we can view allopatry as a mechanism of prezygotic isolation with a behavior very similar to other possible mechanisms, with the important notion that it can (quite commonly) be a very strong one.

To me, this makes it very clear that geography can be one of many mechanisms of isolation, that it can act in concert with other occurring mechanisms, and most importantly, it needn’t be treated as an “alternative hypothesis” to ecological speciation. Ecology can play a role in many of the five conditions listed by Kirkpatrick and Ravigné; in some cases it might reinforce other prezygotic barriers (including geographical ones), in others it might weaken them, and in other cases it might just affect other of the conditions to speciation, that do not relate to prezygotic barriers. I think this can help deal with much confusion in the topic.

Well, these are my thoughts, would love to hear what you have to say!

Leave a comment

#EBJClub 2.5 – Genetics of Speciation

Today’s meeting will be through Google+ hangouts, so here are a couple useful resources: