Monday, August 14, 2006

Mussels Quickly Evolved To Foil a New Predator Crab

Mussels living along the U.S. Atlantic coast have acquired a novel genetic defense against a newly introduced species of predator crab, providing an example of how quickly evolution can work when the pressure to adapt is intense.

The story begins back in 1817, when the European shore crab, Carcinus maenas, began to settle in U.S. waters. New England mussels were easy prey for those crabs. But over time, evolution favored mussels that, by chance, had developed a new capacity: They could detect a chemical released by the crabs and use that waterborne signal to spur the growth of an extra-thick protective shell. Thus, mussels living in "tough" neighborhoods had thicker shells, and all was well.

That balance changed in 1988, when a new invasive species of crab -- the Asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus -- arrived in ships. Asian crabs do not exude the same chemical that their European predecessors do, so mussels did not thicken their shells in neighborhoods where the Asian crabs settled, and they became a favorite snack for the new invaders.

Now University of New Hampshire zoologists Aaren S. Freeman and James E. Byers have found that mussels living along stretches of the East Coast inhabited by Asian crabs have developed the ability to grow thicker shells in response to the chemical released by those Asian invaders.

By contrast, they found, mussels living off the coast of northern Maine -- where the Asian crab has not yet spread -- lack that capacity. That is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict, the team notes: A mutation will become common in populations where it is useful, reflecting the enhanced survival of individuals lucky enough to have it, while it will generally remain rare in other populations where it offers no particular advantage.

The work is described in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.

-- Rick Weiss

A 5th-Century Apartheid May Explain Britons' Genes

Long before Adolf Hitler dreamed of doing it, Germans colonized Britain and probably instituted a South Africa style apartheid regime there, scientists have concluded.

Archaeologists and historians have long believed that no more than 200,000 Anglo-Saxons from Germany invaded Britain during a 300-year period starting in the 5th century. But given that there were 2 million native Britons at the time, biologists have puzzled over how -- in less than 15 generations -- 50 percent of the English gene pool has acquired Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes.

Now researchers at University College London and other institutions have concluded that the only way to square those facts is by visualizing an apartheid regime, in which the invaders restricted intermarriage and instituted a brutal system of exploitation such that Anglo-Saxon offspring were far more likely to survive into adulthood than the children of local Britons, who were then called Welshmen. Legal texts from the time support the idea: Anglo-Saxon lives were valued two to five times as much as the lives of Welshmen.

Researcher Mark G. Thomas and colleagues published a computer-modeling analysis last month in a journal of the Royal Society that showed how native Britons could have been "culturally and genetically Germanized" in relatively short order.

"This is exactly what we see today -- a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language," Thomas said in a statement.

-- Shankar Vedantam

People Who Never Marry Have Shorter Lives, Study Finds

Here's some bad news for the confirmed bachelors and runaway brides of the world: They don't live as long as married people, especially if they never get married, according to new research.

Many studies have found that unmarried adults tend to die earlier than those who are married, but most did not differentiate between those who were separated or divorced and those who never got hitched.

In the new study, Robert M. Kaplan of the University of California at Los Angeles and Richard G. Kronick of the University of California at San Diego studied census and death certificate data collected from almost 67,000 U.S. adults between 1989 and 1997.

After taking into account age, health and several other factors likely to influence longevity, the researchers found that between 1989 and 1997, those who had been widowed were almost 40 percent more likely to die than married people living with their spouses. Those who had been divorced or separated were 27 percent more likely to have shorter lives. Those who had never been married were 58 percent more likely to die during this period. The never-married "penalty" was greater for men than women.

The findings could not be explained by a greater tendency among single people to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers found. The unmarried group was only slightly more likely to smoke, for example, and they were less likely to drink alcohol regularly. They also exercised slightly more and were less overweight.

The researchers speculated that the explanation may be related to unmarried people having fewer social connections.

"The data seem to support the hypothesis that the greater level of social isolation associated with having never married is associated with larger health consequences," the researchers wrote in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

-- Rob Stein

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company