Tomorrow, my colleagues and I will engage members of the public to consider smell from the molecular level to the streets of London! Following two events in Nottingham, tomorrow’s event will focus on a workshop format in the morning where Zoologist/Behavourial Geneticist Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester and I will give an interactive lecture/workshop on the molecular level of smell from odorants to perception with an evolutionary spin. We’ll talk about our recent paper showing how one gene linked to smell may have been selected in Eurasian populations and contemplate what the evolutionary setting for smell selection may have been. After a small tastes multisensory lunch, our group will take a smell walk led by Designer Kate McLean of Canterbury Christ Church University (sensorymaps.com) and Geographer Julia Feuer-Cotter of the University of Nottingham. For more info see: www.considersmell.com
My recent research has had a little news coverage today which is lovely. My esteemed colleague, Dr. Matthew Cobb of the U of Manchester (@matthewcobb), fronted for our team today on BBC4 Inside Science (What Neandertals Smelt). The piece begins at 15:38 and runs for about 8 minutes.
The University of Manchester did a nice PR piece on our paper in Chemical Senses today as well. In short, we found a signature of natural selection acting on OR7D4, a gene that controls the receptor for androstenone. Androstenone is found in all mammals but male pigs have it in spades because it makes female pigs receptive to sex. Eurasians have a higher probability of desensitization to the compound based on their genetic code. We speculate a bit broadly that perhaps the decreased sensitivity to this compound made boar (which reeks of androstenone, among other things) more appealing as a food choice to our Neolithic ancestors. After all, pigs were first domesticated in Asia, where they have an evolutionary origin.
Perhaps the most fun part of this paper was the work done by my also esteemed colleague at Duke University (Dr. Hiroaki Matsunami) wherein his lab made the androstenone receptor based on sequence data from the Denisova paleogenome. My study of the ancient genes suggested that Altai Neandertal was similar to humans but Denisovans had a unique variant. This mutation did not make a real difference in the mutated gene’s functional response to the odor but the fact that we were able to demonstrate this was a big breakthrough.
Now, we are rebuilding about 30 more ancient olfactory receptors to see how different those were!
As I prepare the first half of my Science of Smell online class, I am having fun looking for various examples of all things biomolecular, biochemical, and genetic related to olfaction. If I were a taste and flavour chemist or a molecular gastronomist, I’d probably be interested in somehow exploiting the chirality of biomolecules in food and drinks!
Chirality refers to the non-symmetrical nature of some molecules. Non-symmetrical molecules are like our right and left hands: they appear the same in reverse but you cannot superimpose the image of one over the other in the mirror nor can a left-handed glove fit a right hand. In the pharmaceutical industry, chirality is very important because the enantiomer of a biomolecule that produces a positive outcome (like reducing morning sickness using thalidomide or hyperactivity using Ritalin) may cause a harmful effect (birth defects) or no effect. The handedness is determined by the stereocenter of a molecular. Those with ‘right’ handed stereocenters are ‘R’ or + enantiomers and those with ‘left’ handed stereocenters are ‘S’ or – enantiomers (the S comes from sinister, Latin for left).
Our olfactory receptors are clever things: they can tell the difference between the right and left hands! The two most common examples are of carvone and limonene. The R-carvone/(-) carvone is recognized as mint and its enantiomer as carraway. R-limonene/(+) limonene smells ‘orange’ and its enantiomer is lemon (see image to the right). So next time you smell oranges and lemons at the same time, recognize the power of your nose to be ambidextrous by distinguishing between the two biomolecules!
Olfactory receptor genes have more variation than most gene families in the human genome. The only family with greater diversity is the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Both families also exhibit high heterozygosity. Due to its association with disease, the MHC is well-studied. The explanation for the maintenance of MHC diversity is pathogen-driven selection–either through heterozygote advantage or frequency-dependent selection (see here for a review); a small number of papers (here’s two: 1 and 2) have also argued for divergent allele advantage. A diversity of pathogens will result in a diversity of MHC genes over time; as a species develops resistance to a disease, an evolutionary respones occurs in the disease-causing agent. The common analogy is the evolutionary arms race, also called the Red Queen Hypothesis.
If we apply that same model to olfaction in light of a few recent findings. there might be something worth pursuing. We know we can smell millions of odors. Such a diversity of odorants in the environment that vary from region to region may result in incredible diversity in the human olfactory receptor subgenome–especially if we look at it from the perspective of divergent allele advantage.
A study from 2013 that documented sex differences in sleep needs (based on inflammatory markers) turned my thoughts to stress susceptibility. I recently wrote about allostatic load, a measure of elevated cortisol (a stress hormone) in living human populations. While attempts to transfer the concept of allostatic load to the bioarchaeological record are lacking robusticity, there is a rich history of people writing about odonto-skeletal stress markers and variation within and among populations in the frequencies of these markers.
A commonly cited expectation is that male physiological vulnerability results in higher levels of stress markers unless otherwise culturally buffered by sex-biased investment in offspring. The assumption of sex-based differences in one stress marker (enamel hypoplasias) was reviewed and mostly dismissed by Guatelli-Steinberg and Lukacs (though read the paper to understand the weak effect sex may have in some cases, the data analyzed to make this conclusion, and other subtle findings). Instead, they find that the big effect in the development of sex differences is from culturally based sex-biased investment in children. The sex-bias is hard to show in the archaeological record: in other words, while the biological data may show a sex difference, determining if the differences are from sampling error (burials most often are small in sample size and non-representative) or cultural biases (interpretable often through the material culture record) is extremely challenging.
According to a growing body of research (perhaps stemming from high rates of heart disease in modern females–number one killer), females have more inflammatory markers in their body and higher rates of inflammation. Inflammation is part of the native immune system and a basic sign of physiological stress. These findings, if they can be applied to past populations, suggest that females are not buffered biologically and archaeological data suggest that more often than not, females are also not buffered culturally.
This is a very belated follow-up to a previous blog on the stress concept in biological anthropology. The utility of resilience in interpreting the archaeological record is under-rated as are the parallels of homeostasis and stress in human biology. I first became involved in studying resilience theory at UAF when I joined the RAP faculty. I presented some of this work in a seminar in Japan in 2009. After that and in a series of papers led by my archaeology colleague (Mark Hudson at NishiKyushu University Japan), we have explored resilience theory as a method of examining the archaeological record. We weren’t the first to think of this (here for a start). In the past two years, I have been looking at the parallels to concepts long used in biology, canalization and stress. The fundamental unit underlying these concepts is systemic integrity and external forces acting on that integrity. This concept appears across the academy with parallels in physics (surface tension), engineering, etc.
My interest is human biology from an evolutionary perspective (including the archaeological record). As biocultural beings, humans are shaped by biology and culture. When we look at evidence of physiological activity in the past, the context of those artifacts is key. Understanding when an organism is resistant to change (from external forces) while remaining internally coherent is, at the base of it, no different than understanding when a society is resistant to change while remaining internally coherent. Another way to understanding the competing forces of stability and change (in organisms or in society) is to look at how the system (biological or cultural) may adapt (or change, interpreted very loosely) in response to external forces. Adaptation is part of the resilience cycle. The difference between this and collapse is that the essential parts of the system (organismal or cultural) maintain integrity, as opposed to simply disappearing or being assimilated. More archaeological data are showing the persistence (in some capacity) of collapsed, dominated, or assimilated cultures (see here for some examples).
In modern societies, the system itself can be understood as well as the context; what cannot be understood is longitudinal change. Archaeological materials and their interpretation can provide the longitudinal data that measure system continuity (or lack thereof) after a period of prolonged or severe acute external stress; the challenge lies in reconstructing the system (and which components are essential). Combining these two datasets (contemporary and past) adds tremendous value to projections for the future–we get rich longitudinal data and rich system data, the combination of which provide a template for modelling future outcomes to responses to change.
Coming back to the biological parallel, we can use these sets of data to test resilience–was a population cultural resilient but biologically in decline or was a population experiencing improved biological conditions but cultural unstable. Since a key feature of modern resilience theory is both cultural and physiological well-being (again, defined broadly), a truly resilience system will show evidence of maintenance (or improvement) in both sectors. If we examine the data and find that a group shows cultural resilience but poor health or vice versa, were they truly resilient? Perhaps a better way to look at this is through the modified cycle of systems where resilience can be considered a reorganization. The moment (in archaeological time) when a system is experiencing external stress but maintaining culture and health is a precursor to the moment when the system is unsustainable and must reorganize. The maintenance of health and basic cultural values will persist even if the system appears to be dramatically changed. In some cases, the decline is too great and the system integrity is compromised and changes rather than adapts.