A quantum-theoretical approach to the phenomenon of directed mutations in bacteria (hypothesis).

The Darwinian paradigm of biological evolution is based on the independence of genetic variations from selection which occurs afterwards. However, according to the phenomenon of directed mutations, some genetic variations occur mostly when the conditions favorable for their growth are created. I propose that the explanation of this phenomenon should not rely on any special 'mechanism' for the appearance of directed mutations, but rather should be based on the principles of quantum theory. I consider a physical model of adaptation whereby a polarized photon, passing through a polarizer, changes its polarization according to the angle of the polarizer. This adaptation occurs by selection of the 'fitted' polarized state which exists as a component of superposition in the initial state of the photon. However, since the same state of the incoming photon should be decomposed differently depending on the angle of the polarizer, in this case the set of variations subjected to selection depends upon the selective conditions themselves. This reveals the crucial difference between this model of adaptation and canonical Darwinian selection. Based on this analogy, the capacity of a cell to grow in particular conditions is considered an observable of the cell; the plating experiments are interpreted as measurement of this observable. The only nontrivial suggestion of the paper states that the cell, analogously to the polarized photon, may be in a state of superposition of eigenfunctions of the operator which represents this observable, and with some probability can appear as a mutant upon the measurement. Alternative growth conditions correspond to the decomposition of the same state vector into a different superposition, consistent with measurement of a different observable and appearance of different mutants. Thus, consistent with the suggested analogy, directed mutations are explained as a result of random choice from the set of outcomes determined by the environment.

[1]  G. Edelman.  Neural Darwinism: The Theory Of Neuronal Group Selection , 1989 .

[2]  B. Hall.  Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations. I. Mutations involving an insertion sequence. , 1988, Genetics.

[3]  P. Foster.  Adaptive mutation: the uses of adversity. , 1993, Annual review of microbiology.

[4]  Richard E. Lenski,et al.  Experimental evidence for an alternative to directed mutation in thebgl operon , 1992, Nature.

[5]  M. Horodecki,et al.  Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions , 1996, quant-ph/9605038.

[6]  F. J. Ryan,et al.  Spontaneous Mutation in Non-Dividing Bacteria. , 1955, Genetics.

[7]  B. Hall.  Selection-induced mutations. , 1992, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[8]  J. Overbaugh,et al.  The origin of mutants , 1988, Nature.

[9]  R. Omnes.  Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics , 1992 .

[10]  S. Jinks-Robertson,et al.  An examination of adaptive reversion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1992, Genetics.

[11]  Neville Symonds,et al.  Anticipatory mutagenesis? , 1989, Nature.

[12]  P. Nowell.  The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. , 1976, Science.

[13]  Habib,et al.  Coherent states via decoherence. , 1993, Physical review letters.

[14]  B. Hall,et al.  Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: mutations involving base substitutions. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  P. Foster,et al.  Directed mutation: between unicorns and goats , 1992, Journal of bacteriology.

[16]  F. J. Ryan.  Distribution of Numbers of Mutant Bacteria in Replicate Cultures , 1952, Nature.

[17]  If it smells like a unicorn · · · , 1990, Nature.

[18]  B. Hall.  Selection or mutation: Which, if either, comes first? , 1994 .

[19]  E. Wigner.  The Problem of Measurement , 1963 .

[20]  M. Slatkin,et al.  Another alternative to directed mutation , 1989, Nature.

[21]  B. Hall,et al.  Spontaneous point mutations that occur more often when advantageous than when neutral. , 1990, Genetics.

[22]  T. Broadbent,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge , 1972 .

[23]  N. Arnheim,et al.  Genetic analysis using the polymerase chain reaction. , 1992, Annual review of genetics.

[24]  M. D. Topal,et al.  Complementary base pairing and the origin of substitution mutations , 1976, Nature.

[25]  R. Lenski,et al.  New data on excisions of Mu from E. coli MCS2 cast doubt on directed mutation hypothesis , 1990, Nature.

[26]  R. S. Harris,et al.  Adaptive mutation by deletions in small mononucleotide repeats. , 1994, Science.

[27]  J. Trimarchi,et al.  Adaptive reversion of a frameshift mutation in Escherichia coli by simple base deletions in homopolymeric runs. , 1994, Science.

[28]  W. Heitler.  The Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 1947, Nature.

[29]  R. Lenski,et al.  The directed mutation controversy and neo-Darwinism. , 1993, Science.

[30]  Adaptive mutagenesis: a process that generates almost exclusively beneficial mutations , 1998 .

[31]  B. Hall.  Selection-induced mutations occur in yeast. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  P. Foster,et al.  Adaptive Mutation : Has the Unicorn Landed ? , 1998 .

[33]  Niels Bohr,et al.  Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge , 1958 .

[34]  L. Ballentine,et al.  Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory , 1982 .

[35]  J. Bull,et al.  Origin of mutants disputed , 1988, Nature.