User:Saridakis.5/sandbox

Edits made to talk page of Venus Fly Trap Page. Can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venus_flytrap

Edits 11/14/14
It can be added to the proposed evolutionary history: Due to recent research on the protein composition and DNA sequences, the Venus Fly Trap has been found to have proteins that are categorized as pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the plant's digestive system has evolved from defense-related processes. During the evolution of carnivory in plants, there was likely a shift from a pathogen related response to a prey related response, and thus a shift from the hydrolysis and destruction of the pathogen to the hydrolysis and digestion of the prey. It can be seen that through evolutionary time, the plants shifted from defending against insects to preying on them in order to better benefit the plant. Receiving nutrients from the insects instead of expelling energy solely to defend against them can be seen as a beneficial and thus a positive selection property of carnivory. Overall, through the use of deep sequencing of the transcriptome and proteomic analyses, unique hydrolytic enzymes were found, along with a high proportion of pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the capability of carnivorous plants to digest prey evolved from a less complex plant defense system.

It can also be added to the evolution section that there is an opposing view of the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap. There is evidence that disagrees with the evolution of a larger trap length due solely to higher nutritional value from larger prey. It had been found that prey capture is opportunistic rather than selective and that there is no effect on trap size to prey capture success. The evolution of trap size can be explained more simply that traps collect prey, whether large or small and since there are varying types of prey, larger ones are not necessarily more nutritious. Saridakis.5 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FINAL DRAFT STARTS HERE

Evolution of the Venus Fly Trap
The evolution of the Venus Fly Trap, Dionaea muscipula, has gained the attention of many evolutionary biologists, starting with the well known evolution theorist, Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin studied snap-traps of Dionaea and Aldrovanda and recent molecular work confirms his hypothesis that snap-traps evolved from a flypaper, sticky trap (Gibson & Waller 2009). Snap traps are known to have only evolved once, with flypaper traps having a close common ancestry with all carnivorous trap forms, however, there are varying views of how this evolution occurred (Albert, Williams, Chase 1992). Gibson and Waller agree with Charles Darwin that the snap trap evolved from the flypaper trap in order to retain more nutrients from larger prey, while Hutchens and Luken have carried out experiments showing that prey capture is opportunistic rather than selective. Another evolutionary concept associated with the Venus Fly Trap is that of nyctinasty, the movement of flowers and leaves of plants. The Venus Flytrap portrays nyctinasty with its traps movement and the "memory" associated with it (Ueda & Nakamura 2006). The evolutionary understanding of this plant is important to humans as extracts from the plant have shown to help treat skin cancer and autoimmune diseases such as Colitis (American Cancer Society 2008), and also the signal transduction that occurs within their trap can be studied to improve biosensors in the development of alternative energy (Volkov, Adesina, Jovanov 2007).

Among the many transitions that occurred throughout time for a flypaper trap to evolve into a snap trap, the reasoning behind these transitions are thought to be due to higher nutritive value from larger insects and thus the need for a larger, better adapted trap (Gibson & Waller 2009). As evolution has dictated through history, form fits function and thus this theory makes sense to many as carnivorous plants usually inhabit environments where they do not get enough nutrients from the soil and thus need traps to gain nutrients through carnivory. Therefore, the more nutrients received from carnivory, the more successful the plant will be at photosynthesizing, growing, flowering, and overall, surviving longer. Gibson and Waller found that smaller traps are more specialized for capturing smaller prey, while larger traps are more specialized for larger prey, leading to a correlation between larger traps and thus more nutrients (2009). The Venus Fly Trap is known to have evolved from the Sundews, a carnivorous genera with sticky traps, and Gibson and Waller hypothesize that the sundew ancestor first evolved into a plant with small traps and then rapidly into a plant with larger traps (2009). It is hard to specifically say whether larger prey is more nutritious and thus larger traps are better suited for the plant, as there are different types of prey with different nutritional values. Some smaller arthropods may provide more nutrition than a larger insect, thus the commonality of prey is another factor that can be involved in the evolution of the trap. Overall, it was found that Dionaea muscipula, selectively favors larger traps, although further research needs to be done to specifically determine if larger prey is preferentially fed upon and thus larger traps are needed. Gibson and Waller realize that significant gaps remain in their research and that more field data is needed on the rates of prey capture in relation to the size specificity of the trap and the rate of preys capture versus escape (2009).

John Hutchens and James Luken have recently carried out research on whether prey capture in the Venus Fly Trap is due to collection or selection factors (2009). They discovered evidence that disagrees with Charles Darwin's proposal and the hypothesis of Wallace and Gibson that trap length solely increased through evolutionary time due to higher nutritional value from larger prey. Hutchens and Luken found that prey capture of the Venus Fly Trap is opportunistic rather than selective and that there was no effect of trap size on prey capture success (2009). They did however find a significant but weak positive relationship between trap length and prey length (2009). Hutchens and Luken thus believe that it has been erroneously assumed that natural selection forged Dionaea to have large traps due to large prey being available, and that traps more simply collect prey, whether large or small (2009). This trap mechanism of the Venus Fly Trap is an evolutionary unique design in the plant world, allowing it to survive harsh environments that lack enough nutrients from the soil. The movement of the trap is related to nyctinasty of leguminous plants and is seen to be a late process in plant evolution (Ueda & Nakamura 2006).

The Venus Fly Trap's trap is distinctive in the plant kingdom and requires two stimuli within 30 seconds of one another on its sensory hairs in order to close (Ueda & Nakamura 2006). Therefore, this shows the plant is able to remember the first stimuli and react once it is touched again. This signal transduction is studied heavily and can provide a foundation for discovering and improving biosensors which are essential to the development of alternative sources of energy (Volkov, Adesina, Jovanov 2007). This conduction of electrochemical signals arose in the Dionaea due to the need for a transmission of information in response to an external influence from prey (Volkov, Adesina, Jovanov 2007). It has been predicted that neural responses seen in the Venus Fly Trap evolved independently during the Cretaceous period of similar responses in other groups of plants and also the nerve activity of animals (Williams 1976). Along with the distinctive action potentials evolving in the Venus Fly Trap, transitions were made from the flypaper trap to include tentacles being modified into trigger hairs and marginal teeth, loss of sticky tentacles, depressed digestive glands, and rapid leaf movement (Gibson & Waller 2009).

There are several transitions that are thought to have taken place with the evolution from the simple sticky trap of the Sundews to the more complex "steel" trap of Dionaea. The first modification that is thought to have occurred is that of directed movement of tentacles and leaves to increase adhesion and engulf prey (Gibson & Waller 2009). Gibson and Waller believe that this modification was followed by the acceleration in which prey is detected and the message is transmitted, along with structures to quickly close the trap and engulf prey (2009). Also, it is thought that the tentacles transformed into trigger sensory hairs along with the loss of sticky glands and the evolution of recessed digestive glands (Gibson & Waller, 2009). These developments are consistent with the actions of Dionaea as it uses sensory hairs to detect prey, and thus needs digestive glands back inside the trap to digest the captured prey. While all these transitions are thought to have occurred in order to develop Dionaea muscipula, there has been no fossil intermediate forms found, leaving many hypotheses to exactly how and when these transitions occurred. Snap-traps can be seen to be favored evolutionary as they allow for prey to be captured more quickly, digestion and nutrient assimilation to be more efficient, and prevent prey from escaping as easily as with sticky traps (Gibson & Waller 2009).

The Venus Fly Trap has been researched in the past regarding its evolutionary history and trap mechanics, however not much research has been done regarding its protein composition and DNA sequences. Some of the first literature regarding its protein sequences has come from Schulze, et al. in 2012, and describes how proteins have been categorized as pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the plant's digestive system has evolved from defense-related processes. Schulze et al. found through their research that during the evolution of carnivory in plants, there was likely a shift from a pathogen related response to a prey related response, and thus a shift from the hydrolysis and destruction of the pathogen to the hydrolysis and digestion of the prey (2012). It can be seen that through evolutionary time, the plants shifted from defending against insects to preying on them in order to better benefit the plant. Receiving nutrients from the insects instead of expelling energy solely to defend against them can be seen as a beneficial and thus a positive selection property of carnivory. Overall, through the use of deep sequencing of the transcriptome and proteomic analyses, unique hydrolytic enzymes were found, along with a high proportion of pathogenesis related proteins, suggesting that the capability of carnivorous plants to digest prey evolved from a less complex plant defense system (Schulze et al. 2012).

The divergent evolution of the "steel trap" of Dionaea muscipula continues to gain attention in the research world of scientists as the plants prey capturing mechanisms are truly fascinating. Questions still remain on whether the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap is due to selection, collection, or possibly both. It has been shown although that Dionaea muscipula evolved from the Sundew family as their more primitive sticky trap lead to the "steel trap" of Dionaea and Aldrovanda (Williams 1976). The Venus Fly Trap also shows convergent evolution as it evolved nerve-like activity to close and open its trap that is independent of other plant species (Williams 1976). Overall, a better understanding of Dionaea muscipula can still be discovered through more research and fossil discovery, leading to a better understanding of the plants extracts and uses of biosensors for developing alternative energy sources. References

Saridakis.5 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the sentence I added to an article. Also, the nerve-like sensory system of the Venus Fly-trap evolved about 135 million years ago in the Cretaceous period. It has an active steel trap, like that of "Aldrovandra", the water wheel plant. Which can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant. Here are the three suggestions I made to an article. == Three Suggestions to Evolution Section. 29 September 2014 ==

It can be added to the Evolution section that there are six origins of carnivory itself among the different groups of angiosperms, and that carnivory and stereotyped trap forms have arisen independently among different lineages of angiosperms. Also, it was found that flypaper traps share close common ancestry with all other trap forms.

Also, this section... "The model proposes that plant carnivory by snap-trap evolved from the flypaper traps driven by increasing prey size. Bigger prey provides higher nutritional value, but large insects can easily escape the sticky mucilage of flypaper traps; the evolution of snap-traps would prevent escape and kleptoparasitism (theft of prey captured by the plant before it can derive benefit from it), and would also permit a more complete digestion.[20][21]" is not specifically correct as the experiment done by John Hutchens and James Luken found that there is no effect of trap size in relation to prey capture success and that the prey capture is opportunistic rather than selective. Therefore, the model that larger prey means more nutrition and thus larger traps would evolve, would not be correct in this evolutionary aspect.

Thirdly, it can be added that the nerve-like sensory system of the Venus Fly-trap evolved about 135 million years ago in the Cretaceous period. Also, the Venus Fly-trap has an active steel trap, like that of "Aldrovandra", the water wheel plant. Saridakis.5 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This can be found at... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venus_flytrap Saridakis.5 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic: The evolution of the carnivorous plant, The Venus Flytrap, Dionaea muscipula. Gibson, T. C., & Waller, D. M. (August 01, 2009). Evolving Darwin's ‘most wonderful’ plant: ecological steps to a snap-trap. New Phytologist, 183, 3, 575-587.

This source describes how the Venus Flytrap evolved from a "flypaper" trap and how transitions were made from tentacles into trigger hairs and marginal teeth. Also describes the evolution of depressed digestive glands and elongated leaves.

Hutchens, J. J. J., & Luken, J. O. (October 01, 2009). Prey capture in the Venus flytrap: collection or selection?. Botany, 87, 10.)

This source shows that the evolution of the size of the trap was not due to the plant selectively preying upon larger prey, and that trapping success is not related to trap size. It also touches on the three physiological phases of trap closure.

Albert, V. A., Williams, S. E., & Chase, M. W. (January 01, 1992). Carnivorous plants: phylogeny and structural evolution. Science (new York, N.y.), 257, 5076, 1491-5.

This source explains how phylogenetic analysis of nucleotide sequence data from the plastid rbcL gene indicates that both carnivory and stereotyped trap forms have arisen independently in different lineages of angiosperms.

Williams, S. E. (June 15, 1976). Comparative Sensory Physiology of the Droseraceae-The Evolution of a Plant Sensory System. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 120, 3, 187-204.

This shows describes how the sensory activity which controls the rapid movements of the carnivorus plants evolved independently of similar responses in other groups of plants with nervelike activity. This source gives a date to this evolution.

Jianhua, C., Siluo, H., Ji, Q., Jinlin, H., Li, J., Zhixi, S., Ji, Y., ... Jianfeng, L. (January 01, 2009). Evolution of the class C GPCR Venus flytrap modules involved positive selected functional divergence. Bmc Evolutionary Biology, 9.

This source shows that class C G protein-coupled receptors from the Venus flytrap module had undergone functional divergence via positive selection from bacterial periplasmic amino acid binding proteins.

Saridakis.5 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)