Subscribe to Feed            Add to your Favourites

“It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.” – Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Fresh Reads from the Science 'o sphere!

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Fresh Science 6 December 2007

The juiciest posts from the science 'o sphere!

Record songs onto a Bacteria- yes Researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory can claim to use bacteria as an ipod storage device (Microarray Blog - India)
Words cannot describe how cool that is, only a song can...

Speech Gene Helps Birds Sing (Ontogeny - USA) / Birdsong and Human Speech (The Biology Refugia - Singapore)
... and you can't sing properly without FOXP2.














Humans outdone by Rats for causing Extinctions (Science Avenger - USA)
That reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for some reason...

Americans reveal belief in UFOs, witches (The Empire of the Odd - USA)
Time for equal time to teach a new branch of biology - witchology!

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Fresh Science 4 December 2007

The juiciest posts from the science 'o sphere!

My review of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" (Anders Rasmussen Blog - Sweden)
A comprehensive, chapter by chapter review...

Chang’e-1, one more time! (Bad Astronomy - USA)
The Chang'e image is authentic, and there isn't a new crater on it...

Want to join the 200 mile high club? (Bayblab - Canada)
Sex in space. (Now that is an awesome post.)

No eye deer - an amazing brain injury (Mind Hacks - USA)
That looks rather painful...

Mummified dinosaur (Ontogeny - USA)
Incredibly well preserved specimen...

So, after much discussion, here is what we think happened... (Sour Grapes - USA)
Chicken or Wikipedia???

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Outdoor Model Photography

Last Sunday I joined an activity organized by the Photographic Society of Singapore (PSS) - an outdoor model shooting session.

We went to the top of Fort Canning hill to find some interesting background scenery for the pretty young model to pose in.

So here's some eye candy for you!















As usual I like to start with a "passport photo", though in this case the model is smiling a bit. She smiles a little strange - I'll come back to this later.














Most of the photo enthusiasts came with digital SLRs, predominantly Canons. There are three exceptions: a guy who was using a medium format film camera, a guy using a Panasonic prosumer, and me - the only guy shameless enough to be using an idiot-proof compact for a real photo session.

Hey, I feel adequate!

The photo society veteran squatting on the ground is holding a reflector, which has a great effect in lighting up the model's face. More on that later.

But first - what's that white thing hanging out the back of her dress?















A price tag! Truly Prêt-à-Porter.



















Of course, it's customary to ask a person to smile when you're taking portraits of her.

However, not everyone looks their best while smiling. Just like not everyone looks pretty when crying, which is why actress Liu Xuehua always lands a role in Taiwanese sob dramas.

In this case, our model has a smile that looks awkward to me.

Maybe she doesn't really like us.



















It's a popular belief that Black-and-White = Art, just like a Bazooka camera = Good photographer.

One fellow researcher at the lab often takes black and white versions of scenes that have limited colour palette or tonal variation, and calls them arty.

I'm no expert on this, but I think only two main types of scenes warrants the B&W treatment:

1. A scene with extensive shadow play.

2. A scene with clashing colours.

Where there are interesting shadows or high-contrast patterns, B&W photography looks more dramatic. If a scene appears ruined by clashing or distracting spots of colour, B&W might rescue it.

Otherwise a snapshot is just a snapshot, B&W or not.



















Oh no, the sun is coming up! Harsh shadows obscure the model's features...



















...reflector to the rescue!

Ah, much better. The diffuse reflected light brings out the 3D features of her face very nicely. The round-shaped reflector also adds an attractive highlight in her eyes.

Now she looks like a Japanese TV star!



















Of all the photos I took that day, I find this one the most appealing. The combination of soft lighting and facial expression makes it look very glam.

Also I find that this is her best angle - slightly left-of-centre, with her head tilted down a tiny bit.











Then it's time to move on to another backdrop - a trio of wooden statues.

Off we go to take more photos!



















Er... this backdrop doesn't work for me. The background is already quite busy; the foreground is even worse, with the highly-textured wooden surfaces robbing the attention away from the model.

I suppose sculptures are designed to stand out.

In addition, the model likes to pose by tilting her face up often, which is good poise but doesn't show off her best angle.



















Costume change! Now the backdrop is much better, a nearly featureless stone wall.















Oh look! The large entourage of photographers has attracted the attention of a tourist, who is probably wondering what the commotion is about.



















A compact camera certainly isn't the most ideal for portraiture, since it doesn't have the wide aperture of a good SLR prime lens. As a result, it isn't easy to blur out the background such the centre of attention is focused on the subject.

One way to overcome this limitation is to zoom as much as you can, so that the depth of field is reduced. Then stand as close to the subject as your nearest focus allows you to.

The result is quite good and if you do it well it looks like it was taken using a dedicated portrait lens. To have mastery over your equipment, you must be aware of its weaknesses as much as you know its strengths.














Another costume, another location. A few photographers are holding their SLRs in a strange way.

Can you spot them?



















During the photo session, some photographers used a burst mode to capture the model's changing facial expressions. I understand the importance of a burst mode for sports photography, but for portraiture I have my reservations.

I prefer to observe the person for a while and try to anticipate changes in facial expression, firing one well-aimed shot everytime. It's hit-and-miss I know, but it makes more sense to me than sorting through hundreds of photos after the photo session.

One of the photographers even ran out of space on her 2GB memory card, frantically deleting pictures in order to continue shooting. I asked her if she was shooting RAW.

"No I'm shooting JPEGs."

I immediately suspected that she was shooting bursts the whole time.

"Yes, five-frame bursts. I've deleted some pictures, now I've got space to take two more shots."



















Finally, I put up this picture to show you what a difference the shooting angle and facial expressions can make. In the previous shot, the model looks poised and matured, almost in her mid-20s. In the above photo, the model looks like a plucky teenager (that she is)!

A good portrait photographer is in constant communication with the subject, in order to capture the expression and the angle that best reflects the person.

I have to admit that I'm not very good at communicating with models.
















Since I'm a biologist kind of guy, I couldn't resist sneaking in a few nature shots during the photo session. Fort Canning has an interesting diversity of insects. Here's a super close up of a bizarre looking butterfly that appears to be double-sided!

Ah, the wonders of natural selection.

There are actually two pairs "fake" antennae on its wings, and they twitch around just like the real pair in front.

The butterfly was also desperately trying to deflower the back of my left hand with its long probosis.

I don't understand how my hand can be mistaken for a flower, but then again I can't see in ultraviolet.











A bee gathering pollen from some flowers that are hanging from a tree.

Yes, Mr. Butterfly that's where you should've been.
















Here are two ants engaging in an awkward tug-of-war with an insect (another ant?) between their mouths. I'm not sure which is the direction they intend to go.

(Yes I'm showing off my camera's macro function in order to cover up its inability to take wide-angle shots...)















And the last photo: an obligatory abstract art photo with neither rhyme nor reason (and underexposed as usual, Fresh Brainz-style)

It was a fruitful photo session!


Would you like to know more?
- A previous model photo session (Imaging Expo 2007)

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Evolution Of The Eye: Recent Review

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed ResearchFresh Brainz reader Alvin alerted me to a recent review article from Nature Reviews Neuroscience (Lamb et. al 2007) about the evolution of the vertebrate eye, to address the criticism of evolutionary biology by another reader in his blog.

Actually, I thought that the mechanism of eye evolution has already been beaten to death by many researchers, so I'm a tad surprised that there is still any controversy about it today.

But since this review is quite clear and well-organized, I feel that I ought to share it with everyone as a focal point for discussion.

1. Historical background

The review article starts with an exerpt of this quote by Charles Darwin more than 120 years ago:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

The first sentence is often quote-mined by creationists attempting to show that Darwin could not explain eye evolution by natural selection, which isn't what Darwin meant at all.

Still, the eye is undeniably an intricate organ, and to be convinced that it can be produced by stepwise evolution, we need to look deep into the details.

The authors start by providing an overview of the origin of vertebrates, based mainly on the fossil record.
















More than 600 million years ago, early organisms already had photoreceptor cells that could be used for shadow detection, in order to escape from predators, and for controlling their circadian rhythm.

They did not have an image forming eye.

Then, our last common ancestor with these primitive bilaterally symmetrical animals (bilateria) diverged from them over 580 million years ago. Animals with a skull (craniates) appeared about 530 million years ago, while animals with vertebrates (vertebrates, duh!) came onto the scene about 500 million years ago.

Sometime between 540 and 500 million years ago, image forming eyes and visual systems came into existence. This corresponds to a period of time called the Cambrian explosion, marked by the rapid evolution of animal body shapes.

Let me point out a few interesting features of the phylogenetic tree shown above.

The authors have highlighted five modern groups of animals that are relevant to the study of the origin of the vertebrate eye.

Obviously they need to include some vertebrate species, and the most diverged species of vertebrate is the lamprey, a jawless fish that has a simple image forming eye.

They also need the nearest outgroup species for comparison. The hagfish is a jawless craniate that doesn't have an image forming eye so it is an appropriate animal to choose.

However, the authors acknowledge that there is molecular evidence that the hagfish could have diverged later from the vertebrates (shown as dotted lines). Until the ancestry of the hagfish is confirmed by genome sequencing, it's a good idea to pick some other animals as outgroup species, such as lancelets and sea squirts.

They have also defined vertebrate eye evolution into 6 stages, shown on the bottom of the chart next to the timeline.

And did you spot the mermaid?

2. Examining the evidence

Next, the authors discussed the structure and function of the eye in those relevant species of animals.

Let me just focus on the hagfish and the lamprey.

The eyes of the hagfish are small and conical. They do not have a lens, an iris, a cornea or any muscles inside or outside the eyes, and they are buried beneath a layer of translucent skin. The retina only have two nuclear layers with no bipolar or amacrine cells, and the photoreceptors directly connect to output neurons. The hagfish doesn't seem to use its eyes for vision, since it's behaviourally almost blind, so the eyes are more likely used as a circadian organ.

In contrast, the lamprey has a camera-like eye, containing a lens and an iris. The retina has three nuclear layers consisting of photoreceptor cell bodies, bipolar cells, horizontal cells, amacrine cells and ganglion cells. Unlike jawed vertebrates however, it has five muscles outside the eye (compared to six) and has no muscles inside the eye (used for focusing in other vertebrates).

Curiously, lamprey larva have eyes that are similar to that of the hagfish - small, buried beneath the skin, and containing a relatively undifferentiated retina. This is a clue that the authors will discuss later.

The authors conclude that the camera-like vertebrate eye already existed in the last common ancestor between jawless and jawed vertebrates, about 500 million years ago.

Is there evidence of how the eye was formed?

Let's zoom into the microscopic details of photoreceptor cells...













In this figure, five groups of photoreceptors are shown, from sea squirts (left) to mammals (right). You can see a stepwise transition in the alignment of the photopigment membranes, at the top of each cell.

In the sea squirt they are aligned with the axis of the cell. In the hagfish the membranes spread out more laterally. In the lamprey and other vertebrates, the membranes are neatly stacked and aligned perpendicular to the cell axis.

Now let's zoom in even further, all the way down to the molecular level...













There are two types of photoreceptor cells in animals: rhabdomeric (more commonly found in invertebrates) or ciliary (more common in vertebrates).

This figure compares the various light-sensitive receptor proteins, called opsins, found in these cell types. The bottom six opsins are found in the retina of vertebrate eyes.

What is particularly interesting is the middle column labelled "Bovine residue", which refers to key amino acid positions in the opsin genes, using cow rhodopsin as a numbering guide. Similar amino acids are shaded in blue and green.

Notice how there is a transitory, stepwise change at the amino acid level - from opsins that are not used by vertebrates at the top of the chart, down to essential vertebrate retinal opsins at the bottom. This shows that the molecular components of vertebrate photoreceptors were modified from those found in invertebrate photoreceptors.

3. Sequence of events

The authors then discussed the development of the vertebrate eye cup.

They mentioned Karl Ernst von Baer's idea that the developmental stages that an embryo passes through might reflect the evolutionary history of the organism. They know that this idea is overly simplistic (and for some developmental stages, not applicable) but based on a number of observations (for example the lamprey larva mentioned earlier) , they think that it is a good starting point to help formulate testable hypotheses regarding the formation of the retina.



















In this figure, the sequence of events in the development of the vertebrate eye is shown. The authors feel that a sequence broadly similar to this might have occurred during the evolution of the vertebrate eye.










One intriguing clue that support their view at the cellular level is the sequence of events during the development of the retinal circuitry in vertebrates. At birth, photoreceptor cells (C = cone, R = rod) contact the ganglion cell layer (G, output neurons) directly, just like in the hagfish eye.

However as time progresses the photoreceptor projections retract, while bipolar cells (B), horizontal cells (H), and amacrine cells (A) migrate into position.

Eventually the photoreceptors contact output neurons indirectly via other cells in a three-layer retina.

Based on current evidence, the authors propose a multistep sequence of events that result in the formation of the vertebrate eye.



















As you can see, it is a long list of many specific details.

More importantly, what's great about putting all this down clearly is that you can then generate some testable predictions to check if the sequence is correct...



















These are future experiments that will help refine the certainty and precision of our current understanding of eye evolution.

So you can see that the evolution of the eye is well understood at the anatomical (eye structure), physiological (circuitry and function) and molecular (protein and genetics) levels.

Not as "speculative" and "general" as some people claim.


Would you like to know more?
-
Original article
TD Lamb, SP Collin and EN Pugh Jr (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nature Rev Neurosci 8: 960-976

Laughing At Creationists

Personally I don't laugh at creationists because I find them creepy and appalling, but YouTube maestro Thunderf00t is laughing at them by producing a series of superb, crystal-clear videos that highlight the frightening stupidity of creationist claims.

Here are three particularly impressive episodes:

"Fun facts" about the evolution of the solar system.



Bogus probability calculations...



The fine-tuning argument (Now with MORE dramatic music and special effects!)



If you have the time, do check out his other cool videos. Pipette tip to Sandwalk.


Would you like to know more?
-
The Universe was not designed for us