comScore
Science Friday, March 8th 2013 at 2:20 pm

There and Back Again: Evidence of Reverse Evolution Seen in Dust Mites

It’s commonly held — but not universally accepted  – that evolution is a one-way street. Researchers who deny the idea that evolutionary traffic can only move forward saw their  arguments bolstered this week with the publication of a study suggesting that house dust mites may have evolved from free-living creatures into full-time parasites, only to abandon that evolutionary track and go back the way they came, reverting to the free-living creatures that live invisibly in your carpet, bed, and other places in your home that it’s probably best not to think about them living.

Evolutionary traffic, it’s said, only moves forward to new forms, not back to old ones. It’s a concept so accepted that it’s known as Dollo’s law for the 19th-century French paleontologist who first proposed it. Some researchers, though, think that law may be more of a set of guidelines — commonly applicable, certainly, but not without exceptions. According to a study published this week in the journal Systematic Biology, the humble dust mite may be one of those exceptions.

The authors of the study, University of Michigan biologists Pavel Klimov and Barry O’Connor, wanted to finally get a handle on the evolution of the house dust mite, a tiny arachnid that co-habitates with humans pretty much wherever they live and is thought to be among the primary causes of household allergies. Despite how common they are, the evolution of dust mites is only poorly understood, meaning that O’Connor and Klimov had to run through no less than 62 existing hypotheses on the evolutionary development of house dust mites. Some of these hypotheses argue for a parasitic beginning to the mite’s evolutionary story, while others hold that the creatures have always been free-living.

Using DNA sequencing and genetic analysis of hundreds of different mite species to create a phylogenetic tree — a sort of evolutionary map — of the mite’s development, Klimov and O’Connor found evidence that today’s free-living dust mites evolved from parasitic mites that lived on their hosts full time. Those mites, though, evolved first from the earliest mites, which likely developed in bird nests but were not parasites.

How is it possible that today’s mites abandoned their parasitic heritage and returned to their orignal roaming ways? It turns out it was just an easier way to make a living. As they moved inside to live among humans and domestic animals, the mites’ powerful digestive enzymes allowed them to live on a diet of skin and hair flakes from any creature. Becoming a free-ranging generalist became more and more attractive for the critters, and over time, house mites followed their evolutionary river back to its source, returning to a non-parasitic lifestyle in your clothing, towels and sheets, while also raising some interesting questions about how evolution works. Is the process really a one-way street? Or could we have a whole new conceit for the inevitable next reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise?

(via University of Michigan)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under |
  • http://twitter.com/ParkoMolo Parko Molo

    It isn’t reverse evolution. You can wind up where you started by walking forward in a circle.

  • Anonymous

    In case scientists were asleep since 1990, there has been a mega reverse evolution in the US: progressive minds are replaced by stone-age minds in the structure of power and finance, hiding their heads in the sand, thinking they can turn the clock of history back to medieval times. Wake the F**ck up!

  • Kenny Chaffin

    Exactly

  • http://www.movies-suck.com/ Wastrel Way

    Agreed. “Reverse evolution” makes a cute headline but there’s no such thing.

  • Anonymous

    Evolution is a response to conditions. Dollo’s law is akin to saying when you start wearing coat in the winter you won’t be able to take it off in the spring.

  • Guest

    I am really happy to see that commenters know their stuff, but really sad to see columnists who didn’t pass high school biology reporting on evolutionary findings.

    “Evolutionary traffic, it’s said, only moves forward to new forms, not back to old ones.” It’s said? Maybe you say that. Not one scientist would ever make that claim. There are countless examples to the contrary already, this is far from the first. If you understood evolution you’d know why this isn’t a surprising find. Source: My degree in biochemistry.

  • http://twitter.com/WasteTimeAndGet Fired

    Even Darwin, in The Origin of Species, described at least one case of a seemingly primitive creature evolving from a more complex one. I’ll have to look it up. I believe it was a sessile vertebrate which loses its limbs and some of its organs as it matures.
    No news.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1207314432 Susy Crandall

    They just changed their tiny minds.

  • Tal Tamir

    Only idiots who have never been to a science class think evolution is a one way street. It is admittedly a commonly held belief… but not by people who actually know anything about evolution beyond strawmen meant to discredit it. The vast majority of those who believe its a one way street are those same people who believe that evolution is a lie made by the devil.

    Speaking of, those who believe evilution is a tool of satan are also the ones who would use terms like “reverse evolution” and “macro vs micro evolution”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hackenslash Tony Hackenslash Murphy

    Evolution of a previously employed trait is not ‘reverse evolution’, and nor is it remotely a refutation of Dollo’s Law. Dollo’s Law holds as a statistical law, because ‘reverse evolution’ (setting aside the idiotic implication that evolution has anything that could remotely be described as a direction) would require the reversal of every specific mutation, which is more improbable than being able to walk through solid walls.

    In short, the author of the article really needs to go and learn what the valid science really says.