From: “Microbiota, symbiosis and individuality summer school” meeting report
Presenter, | Lecture title | Description | Associated |
---|---|---|---|
affiliation | references | ||
Thomas Pradeu, | Microbiota and | Pradeu asked “what do we mean by microbiota?” and | |
The French National | microbiome: a | pointed out there is no single answer. He also argued that | |
Center for Scientific | conceptual analysis | our understanding of microbiota impacts our conception of | |
Research and University | individuality. Examining the history, meaning, and impact of | ||
of Bordeaux (France) | the microbiota is important when making ontological and | ||
epistemological claims concerning individuality. | |||
Interactions between | Pradeu highlighted how the function of the immune system | ||
the microbiota and the | has been reconsidered in light of microbiota research. The | ||
immune system: an | immune response should be thought of as a dynamic | ||
immunological point of | equilibrium, regulated by activating and inhibitory signals as | ||
view on biological | a function of the ecological context and the encountered | ||
individuality | microbes. Pradeu proposed a physiological individual as a | ||
unit of functioning, composed of the host and its microbiota, | |||
where the immune system plays a crucial role in the | |||
unification of this plurality. | |||
Scott Gilbert, | Developmental symbiosis | Gilbert argued that all metazoans have microbial symbionts | |
Swarthmore College | and the mapping of | and these are important, sometimes essential, for normal | |
(USA) and University | novel evolutionary | animal development and organ generation. For example, the | |
of Helsinki (Finland) | trajectories | gut of cows has been transformed by symbionts and led to | |
the emergence of their herbivory diet. The close association | |||
of organisms and their microbiota therefore opens novel | |||
evolutionary trajectories. Organisms have been formed by | |||
symbiotic interactions and these close associations open | |||
novel evolutionary trajectories. | |||
Johannes Martens, | Biological individuality: | Martens provided philosophical context for the concept of | |
University Catholique | a conceptual analysis | biological individuality. He distinguished it from other | |
of Louvain (Belgium) | concepts, such as unity, and argued that questions of | ||
individuality primarily involve singling out the properties that | |||
make an individual distinct. Productive theorizing about | |||
individuality does, of course, require considering individuals | |||
themselves, but it also involves considering their parts, as well as | |||
the collectives they form. | |||
Fraternal vs. | Martens argued that there are two concepts associated with | ||
egalitarian transitions in | transitions in biological individuality. First, fraternal transitions | ||
individuality: two | involve a transition in Darwinian individuality (e.g., multicellularity | ||
processes, one concept? | and insect colonies). Second, egalitarian transitions involve a transition | ||
in organismality, where the entities share a dependence and mutual | |||
benefit (e.g., the eukaryotic cell). The identification of two concepts | |||
for major transitions is helpful for exploring the influence of holobionts | |||
on evolution at multiple levels of biological organization. | |||
Jan Pieter Konsman, | Barriers and | Konsman argued that we ought not confuse the existence of | |
The French National | obstacles in relation | a functional “axis” between the microbiota, host gut, and | |
Center for Scientific | to microbiota’s host | host brain with the presence of precise mechanistic | |
Research and | effects | interactions between the organisms involved in this axis | |
University of Bordeaux | (which remain largely unconfirmed). The biological barriers | ||
(France) | have a dynamic nature and act more like borders, localized | ||
areas over which complex regulation and interaction occurs. | |||
Konsman concluded that methodologies and explanations | |||
must consider host organization and other higher-level | |||
features which can both inform and structure the | |||
reductionistic methodologies present in biology. | |||
Thomas Bosch, | The holobiont | Bosch argued that biology and medicine have historically | |
University of Kiel | imperative: towards | focused on the host, missing the important role of the | |
(Germany) | a holistic understanding | microbiota. Using his experimental work on the Hydra | |
of complex life processes | metaorganism as a model system for the evolution of | ||
biological complexity, Bosch concluded that the | |||
metaorganism perspective invites a more holistic and | |||
integrative account of an organism. | |||
Rob Knight, | Beyond the tip of | Using his research investigating the impact of microbiota on | |
University of | the iceberg: | human health, Knight argued that microbiota research needs | |
California, San | discovering millions | to focus more on determining causal pathways, examining | |
Diego (USA) | more “human” | the transgenerational effects of microbiota and intervening | |
genes in our | on the microbiota. On the other hand, even without these | ||
microbiomes and | possible advances, current microbiota research is already | ||
their links to | challenging classical philosophy of biology debates— | ||
phenotype | including debates about phenotypes and evolution, as well as | ||
what counts as a unit of selection. |