JOVANA
Library Glossary Getting Started Three Levels Fields How it works Mission
Join the mission
Back to the library
生物學 1943

細菌從病毒敏感到病毒抗性的突變

薩爾瓦多·盧里亞 與 馬克斯·德爾布呂克

「波動測驗」證明:細菌突變是隨機自發的,發生在選擇之前,而非由選擇引起。

Choose your version
In depth · the introduction

細菌是因為威脅出現才變得抗性,還是那幸運的少數本就是突變體、早早等在那裡?兩位科學家,用算術給出了答案。

核心想法

往一皿細菌上倒入病毒,幾乎所有都會死——但少數存活下來,並繼續繁殖。這些存活者的抗性,從何而來?一種想法是:病毒本身當場把少數細胞「逼」成了抗性。另一種是:早在此前,就有少數細胞在生長中因隨機的複製差錯而變成了抗性,病毒只是放過了牠們。盧里亞與德爾布呂克找到了在兩者之間做出裁決的辦法——而且全程不必親眼看見哪怕一次突變發生。

它是如何誕生的

1943 年,薩爾瓦多·盧里亞在一次院系舞會上,看著一位同事玩吃角子老虎機,靈感忽至:大多數下注什麼也不給,但偶爾機器會吐出一個「頭獎」。如果抗性來自生長中的隨機突變,那麼細菌培養物就應當像老虎機——多數只給出寥寥幾個存活者,而極少數培養物——裡頭有一次突變早早發生、又被複製了許多代——會中出成千上萬的「頭獎」。盧里亞寫信給由物理學轉行的生物學家馬克斯·德爾布呂克,後者補上了數學。他們培養了許多獨立的培養物,數清每一個裡的存活者,看到的正是那種劇烈、滿是頭獎的散佈。

它為何重要

它證明了達爾文的邏輯一路向下、直抵細菌:變異在先,盲目地發生,而選擇只是從已經存在的東西裡挑揀。它還把「突變多久發生一次?」變成了一件你真能測量的事——靠數數與算術——並讓細菌,這後來整個分子生物學的主力,成了遺傳學正當的研究對象。

一個可以想像的畫面

想像在好幾天裡,向一群不斷壯大的人發放彩票,然後問每個房間裡有多少中獎者。如果彩票只在最後那道門口才發(免疫),那每個房間最終都差不多只有那麼幾個中獎者。但如果彩票是隨著人群增多、一路發下來的(突變),那麼某個「有人早早中獎、又帶來一大家子同樣中獎的人」的房間,就會中出一個頭獎,而多數房間一個都沒有。這些頭獎,洩露了中獎發生在門口之前,而非在門口那一刻。

一格格並行的細菌培養物,顯示每個裡有多少細胞抵抗了病毒;在隨機突變與獲得性免疫兩假說間切換、並調節突變率,便見突變情形散成少數頭獎與大量近零的培養物,而免疫情形則緊湊而均勻。

它的位置

這是細菌加入本館所講述的遺傳故事的那一刻。它與達爾文的自然選擇(1859)並立——在微生物的尺度上,展示出同樣的「盲目變異、然後選擇」——又恰位於埃弗里(1944)與赫爾希–蔡斯(1952)之前,後兩者將揭示基因究竟由什麼構成。它所開啟的噬菌體研究,一路直通雙螺旋,乃至更遠。

The original document
Original source text
S. E. Luria & M. Delbrück · Indiana University & Vanderbilt University · Genetics 28 (1943): 491–511
The problem
When a bacterial culture is attacked by a bacteriophage, almost all the cells die, but a few resistant cells survive and found resistant colonies. Two explanations were on the table. By the acquired-immunity view, contact with the virus itself induces a small, fixed fraction of cells to become resistant. By the mutation view, rare resistant mutants already exist in the culture, having arisen by chance during earlier growth, independently of the virus.
The idea
Luria and Delbrück realised the two views make different statistical predictions, and that the difference shows up not in the average number of survivors but in how that number fluctuates from one culture to another. If resistance is induced at the moment of exposure, each culture is an independent series of rare events and the survivor counts should follow a Poisson distribution, with variance about equal to the mean. If resistance is inherited from a chance mutation during growth, a mutation that happened early is passed to a large clone of descendants, so an occasional culture carries a huge 'jackpot' of resistant cells and the counts fluctuate far more widely than Poisson allows.
The experiment
They grew many small parallel cultures of Escherichia coli from tiny inocula, let each grow undisturbed, then plated each entire culture on a lawn of bacteriophage and counted the resistant colonies. As a control, they sampled a single large culture many times over. The single culture, sampled repeatedly, gave counts that varied only by sampling (Poisson) error; the independent parallel cultures gave counts that fluctuated enormously, including rare jackpots.
The result
The wide fluctuation between independent cultures was incompatible with acquired immunity and matched the mutation hypothesis. From the relationship between the mutation rate and the distribution of survivors — in particular the fraction of cultures with no resistant cells at all — the authors could even estimate the rate at which the resistance mutation occurs per cell division. Resistance, they concluded, arises by spontaneous mutation before the virus is ever applied; the virus only selects the mutants already present.
[ … ]
The full paper develops the probability theory of the mutant distribution, tabulates the parallel-culture and single-culture data, and derives the mutation rate; it runs to about twenty pages and is available in full at the source below.
S. E. Luria & M. Delbrück · Genetics, vol. 28 · 1943