This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism
When food runs out, certain tiny roundworms, barely visible to the naked eye, crawl toward one another and build living, wriggling towers that move as one superorganism. For the first time, we've caught them doing that in nature on video.
Scientists spent months pointing their digital microscope at rotting apples and pears to finally catch a glimpse of these living towers formed by Caenorhabditis roundworms in an orchard that is just downhill from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's location in Konstanz, Germany. 'It wasn't that hard to find. It's just the people didn't have the interest or time or funding for this kind of research,' says biologist Daniela Perez, lead author of the study.
Perez and her team at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior then studied this behavior in a laboratory to learn more. To spur the towering, they placed groups of Caenorhabditis elegans in a dish without food, alongside a toothbrush bristle that could work as a scaffold. Dozens of worms quickly climbed on top of the bristle and one another to form a structure that moved in an eerily coordinated manner. The tower responded to the touch of a glass pipe by attempting to latch onto it; it stretched to bridge the gap between the bottom of the dish and its lid; and it even waved its tip around to probe the surrounding environment. The results were published Thursday in Current Biology.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
Researchers had previously observed this towering in the lab but didn't know that it was an actual survival strategy in the wild. 'Discovering [this behavior] in wild populations is really important as it shows this is a part of how these animals live and not just a lab artifact,' says William Schafer, a geneticist at the University of Cambridge, who studies C. elegans and was not involved in the study.
Why do the worms do this? The researchers think towering helps worms set out to find richer food sources. When resources are limited, 'it probably makes sense for microscopic organisms to cooperate for dispersing by forming something bigger,' says the study's senior author Serena Ding. The towers could allow some of their members to reach new places or to hitchhike on other organisms such as fruit flies.
The bigger question is how the worms communicate within the towers. If the worms on top latch onto a fly, how do those at the bottom know to detach from where they're anchored? They could communicate chemically through pheromones and mechanically through movement patterns, Schafer suggests. Perez says her team plans to test this next. 'Every time we have a meeting, we end up with 10 new project ideas,' she says. 'There are so many directions we can take this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Is the Analemma?
We're all familiar with the sun's daily motion in the sky. It rises in the east, gets higher in the sky until circa noon, then begins its hours-long descent to set on the western horizon. You may also know of our star's more stately annual journey. For Northern Hemisphere dwellers, as summer approaches, it moves a tiny bit higher in the sky every day at noon until the June solstice, when it turns around and starts to get lower every day until the December solstice. These motions are the clockwork of the sky. They repeat with enough precision that we base our measurements of passing time on them. But there are more than two gears to this cosmic mechanism; in addition, there are subtle and elegant—though somewhat bizarre—cogs that swing the sun's position in the sky back and forth during the year, as well as up and down. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] If you were to stand in the same spot every day and take a photograph of the sun at the same clock time (ignoring the shift during daylight saving time), after a full year, the position of the sun would form a lopsided figure eight in the sky. This phenomenon is called the analemma, and it's a reflection of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of our planet's orbit. They combine in subtle ways to create the figure-eight pattern, and the best way to understand all this is to examine these effects separately. First, what would be the sun's position in the sky if Earth had no axial tilt and its orbit were a perfect circle? In that case, the sun would trace the exact same path in the sky every day. If you took a daily photograph in the same place at the same time, the sun would always be at the same spot in the sky; the figure-eight analemma would collapse to become a simple dot. We actually have a name for this ideal motion: the mean sun ('mean' meaning average). The mean sun's motion across the sky is constant and unwavering. You could literally set your clock by this hypothetical sun—and, in fact, we do!—to define a 24-hour day that never changes. You can think of the mean sun as being a clock. It always reaches its highest point in the day at exactly noon. Now let's fiddle with that and add Earth's tilt in. Our planet is tipped over by about 23.5 degrees relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. This changes the sun's actual position—what we call the 'true sun'—in the sky and causes it to deviate from the mean sun's path. The true sun is what you'd use to measure time if you had a sundial, though, perhaps sadly, over the past few centuries, they've fallen somewhat out of fashion. Earth's tilt is what causes the seasons; in the summer, when our planet's pole is tipped toward the sun, the days are longer, and the true sun's daily path across the sky is higher. The opposite is true in the winter. This immediately explains the north-south extent of the analemma! The true sun gets higher in the summer and lower in the winter, so every day at noon, it changes its height above the horizon a little bit. Over the course of a year, the true sun will move a distance in the sky equal to twice Earth's tilt, or about 47 degrees (compared with the 90-degree angle from the horizon to the zenith, directly overhead). But the analemma also has an east-west extent that gives it that figure-eight shape. This, too, is largely because of Earth's tilt. Imagine you're in the Northern Hemisphere, facing south at noon on the December solstice, when the true sun is at its lowest noontime point in the sky all year. Every day for the next six months, it will move a little bit to the north, slowly at first, then accelerating, reaching a maximum rate at the equinox. Then it slows again until the summer solstice. Because it's moving northward, it's not moving at the same speed as the mean sun. It starts to fall behind, lagging a bit to the east, taking a little more time to reach its daily apex. (It gets to its highest point a little after a clock shows noon.) Every day it lags a little bit more, taking longer and longer to peak in its daily path. But here's where things get weird: As the true sun's lag increases, the rate at which it lags gets smaller every day. It's still falling behind the mean sun, but every day, the additional amount is smaller. Then the true sun's eastward motion stops, reverses and starts to catch up to the mean sun. It eventually pulls ahead, to the mean sun's west, and reaches its apex before mean-sun noon. This continues for a few more weeks until its westward motion slows, stops and reverses, and it starts moving to the east again. It eventually slows enough that the mean sun catches up to it and passes it, and the whole process starts again. This back-and-forth motion, coupled with the up-and-down motion, creates the analemma's overall figure-eight shape. The actual dependence of this motion is a complicated function of algebraic trigonometry (and spherical geometry), but in the end, very roughly, over the course of a year, the sun moves ahead of the mean sun for three months, then behind it for another three, then ahead again, then behind again. Lather, rinse, repeat. The deviation of the true sun from the mean sun is what astronomers call 'the equation of time.' It's used to figure out how much a sundial's time is off from the mean sun's 24-hour clock, and it adds up to about an eight-degree excursion to the east and west. This is much smaller than the 47-degree north-south motion, so the analemma is narrow and tall. This is complicated by Earth's elliptical orbit. Earth orbits at the fastest rate when it's closest to the sun, and when it's farther out, it moves more slowly. When Earth is closest to the sun (called perihelion), its orbital rate is faster than average, so the true sun lags behind the mean sun. The reverse is true at the most distant orbital point from the sun (aphelion), and the true sun moves ahead of the mean sun. If Earth had no axial tilt, its orbital ellipticity would mean that over the year the true sun would make a short line in the sky aligned east-west. There's also a perspective effect from this; at perihelion the true sun's motion in the sky is faster than it is at aphelion, and this affects the shape of the analemma as well. Combined with Earth's tilt, this throws off the figure eight's north-south symmetry. The southern loop (made when the sun appears to be moving faster near perihelion) is larger than the northern one—and wider as well. This makes the overall shape more like a bowling pin. This gets even more complicated; the date of perihelion (around January 4 every year) is near but not quite the December solstice (on or around December 21), which skews the figure eight a bit, knocking it catawampus, distorted from perfect symmetry. So if all this is true for Earth, what about other planets? They have elliptical orbits and have axial tilts as well, so they, too, get analemmas, but they're shaped differently. Mars, for example, is tilted by about 25 degrees, similar to Earth. Its orbit is much more elliptical, however, and that dominates the analemma, making it more teardrop-shaped. Jupiter has a tilt of only three degrees, but its orbit is more elliptical than Earth's, making its analemma a simpler ellipse in its sky. Neptune may have the most pleasingly shaped analemma of them all: its tilt is 28 degrees, but its orbital eccentricity is very slight, so its analemma is a nearly symmetric figure eight. I understand this is all a bit complicated and may be difficult to picture in your head; I struggled with some of the more subtle motions myself (which wasn't helped by the many incorrect descriptions of the phenomenon I found online). It's perhaps surprising that the clockwork motion of the heavens isn't as straightforward as you'd hope! But I actually find beauty in all this: the repeating cycles, the subtle motions, the glorious symmetry to it. And it's all predictable, combining physics, geometry and mathematics. There is some truth to the idea of musica universalis, the 'music of the spheres,' and, like the music of great composers, there is majesty in complexity.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
AI helped design an innovative new cancer treatment plan
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. Researchers may have come up with an interesting new treatment for cancer by talking to AI. According to a paper published this month, a research team led by the University of Cambridge turned to an 'AI scientist' powered by GPT-4 to help create a new AI-designed cancer treatment plan. The kicker? It only uses widely available drugs that have nothing to do with treating cancer. The researchers started by taking all of the data they had regarding popular drugs used to treat high cholesterol and alcohol dependence to look for hidden patterns that could point toward new cancer drug options. They prompted GPT-4 to identify combinations of the drugs that could possibly have a significant impact on breast cancer cells. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 The result is a new AI-designed cancer treatment plan that avoids standard cancer drugs and relies on drugs that will not target non-cancerous cells. The drugs that the AI was prompted to look for were also meant to be widely available, affordable, and already approved by regulators. Considering how many different types of cancer treatment options we've seen in recent years, this approach makes a lot of sense. It also opened some new doors, according to the researcher's findings, which are published in the Journal of Royal Society Interface. We've seen a huge increase in researchers and doctors turning to AI to try to come up with new treatment options for old problems, including an AI that can identify autism. So it isn't that surprising to see researchers once more turning to AI to help speed up scientific progress. It seems to have worked, too. According to the findings, the researchers tested the combinations suggested by the GPT-4 'scientist' and found that three of the 12 combinations worked better than current breast cancer drugs. They then fed that information back to the AI, which created four more combinations, three of which also showed a lot of promise. Of course, relying wholly on AI-designed cancer treatment plans isn't something doctors are likely to do immediately. More trials and research are needed to fully test the efficiency of these drug combinations. Testing will also need to be done to ensure there aren't any adverse side effects from combining these drugs over extended periods of time. But for those fighting cancer right now, research like this is promising and could one day help scientists find even better treatment options. And even if the AI hallucinates, the information it gives may spark a new idea that scientists hadn't thought of before. AI will never replace doctors, no matter how hard Google and others push for a future involving AI doctors. But by relying on AI to speed up research, scientists can potentially unlock new options they might not otherwise find for decades to come. More Top Deals Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free See the
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma
In 1986 Belgian mathematician Jean Bourgain posed a seemingly simple question that continued to puzzle researchers for decades. No matter how you deform a convex shape—consider shaping a ball of clay into a watermelon, a football or a long noodle—will you always be able to slice a cross section bigger than a certain size? A paper by Bo'az Klartag of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Joseph Lehec of the University of Poitiers in France, posted to the preprint site has finally provided a definitive answer: yes. Bourgain's slicing problem asks whether every convex shape in n dimensions has a 'slice' such that the cross section is bigger than some fixed value. For three-dimensional objects, this is like asking whether an avocado of a given size, no matter the exact shape, can always be split into two halves with each side revealing at least some sizable slice. Bourgain, a titan of mathematics, is said to have spent more time on this problem than any other; although it may seem deceptively easy to resolve in the physical world's two or three dimensions, it quickly balloons in difficulty when we consider four or five. This added complexity makes determining anything in n-dimensional space seem impossible. 'If you believe in this so-called curse of dimensionality, you might just give up,' Klartag says. Fortunately, he adds, he and Lehec 'belong to a different school of thought.' The pair's breakthrough builds on recent progress by mathematician Qingyang Guan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who approached the problem with a technique based on physics rather than geometry. Specifically, Guan showed that modeling how heat diffuses out of a convex shape can reveal hidden geometric structures. Researchers could calculate filling any convex shape with warm gas and carefully observe the heat's dissipation according to physical laws. Guan's key insight—a precise limit on how rapidly the rate of dissipation changes during this heating process—proved to be just what Klartag and Lehec needed. 'Guan's bound tied together all the other key facts' known for the problem, says mathematician Beatrice-Helen Vritsiou of the University of Alberta. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The result let Klartag and Lehec resolve the problem in only a few days. Klartag notes that 'it was lucky because we knew [Guan's result] was exactly one of the things we needed' to connect several seemingly disparate approaches to the puzzle. With this final piece in place, the geometry of convex bodies in high dimensions is now a little less mysterious—although, as always in mathematics, each new slice reveals more questions to explore.
