In the 158 years since Charles Darwin developed the idea that all living organisms evolved from one common ancestor, scientists have attempted to prop up the so-called “tree of life” theory against the prevailing winds of reason. Since 1859, little empirical evidence has supported the concept, but a team of researchers from Rutgers University thinks reshaping the tree could help prove its existence.

The researchers say the tree doesn’t give the full picture of evolution because it depicts various families of organisms as independent branches. A better picture would show how forms of life such as microbes and their hosts are linked physically and evolve together. “The goal is to transform a two-dimensional tree into one that is multidimensional and includes biological interactions among species,” researcher Debashish Bhattacharya said in a statement.

Even though the researchers want to reshape Darwin’s tree, they were quick to defend their champion. “What we wish to clearly stress is that we are not engaged in Darwin-bashing. We consider Darwin a hero of science,” Bhattacharya said.

But failure to give microbes their due credit is not the only problem that has eaten away the roots of Darwin’s tree, said Jonathan Wells, a biologist and author. Even in 2000 when he wrote Icons of Evolution, there were many scientific problems with the tree of life concept. “And now, 17 years later, the problems have grown worse,” Wells said in a video posted on the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Science blog.

It seems no reshaping of the tree can overcome its difficulties. Recently, the discovery of orphan genes, genes that do not show descent from a common ancestor because they have no similarity to genes in other species, has begun chopping away at the tree. The only way scientists can keep believing the illusion is to simply ignore the existence of orphan genes, Wells said: “The reason we get a tree, in the first place is only because we assume at the outset that it’s there.”

Before implantation, a baby senses mom’s health

A mother’s health and lifestyle can affect her unborn child even before an embryo implants in the uterus, according to a new research review published in Cell Press.

Many studies show the food a pregnant woman eats, the amount of stress she is under, and the pollutants to which she is exposed can affect the DNA of her unborn child and possibly lead to long-term health consequences. Scientists have believed that blood flow via the placenta communicates the mother’s condition to the child. But new studies show a developing child can react to changes in the mother, such as a change in diet, long before the placenta is established, leading scientists to think those changes may affect the fluid in the uterus.

Mouse studies have shown that a maternal diet low in protein can reduce certain amino acids in the uterine fluid and affect gene expression, making the offspring more susceptible to heart disease later in life.

Mothers often exercise caution in their lifestyle choices during pregnancy, but this new research highlights that such cautions can impact the baby even before a woman knows she is pregnant. —J.B.

What the brain can build

Using sophisticated algebraic calculations, Swiss neuroscientists have discovered the brain works in an even more complex and structured way than previously thought.

In a study published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, researchers found that when the brain processes information it may use as many as 11 different dimensions. During processing, the brain momentarily encloses cavities, or holes in the brain, by suddenly erecting geometric structures of neurons in progressively higher dimensions, then deconstructing them again. And the brain appears to be doing so very intentionally. “Multiple tests were performed on the virtual brain tissue to show that the multidimensional brain structures discovered could never be produced by chance,” the authors wrote on Frontiers Blog.

Ran Levi, a mathematician from Aberdeen University, described this process as “extremely organized.” He likened it to building a multidimensional sandcastle that “materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.”

“We found a world that we had never imagined,” wrote Henry Markram, a neuroscientist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. “There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain.” —J.B.

Making cost-saving drugs more accessible

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued a ruling that will cut the time it takes for copycat versions of biologic drugs, drugs made from living cells, to hit the market. The decision is bad news for makers of brand name biologic drugs because it will shorten the length of time they can avoid competition and keep so-called biosimilars off the market.

Health insurers estimate biosimilars, which are used to treat a range of conditions including Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, and diabetes, can save consumers billions of dollars annually.

Prior to the court’s decision, manufacturers had to notify the brand name drug maker six months before marketing a biosimilar. At issue was whether the biosimilar manufacturer had to wait for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, a process that can take months or longer, before it could give notice. A lower court ruled that notice could not be given prior to FDA approval, but the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. —J.B.

A better way to fill ’er up?

American drivers consume nearly 14 billion gallons of ethanol, a fuel companies make primarily from fermented corn, every year. Growing that corn takes millions of acres of farmland. Now researchers at Stanford University have discovered a new, more sustainable way to use copper to turn carbon dioxide into ethanol with no need for corn or other plants.

“One of our long-range goals is to produce renewable ethanol in a way that doesn’t impact the global food supply,” Thomas Jaramillo, an associate professor of chemical engineering at Stanford and of photon science at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said in a statement. —J.B.