iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Jumping genes may have helped shape the evolutionary burst that followed the extinction of the dinosaurs, but a new comparative-genomics study does not prove they caused it. Researchers found that transposable elements—mobile stretches of DNA—expanded in some ant lineages around the same broad period that those lineages diversified. Their findings suggest a possible genomic link, alongside major ecological changes after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction.
What are “jumping genes”?
“Jumping genes” is an informal name for transposable elements (TEs), pieces of DNA that can move or copy themselves to new positions in a genome. Their activity can alter genome structure and may affect how genes are regulated or duplicated. In ants, the study found associations between TE content and expansions in odorant-receptor and other gene families—changes that could matter to how ants sense and adapt to their environments.
TEs are not genes that literally leap between ants. The term describes movement within an organism’s DNA, and the evolutionary effects of that movement can differ by genomic location and lineage.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What did the ant-genome study find?
Schrader and colleagues compared 163 ant genomes, representing 12 of the 16 extant ant subfamilies. Ants today comprise more than 15,000 extant species, according to the study. The researchers found that the most species-rich ant groups had evidence of bursts of TE acquisition in their ancestors. They also describe ant genomes as containing both faster-evolving, TE-rich regions and more conserved, TE-poor regions. Read the study.
#1 Best Overall
- Great extension activities for science and biology
- Correlated to standards
- Comprehensive biology vocabulary study
- Fascinating true-to-life illustrations
The timing is reconstructed, not directly observed
The authors’ models place many inferred TE insertions roughly 45–75 million years ago, a broad interval that overlaps the K–Pg boundary about 66 million years ago. Their phylogenetic reconstruction places much of the diversification among lower-level ant groups in the first half of the Paleogene, roughly 35–66 million years ago. These dates are estimates inferred from living genomes and evolutionary models; no one directly observed ancient insertions or diversification events.
The statistical relationship is an association
Across the sampled subfamilies, genome-wide TE content was positively associated with described genus counts (adjusted R² = 0.29) and described species counts (adjusted R² = 0.36). In analyses of lineages present at the K–Pg boundary, peak inferred TE gains were associated with variation in descendant-lineage counts (adjusted R² = 0.333), extant genera (0.326), and known species (0.275). These are results from the study’s statistical models, not percentages of diversity caused by TEs.
Did jumping genes cause ants to diversify?
The study makes a plausible case for a connection, not a demonstration of cause and effect. Its reconstructions place TE gains before later diversification, which makes the simplest version of reverse causation—diversity first, TE expansion afterward—less likely. But the authors say evolutionary genomic analyses cannot establish causation for events millions of years in the past.
A major alternative is that the ecological upheaval around the K–Pg extinction promoted both TE proliferation and ant diversification independently. If so, the two trends could coincide without TE activity being the driver of the radiation. The study does not establish how much, if any, of the diversification was caused by TEs.
A University of Münster announcement quotes research lead Dr Lukas Schrader saying, “We have now found the genomic mechanism that connects these ecological upheavals to the subsequent rapid diversification of the ants: transposable elements.” That is his interpretation of the findings; the paper’s stated causal limitation means it should be read as a proposed explanation, not settled proof. Read the University of Münster announcement.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How does this fit the wider story of ant evolution?
The genomic findings are one proposed part of a longer, multi-phase history. A separate 2024 analysis of the fossil record identifies several periods of ant diversification, including one after the K–Pg boundary, as well as a major extinction interval in the Late Cretaceous. Fossils provide a different kind of evidence from genomic reconstructions: they help chart when diversity changed, but this fossil analysis does not directly test whether TEs affected those changes. Read the fossil-record analysis.
Rank #4
Together, these studies support a picture in which ant diversity developed through multiple episodes and in changing ecological conditions. The new genome comparison adds a potential molecular contributor near the post-dinosaur diversification period, while leaving its causal role unresolved.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
