Breakthrough In Human Genetics 240
Many readers have submitted this story about a breakthrough in our understanding of human DNA: in particular, how much variation can exist between peoples' genes and how genes are involved with certain diseases. "One person's DNA code can be as much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically.
They said their new version of the human genetic map, or 'book of life,' fills in many missing pages and chapters to explain how genes are involved in common diseases.
The Human Genome Project mapped the billions of letters that make up the human genetic code. Scientists later refined the map by looking for single variations called SNPs or single nucleotide polymorphisms.
The CNV map gives researchers a different way to look for genes linked to diseases by identifying gains, losses, and alterations in the genome."
Spelling on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder so many of you can't spell.
Re:Spelling on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And if you RTFA, the project apparently only worked with 12 percent of the total DNA. That means that at least there's 1.2 percent difference to work with, unless the supposed 10 percent is actually 5/6 of that 12 pe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
On The Origin of Slashies... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On The Origin of Slashies... (Score:4, Funny)
My ancestors visited Digg? No, say it ain't so!!! It can't be, anyway, there are no itermediary fossils!
Re: (Score:2)
How the code works (Score:2)
Well I know that the general opinion of the genetic code has been some sort of simple weight of the 4 letters of the code or some pure sequencing data. Well now for the geeks on Slashdot comes a decent translation.
The genetic code of a person is like a computer program that builds and runs a person. It is the firmware and OS if you will. Without getting too complicated the old method of comparing the code would have been like counting all the instructions in a assembly language program. Then by adding
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's why scientists believe two ape chromosome pairs fused into one human chromosome pair (which your link claims is ridiculous without any explanation): http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html [gate.net]
"The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of
Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)
(IIABioinformaticist)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I hear people talk about how we're "99% like a chimp", "45% like a fern", "76% like a catfish", etc. I just point out that we are not DNA. DNA is just the intruction manual on how to make us.
A more accurate analogy would be that the user manuals for a chimp and a human are 99% similar. Considering that the first 950,000 of 1,000,000 pages are about basic body structure, chemicals, etc, that's hardly surprising.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I would argue that for many people 70% of the brain is air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a creationist site whose tagline is "Upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse." While the source generally shouldn't be taken into consideration when considering the argument, in this case it's similar to asking the KKK for informed research on black people.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't expect them not to respond to something like this. The window in which superstitious fantasies like creationism exist just closed a little further; the fact of the myriad variations among humans and animals leans ever nearer to a mundane explanation, and further from the hand-waving vagaries of "soul" and "mystery."
The more information science puts on the table, the louder the screams from the superstitious will be. Right up until the day the last one lays d
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Interesting)
All of us who wear glasses? We should have been culled. All these people developing diabetes from eating too much sugar? Selected against. Asthma? You get the picture.
Running with the idea that there is a higher power that created the world, I would say that Natural Selection is the method that higher power uses to figure out what works. But now with health care and a strong sense of altruism, errors in the genetic code are propagating throughout our species and wrecking havoc. In other words, we're playing god by saving lives that should have been selected against and allowing them to pass on their flawed genes.
I also contend that if we were created by a higher power, and that higher power enabled us with the ability to modify our genetic code, then it is our right (nay, our duty) to do so; otherwise, we would lack this ability. I believe that we should selectively erase genes which cause a predisposition to things like Down Syndrome or diabetes or cancer, etc. This would effectively select against all detrimental mutations.
This could also be the limit of Natural Selection as it tends toward infinitely fast; beneficial mutations in one human (for instance, the HIV resistance that elite supressors have) could be propagated throughout the species' genetic code in a single generation.
Perhaps I should leave you with an example, one that even a Christian might be able to tolerate. Imagine a future where you and your s/o collect your eggs and screen them for genetic defects, like Down Syndrome. Once a viable egg has been found (and you don't have to look up what the hair color or eye color will be, you could just leave that to fate), start screening some sperm. Produce a viable fetus which will grow up to be healthy.
Now imagine that you were one of those people who didn't do that for your kid. And now your kid is born with a gene that means they're 80% likely to die from some horrible disease by the age of 30. If I were that kid, I would be pissed at my parents for not choosing the screening option.
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Insightful)
All of us who wear glasses? We should have been culled. [etc.]
I disagree. Yes, the simple "the organism dies because of some trait, so there are less offspring with that trait in the next generation" is somewhat true today, as you say. But natural selection extends to much more than that.
For starters, sexual selection. Nowadays people have LOTS of choice in selecting a partner; it is very common to have many partners and even children with multiple partners. In addition, the number of children that people have is very variable - more and more elect to have none, while some people have quite a lot. All of this allows a few 'sexually preferred' individuals to contribute to the next generation's gene pool in a significant way, first in that certain individuals have more opportunity to have children - say, because of attractiveness - and second, that the number of kids is a personal choice that varies greatly.
Now, you talk about wearing glasses, diabetes, etc. - these are 'objective' issues that should be selected against, supposedly: "in the wild, such people would never survive". But the fact that we live in a different environment doesn't mean that OTHER selection pressures, perhaps just as strong, don't exist. They are just different.
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:4, Funny)
Well, anecdotally, I have observed that a lot of stupid and ugly people are having children. I don't meant his flippantly, I mean it literally.
I think the grand-parent has a very good point -- the people who are producing children are not being selected based on attractiveness, or ability to earn an income, or any form of "breeding of the fittest", they are being selected on their willingness to put out. I know in my high school, the biggest idiots were the ones having children. Repeatedly usually. Sometimes, they were helping to perpetuate a cycle of poverty of kids being born to poor, uneducated people, and having very few opportunities in life.
Modern society insulates people from any of the good parts of natural selection. Between welfare footing the bill for the kid, or irresponsible people who go around serially knocking up everyone they come across (no pun intended
I would argue that your point of "sexually preferred" people is more like "sexually available" -- they're not the most attractive or desireable people, they are whoever is handy. There's just way too many people peeing in the gene pool.
Cheers
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part. All of us who wear glasses? We should have been culled. All these people developing diabetes from eating too much sugar? Selected against. Asthma? You get the picture.
Your assertion presupposes that those genetic traits are actually inferior and not suitable for continued survival, which is unknowable until evolution has a chance to ferret them out. Poor eyesight could very well be an evolutionary advantage. Many predators have notoriously poor eyesight (for example monitor lizards and cats), but can hear/smell/taste far better which makes them great hunters and excellent candidates for evolutionary survival.
Diabetes? Type 2 diabetes can often go untreated (medically) managed solely by exercise and diet. The abundance of society's processed foods which contain obscene amounts of sugar is the biggest enemy of type 2. So you have a genetic class of people that need to exercise more and eat healthier.
I'm not saying that every disease is actually an advantage, but it's presumptuous of us to believe, from our limited temporal footprint in the history of evolution, that we can tell the difference between an evolutionary advantage and a weakness that should be culled. It frequently takes many thousands of years for natural selection to determine a victor in terms of evolution, and often times species we would consider inferior have prevailed over seemingly superior creatures.
At this point in time, things we might consciously decide to cull from the gene pool with genetic modification may actually be against our own interests. One person says "We fixed his eyes", another person says "But you broke his ears".
I disagree, there is still 'natural' selection (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Natural Selection no longer applies to humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I can't agree with that last statement, having been a step-parent to 2 of "Jerry's" kids for 17 years. Regardless of the physical problems and the fact that one has already died at age 34 of MMD, they were, and are glad to be alive. So don't try to put words in a hypothetical childs mouth, thats not what comes out when they make their wishes known.
--
Cheers, Gene
Re: (Score:2)
You ignored all of the aspects of his hypothetical, the key one being If you had the power to choose to produce a guaranteed healthy child and chose not to.
Your "rebuttal" is irrelevant, as the children to whom you refer weren't produced by a parent with the power to have otherwise guaranteed their health.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure I do, but your picture is a very narrow view of the idea of natural selection.
Consider that humans are the dominant species on the planet today for essentially two reasons: we form communities, and we develop tools to overcome our weaknesses. Neither of these has anything in particular to do with any individual's physical strengths
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The human race - and this goes for all other species - was never "improving" since evolution is not a directed process. It merely changes. Take your teleological reasoning and wheesht.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part. ...
Glasses, insulin and much of the modern medicine is a novelty that has only been available for more less a century. During the other hundred thousands years that humans were around they were being selected by diseases much like may of the other animals.
And the fact that we do have cure for several types of illness and diseases this does not mean that we are immune to natural selection. Natural selection does act, even if the subject is not killed. A person that get sterile for some reason is being selected
Unnatural Selection (Score:3, Insightful)
Now imagine that you were one of those people who didn't do that for you
Good Science meet bad math (Score:5, Informative)
Some people are 8 feet tall.
Some people are 4 feet tall.
Therefore, people vary in height by 200%.
It's obvious to see the failed logic in that case, that's the same thing here, just because 10% might potentially be variable, that doesn't mean any single person even exists at each extreme.
Re:Good Science meet bad math (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good Science meet REALLY bad math (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genom
The X chromosome comprises ~5% of the genome while the Y chromosome is ~1%. Since women are XX and men are XY, men and women differ by ~6%.
If chimps are only 2% different from men, then men are more closely related to chimps than women. QED
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From your numbers, male humans have about 1% of their genes that simply do not exist in female humans. If some genes truely code for behavioral modifiers, then there is a very good chance some of those are found on the Y chromosome. Women can't have those genes, by definition. Ergo, the conclusion should be: If genes sometimes code for behavior, men have a wider range of possible beh
Re: (Score:2)
The race question. (Score:2)
If there is this much variation between two individuals, does this finally disprove the whole "race" myth once and for all? Appearance only accounts for at most 15% of a persons genes. Since there are no "race specific" genes, and the science is basically saying that there is massive difference between two individuals, when will the religious ideology catch up to the science?
When are we going to classify people according to their genetic quality/type and not their appearance?
Race and genetics (Score:3, Interesting)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_techno logy/article2007490.ece [independent.co.uk]
"The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race o
Race and genetics cont. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but it can be determined very accurately if people have recent (broadly speaking) ancestry in a particular part of the world.
"Do you live in Nazi Germany, 1940?"
Ah, the Hitler thing. How original.
"If they do mix, how "the research" identifies them?"
Using non-binary designations, probably. It's like colors - there is no discrete line where one color becomes another, yet people rarely go around proclaiming that "colors do not exist". Racial designations is a matter of utility and economy of information.
When it comes to "tagging" however, the old racial classificiations remain remarkably efficient - I.e. if you compare how people self-identify with their genetic makeup, a computer will usually sort them into their own self-classified category with a high degree of precision. Certain fashionable ethnic identifiers are far less effective than racial ones, however, I.e. "hispanic".
"My guess is that a lot of people in here or in science have a bias towards a racially segregated society, where people don't mix, just like the US and european countries."
Ah yes, scientists are all racists - that must be it. Interestingly, this kind of exchange is rather typical, I.e:
Scientists: "We have lots of new cool genetic data!"
Lewontinites: "Hitler! Racism! Hitler! Racism!"
etc. etc.
Re:Race and genetics cont. pt. II (Score:2)
2. "That means absolutely nothing. How much recent is?"
Did you read the article I linked regarding the Hapmap? You can very accurately pinpoint ancestry by looking at a person's genome. This will, as the article points out, help forensic science, etc. a great deal.
3. "Without precise definitions and evidence backing it all, this "idea" is nothing more than wishful-thinking."
Again, did you read the article I linked regarding the subject of this entire post? I
Re: (Score:2)
Couple of points though:
1: Brazil is a far more "mixed" country than the United States - I.e. there is more of a color continuum than in the US.
2: Hence, self-identified race is a less useful concept in Brazil than in the states, and a much less useful concept than when comparing, say, nigerians with icelanders. (Especially as many visible racial markers have started to mix around seriously in the population)
3: Still, as the diagram i
Re: (Score:2)
chimpanzees=98% human (Score:4, Interesting)
and previous to this announcement, all people were 99.9% the same
the implication here is that people are actually as low as 99% the same
which means one crazy ass inference:
it should be possible to find two people and a chimp such that and person A is equally different from the chimpanzee as he is from the person B
no way
Re: (Score:2)
Re:chimpanzees=98% human (Score:5, Funny)
Re:chimpanzees=98% human (Score:4, Funny)
Elected?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
define "human" [bookswelike.net]
Misunderstanding (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly folks, get it together already.
How does this impact genetic therapies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The CNV variations wouldnt show that something is missing, but it might help with dosing requirements. If there are more copies of a blood clotting factor in a person who has just survived a mild stroke, the
Um... not quite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Gene Expression? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, salesdroids of the pharmaceutical industry, IMHO.
CC.
Re:Gene Expression? WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
God vs Man (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it's not entirely on topic, but seeing that the bible describes humans as flesh and blood and as one, it would be interesting to see what this up-to-ten-percent-difference would put science against religious belief.
Re:God vs Man (Score:5, Funny)
Re:God vs Man (Score:5, Funny)
100% of the atoms making us up are DIFFERENT. No two person has the exact SAME atoms!!
Oh please say it ain't true! Say it ain't true! Now I will have to meditate for half an hour in my religious beliefs just to be able to breath again!
Re: (Score:2)
Watch carefully now, children. We're about to see a fine example of natural selection at work...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to a lot of people that when you are talking to a Christian, you have no idea what they believe, since they seem to cherry pick what scientific evidence they are willing to accept. So you neve have any idea how to talk or argue to them. The problem has existed for 100 of years, since before Galileo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Christianity is a general term for the group of people that follow Jesus. There are several Christian religions, you just can't put all of them in the same pack! Maybe in the USA there's only the Catholics and the Protestants... but even among these two there is a lot of difference on their beliefs.
And elsewhere in the world there's even more Christian religions! For example, here at Brazil we have Umbanda[1] and Candomblé[2], two Christian religions that mix the Catholic and African trad
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not religious, but let me try: Adam was created by God using mud from a river bank. The materials available in common earth are not different from the ones found in a human body.
All the matter in the Universe was concentrated in one single place and time, then it exploded and eventually became all the stars, planets and creatures we know today. God is everywhere and we all are part of God.
Simple creatures evolve to become complex creatures. If
Re: (Score:2)
"the bible describes humans as flesh and blood and as one"
What, are you implying that christians believe humanity is one giant homogenous blob of flesh? Or that we are all clones? We illusions of theirs does this 10% threaten to shatter?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact we already have, it's been discovered that the bible is just some book written around 1700 years ago and has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life, or any other scientific matters. As such it contains no theories and you can now discard it as anything but a fanciful fairytale.
Bible is not 1700 years old, per se (Score:3, Informative)
Informative?
Cheers.
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible [wikipedia.org] gives an estimate of 1500 years BC for the Pentateuch (first 5 books of Old Testament).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:God vs Man .. who are you talking to (Score:2)
I don't know why your asking there's only you here.
At Last (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
oblig Steven Wright (Score:3, Funny)
except this one guy
Differences between people (Score:3, Interesting)
more examples of fuzzy math (Score:5, Funny)
monkeys and humans 98% the same, and this new genetic analysis indicates human up to 10% different, or, only 90% the same
therefore, 98%-90% = 8% difference in monkey versus human random shakespeare manuscript creation
8% of 1 million is 8,000
therefore, 8,000 more monkeys than humans are required to produce one shakespeare manuscript
it's a scientific fact folks
(as well as all other "facts" gleaned from this 10% number in the article)
Actually,it's better than that (Score:2)
Concrete applications of fuzzy math (Score:2)
I doubt you could herd a bunch of monkeys together and do the same, unless Slashdot started posting articles about bananas
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1 million monkeys randomly typing typewriters = 1 shakespeare manuscript created
My keyboard has 103 keys. Placing a 1e6 monkeys behind 1e6 of these computer would generate a 1/103 = 0.009 chance for hitting the exact right key. The chance of generating for example Titus Andronicus (140.187 characters, including spaces) is therefore (1/103)^140187. Nearly infinite I would say. Even generating Sonnet XVIII, Shall I compare thee to a summer's day (614 characters including spaces) would need 103^614 monkeys, again infinite. One million monkeys, using 1e6 computers
Pedant reporting for duty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wc -m mydna
Does it return a huge number, or 4?
10% variation (Score:3, Interesting)
Genes probably don't matter so much (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Gene expression can differ depending on environmental factors.
As a simple analogy, your DNA = a cookbook. While many recipies are cooked automatically by the systems in your body, other recipies are cooked or not cooked depending on the environment in which the organism finds itself.
I haven't read a good article on gene expression, really. Various mechanisms are alluded to in the literature, but it seems to be unclear how gene expression is or is not triggered. More specifically, researchers seem to know that this particular mechanism turns a given gene on or off, but how that mechanism is triggered is unknown (or not the focus of the article/research).
Also, I'd guess that environmental gene expression stars in the womb - that the fetus gets clues to the external environment from the nutrients and chemicals coming from the mother and adjusts itself accordingly. You could test that by somehow getting ahold of some in-vitro twins and implanting them at different times, I guess? But there probably still would be too many variables.
Re:Genes probably don't matter so much (Score:4, Interesting)
One very interesting thing they also talked about was the possible transgenerational effects by famine as an example of how environments affects the human organism. Överkalix in far northern Sweden was very isolated so there were struck by famine several times. Being Swedes they were also kept very good records of births, deaths etc. A researcher decided to look at the health of those families over 3 generations. I'd say they found something quite astounding: there was a link in grandmothers food supply and their granddaugters mortality rate, same for grandfathers and their grandsons (the link was either all on the male line or all on the female line).
For those who wish to read a little more about the transgenerational the researchers has written an (non-scholar) article at the University of Bristols website http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2005/866 [bris.ac.uk]. I think there will a lot of really interesting developments in the gene expression research in the coming years.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't know what it is you've been reading. Does the JAK/STAT system ring a bell..? the MAP Kinase cascade..? Or how about
Here's what I find interesting (Score:2)
Better Article (Score:5, Informative)
This piece gets a few of the key facts correct where reuters went wrong, such as the already-mentioned "10% vs 10x" difference between individuals. It's a great read!
The secret... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Real world example (Score:5, Funny)
So Logically.. (Score:2)
"Race is just a social construct" (Score:2)
comparing apples with pears (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The changes they seeing produce functional differences - not cosmetic.
Re: (Score:2)