Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

All Humans Are Mutants, Say Scientists 309

Hugh Pickens writes "In 1935, JBS Haldane, one of the founders of modern genetics, studied a group of men with the blood disease hemophilia and speculated that there would be about 150 new mutations in each human being. Now BBC reports that scientists have used next generation sequencing technology to produce a far more direct and reliable estimate of the number of mutations by looking at thousands of genes belonging to two Chinese men who are distantly related, having shared a common ancestor who was born in 1805. To establish the rate of mutation, the team examined an area of the Y chromosome which is unique because, apart from rare mutations, the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son so mutations accumulate slowly over the generations. Despite many generations of separation, researchers found only 12 differences among all the DNA letters examined. The two Y chromosomes were still identical at 10,149,073 of the 10,149,085 letters examined."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All Humans Are Mutants, Say Scientists

Comments Filter:
  • Quality reporting (Score:4, Informative)

    by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @03:49PM (#29290261)

    SMBC [smbc-comics.com] is completely accurate on this count.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @04:03PM (#29290443)

    Y = 1/300th total chromosome

    How do you figure that? Humans have 24 chromosomes [accessexcellence.org], so Y = 1/24, by my count.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @04:05PM (#29290481) Journal
    I'd suspect that the actual paper is probably more interesting in some way, nobody would waste time, money, and perfectly good grad students to determine that mutation does, in fact, occur in humans. Quantification of mutation rates, examination of which regions mutate quickly and which are highly conserved, and the like are all legitimate and nonobvious.

    Probably just didn't survive a collision with the pop-science filter very well...
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @04:17PM (#29290651) Homepage
    No. You forget that men get an X also. And they don't get a back up, so any mutation in the X is more likely to show up in men.

    In other words, the X evolves faster than the Y, and as men only get one X, anything on a single X becomes FAR more important to the men then it is to the women. It is only things that are on BOTH X chromosomes that are important to women.

  • by CaseCrash ( 1120869 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @04:18PM (#29290663)
    According to this [wikipedia.org] I get closer to 1/53

    Total bases: 3,079,843,747

    Y Chromosome: 57,741,652

    3,079,843,747 / 57,741,652 = 53.338...

    so about one 53rd
  • Re:Aha! Evidence.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @04:19PM (#29290675) Journal
    Sacrilege!

    The Fourth Council of Ristorante determined that there is no such thing as "slightly" al dente. It is al dente or not al dente; there is no in-between. The path to damnation is lined with compromise, and we'll have none of that here!

    Glory to his name, Ramen.
  • WOW (Score:4, Informative)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @05:26PM (#29291677) Journal
    You have so many things wrong here that there is absolutely NO reason to try and correct you on it. Just so that you know, all virus incorporate their RNA/DNA back into your DNA. Some will actually excise snippets of your DNA out to replace theirs in there. And mutations are not just base pair changes, but also addition as well as deletions. Finally, just because a virus can hit any of the chromosomes does not preclude the ability to hit the y chromosomes.
  • by Yetihehe ( 971185 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @05:34PM (#29291769)
    Top posting...
    > No, what?
    >> Do you know what is the worst thing in internet?
  • by poopdeville ( 841677 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @05:35PM (#29291783)

    If you were willing to do a little basic research, you would realize that socialized health care is a good thing.

    Compare the following ratio: life expectancy / price spent on health care per person, by country.

    You will find that the United States is near dead last among Western countries. That means we are spending more money than other countries, per capita, and getting less for our money.

    Affording your own health care would be a hell of a lot easier if it was significantly cheaper. If it was cheaper, people would be healthier and have more money to put into activities that actually drive industry. This is a good thing, unless you hate America and want to see it continue its decline. Unless the promises G.W. Bush made regarding health care and social security are rescinded or otherwise solved, every single American tax dollar will be going towards paying retirees, instead of maintaining our roads and other common goods where economy of scale can give us significantly better deals than a single person can accomplish alone.

  • Re:12 or 4? (Score:3, Informative)

    by reverseengineer ( 580922 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @06:12PM (#29292289)
    As part of getting enough Y chromosomes for their experiment, they inserted their two donor genomes into two groups of cell cultures to amplify the amount of genetic material. The cell lines are made from lymphocytes which have been infected with the Epstein-Barr virus; it's more or less a culture of Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer cells. They isolated the Y chromosomes (they got around 600 nanograms of each of the two lines), and then did their sequencing.

    The problem with amplifying the material in this manner is that it's bound to introduce a few more mutations, since there is cell division involved, and cancer cells in particular can be a bit sloppy in replicating genes. So, to account for the mutations caused by their amplification procedure, they double checked the twelve candidate mutations they found against the donor's DNA from blood samples (not amplified by cell culture) and against the same regions in very close male relatives of the donors (if you are male and have a biological full brother, then your Y chromosomes should be almost completely identical). They scratched eight candidate mutations off as coming from the cell culture process, leaving four.
  • by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @06:25PM (#29292441)

    You can do whatever you want. I like being dry and comfortable on my bike and not having my work clothes get sweaty. When I first started out, I just wore whatever and thought the bike clothes were stupid. One ride in the right shorts and I was sold. (I wear shorts with a shell.)

    It might also be that when I first started biking, I weighed ~250 pounds and was terribly out of shape.

    Of course, one would point out that since I buy my work clothes on clearance, my bike clothes are the most expensive kit I own. (With the exception of my dive gear, but that's different.) It's actually more cost effective for me to wear a tux on my bike than the bike shorts.

    Another point to make is visibility. If I look like a guy on a bike, then maybe someone in a car will look up from their bagel / cell phone and say, "whoa, that is one UGLY outfit." At least they've seen me, which is really all I can do.

    Finally, I'm smart all day at work. Let me put on the superhero outfit and look like a moron for 40 minutes, okay?

  • by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Wednesday September 02, 2009 @06:25PM (#29292443)

    I think they're a common side-effect of sickle-cell anaemia, a mutation which also provides resistance to malaria.

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Working...