Scientists Discover Mechanism That Gives Shape to Life 138
First time accepted submitter mcswell writes "Daniël Noordermeer and Denis Duboule, two researchers at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and the University of Geneva claim to have discovered how vertebrae get built in sequence in embryos (and by extension, how ribs, arms and so forth wind up in the right place). The story is that the DNA strands contain a linear series of HOX genes, and that the strands slowly unwind over a period of two days, successively exposing each HOX gene, thereby allowing it to be transcribed to form the segments of the vertebra. Snakes, it seems, have a defect that causes the system not to shut down; eventually it 'runs out of steam.' The same process is said to apply in many invertebrates, including worms (presumably segmented worms) and insects."
What the HOX? (Score:2)
Now if only we can find the gene that causes ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only we can find the gene that causes ignorance.
I think that's related to the HOAX gene. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
We are all ignorant. It would be challenging to find a single person who has all of the knowledge necessary to build a simple pencil (including extraction of raw materials; don't forget to include government applications to open the mine or take trees from the forest) let alone anything complicated.
The question is, why do we express opinion on subject matter we are ignorant in.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, why do we express opinion on subject matter we are ignorant in.
Our ignorance is so profound we are oftentimes ignorant of it itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the Italian proverb: Molto sa chi sa che non sa.
-Much knows someone who knows he doesn't know.
Re: (Score:2)
For the non-molecular biologist among us (Score:5, Informative)
What a Hox gene might be [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Far Side (Score:2)
Hox genes are the basic sequence of embryogenesis (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA is saying that organisms are built in slices, from the tip of the head down to the tip of the tail. These slices are activated in order, from first to last. It is the same in fruit flies, worms, whales, dogs, monkeys, deer and humans. The HOX genes control the basic sequence, like a player piano roll or a series of punch cards.
The reason we get so many different organisms, like whales, fruit flies and elephants, is evolution [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whoo-eee! Fruitful discovery./quote.
Well, informative discovery would probably be more correct. NOW we will see if this discovery will actually bear fruit in finding therapies or the ability to correct for certain early birth defects such as Spinda Bifida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The reason we get so many different organisms, like whales, fruit flies and elephants, is evolution" That's irrelevant here.
As for the article, the most interesting part is that instead of traditional regulation, where genes are turned on and off by specific interactions of gene area with other molecules (proteins, microRNA), the authors propose a mechanical mechanism where active and inactive HOX genes are spatially segregated in two blobs of DNA.
The question is what mechanism provides persistent of this
It's in Science 'cuz now we can SEE it? (Score:5, Interesting)
A caveat as I write this critique, I have only read the linked article and the abstract of the original scientific article, not the full Science article.
Also, I'm a Ph.D. in Developmental Biology from 2000.
If unwinding the super-coiled DNA is considered the chronometer for embryonic segmentation, what makes the DNA unwind at such a specific time? I'm not sure how much new light is shed by this work. We've known for >20 years that transcription factors help "open" DNA for the transcription process. We've also known for >20 years that HOX genes in their clusters are the masters of structural differentiation. Put these two facts together and we can see it should be obvious that the HOX genes need to be "opened" sequentially.
In the end, we are left with the still burning question of "What controls the HOX genes and their clusters?"
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's like MIDI file format for music - there are actually instructions that specify specific time delays. Other instructions activate and deactivate notes for particular instruments. Though it doesn't actually specify what an instrument should sound like. That's the job of the other data files, known as SoundFonts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to a purvey of information posted on Wikipedia, Hox transcription factor proteins produced from the expression of the Hox genes activate the transcription of specific genes while at the same repressing the expression of other genes. Hox proteins are themselves regulated by other genes, such as gap genes and pair-rule genes, and there's a transcription factor cascade which controls the whole process for each stage, which has been explored in depth. Apparently, there's been a lot of work in this fie
Re:It's in Science 'cuz now we can SEE it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. From the abstract and press release, the authors imply that the opening of the super-coiled DNA is necessary and sufficient for the HOX genes to be temporally regulated. Now parsimony and K.I.S.S. usually are the correct ways of thinking about things, but based on what we already know from 10 years ago, simple unwinding can not be the temporal mechanism.
tl;dr summary: We still don't know what starts the cascade of temporal regulation. I don't think this work moves us very far upstream in the regu
Re: (Score:2)
HOTAIR? (Score:1)
Non-coding RNA (ncRNA) has been shown to be abundant in Hox clusters. In humans, 231 ncRNA may be present. One of these, HOTAIR, silences in trans (it is transcribed from the HOXC cluster and inhibits late HOXD genes) by binding to Polycomb-group proteins (PRC2).[19] The chromatin structure is essential for transcription but it also requires the cluster to loop out of the chromosomal territory.
-KI
Re:HOTAIR? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading that Cell article when sonic hedgehog was first published. It made me chuckle when I got to the part where they cite Sega, since I had a great time playing Sonic 1 on the Genesis at university.
many answers, but so many questions (Score:2)
(reposting as myself, sorry.) Attempts to explain the mechanics of DNA leave me with so many burning questions I end up as a bemused pile of ash with some ACGT letters in it. Besides "What controls the HOX genes and their clusters?"
Re: (Score:2)
so is there another clock that turns on this clock?
My guess is yes, there is something else. It may not be a protein but a small nuclear RNA.
but when new cells form in that area weeks later, how do they know their place?
Molecular landmarks sort of like what makes one intersection different from another even if both have a coffee shop, a fast food place, and a gas station. The landmarks could be on the cells, on the extracellular matrix, a diffusable protein gradient, or some other way to differentiate an environment.
Is the HOX system reused to control the layout of my arm down to five jointed fingers? If not, what takes its place at lower levels?
Actually, they are. Nature likes to re-purpose genes temporally and spacially to do more than 1 thing when in the correc
Re: (Score:1)
"Does the HOX clock run in every cell? If not, which ones? If each one, what keeps them in sync? Some cells are 3 days old during this process, some are brand new"
I'm the original OP, and yes, I wondered about this too--particularly how the current unwinding gets transmitted down the length of the animal as the cells undergo mitosis. Or maybe it only unwinds a little with each division, and only the cells at the posterior end (which I presume are in the last segment produced) govern further division? Exce
Another burning question (Score:1)
A few years ago I found out that the explorers in the science of paper folding have proposed that any three dimensional physical object can be formed by folding a single sheet. That resonated with my contact with embryology (which included watching frog eggs divide under a stereo microscope). And it still resonates with my work with special education kids where I puzzle about which layers of their motor skill function stack are not working well.
So another burning question, or at least request for explanatio
Re: (Score:2)
It's the first step. I did not read the full article either, only browsed Figures, concentrating on Fig.3 (which is clearer for general audience, my biology-related Ph.D. is much further from the subject) but as far as I understand they discovered a sequence of regulatory events. I am not sure how new this is. From your remark it looks like it is not a big deal.
Snakes (Score:5, Insightful)
The sinuous body of the snake is a perfect illustration. A few years ago, Duboule discovered in these animals a defect in the Hox gene that normally stops the vertebrae-making process. “Now we know what’s happening. The process doesn’t stop, and the snake embryo just keeps on making vertebrae, all identical, until the process just runs out of steam.”
Looks more like a feature than a bug to me. Another fine example of evolution by mutations.
Re:Snakes (Score:4, Funny)
The real amazing discovery is that snakes run on steam!
Re: (Score:1)
Steam powered "Snow Snake": http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wioconto/loggingphotos3.htm [ancestry.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Dragons are always snortin' out steam. Must be some connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even the tip. When moving our snake's tank a short distance (a little Western Ribbon snake, essentially a fancy-looking garter snake), a piece of her tank furniture fell over and severed the tip of her tail (maybe half an inch). I can assure you it didn't grow back.
It did continue to flex and jump around the tank for a minute or so, which was interesting. And FYI, the snake did OK, she hardly bled at all and was back to normal within a few days. We did consult our vet. :)
Re: (Score:3)
They can't. You're probably thinking of worms.
The only vertebrate with a (very limited) form of limb regeneration is the salamander, and that's an amphibian, not a reptile like the snake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not when you're on a plane!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Run out of steam" is not very specific, including in TFA. That's the kind of thing I'd put on a biology test if I forgot the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Teleology called. They'd like their terms "defect", "feature", and "bug" back.
So does Genesis 3:14, but that's a whole different can of... snakes.
Re: (Score:2)
a lizard with no feet?
It would be pretty useless, can't walk and can't wriggle to move.
Re: (Score:2)
So snakes suffer from (Score:1)
an infinite loop error?
Re: (Score:1)
Defect? (Score:1)
Given how old and successful snakes are as a life form, I'd hardly call this a "defect". Just a "fascinating difference" in how the genes are expressed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call it a "random feature". ;)
Two headed snakes. (Score:2)
it will grow from the top to the bottom, one slice at a time
First the neck, then the thorax, then the lumbar, and so on,”
I wonder how two headed snakes happen. According to TFA, I can imagine how a snake head could have two bodies, but I've never heard of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conjoined twins. In this case, you start out with two heads which then merge into a single body.
Re: (Score:2)
Conjoined twins. In this case, you start out with two heads which then merge into a single body.
Can you have conjoined twins in an egg situation? Aren't each of the fertilized eggs isolated from each other by a membrane or incipient shell?
Snake? (Score:2)
I'm sure there's a joke to be made here somewhere...
Re:Snake? (Score:4, Informative)
It would either be short and fat, or dead because there wouldn't be enough room for its organs to grow. Either way, it wouldn't slither very well, and would be at something of a disadvantage.
The use of the word "defect," as you can probably already imagine, is a very biased way of looking at things and will probably do more harm than good. Although, of course, at the time the mutation first appeared, when snakes still had non-vestigial limbs, it probably was at least partially something of an inconvenience.
Intelligent Design... (Score:2)
Question: How do the Jesuits feel about biological science vs. intelligent design? I assume (with total ignorance of their ideas on the
Re: (Score:1)
The Catholic Church is cool with it (Score:2)
Galileo was a long time ago. The Catholic church, by now, has no beef with the well-settled science on Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.
Although I'm not quite sure what process they use to decide which parts should be taken literally (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus) and which should be discarded as poor translations of ancient epics (the seven days of Creation, Adam and Eve, etc.)
And it baffles me that any form of Christianity decided to include Revelation; whoever wrote that had clearly discovered some Magic
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Only the Old Testament. They can't read far enough.
This is really amazing... (Score:2)
Wow!
Decades ago, in ninth grade biology class, I asked my biology teacher how a Hydra (or other creatures) knows how to form its shape from cells, but he hemmed and hawed, and essentially would not admit that he did not know, or even that no one knew. We had been supposed to look at some Hydra in class, but they never arrived or something like that. I later studied Hydra in Ecology and Evolution grad studies, but people still did not quite know how they formed their shapes.
A couple lessons there for me I gu
Snake experiment (Score:2)
Plants Have Shapes (And Are Alive) Too! (Score:2)
So in the future we can build things using DNA (Score:1)
Other mutant HOX genes in action (Score:1)
Need This For My Own Snake! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think I'll call it Evolution.
Macro and micro (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mean to pick on you so much as give you ammunition with which to fire back.
Anything where cannons may be pointed in the direction of Creationists piques my interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing weaponry of any kind at Creationism is a waste of time. If you want to make a difference, go to the source, and defeat the charismatic leaders by revealing their true intentions to their power base. The rhetoric is not the danger—it's meaningless, irrelevant mudslinging meant to confuse and delay the enemy. It's a power game, and dealing with the symptoms before you fix the source is only going to keep you treading water.
The people who invent Creationist stories don't really believe what they
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing weaponry of any kind at Creationism is a waste of time.
Not if we nuke them from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting statement.
If the genetically-engineered "fluorescent cats" were released into the wild, and reproduced with the current population, if you were to review the DNA from an instance resulting population 50000 years from now, by what means would you determine this as a case of design (but, "design we can ignore") rather than occurring purely through evolutionary mechanisms, presuming you lacked the a-priori knowledge of the historical genetic engineering?
What would be the physical marker/differentia
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one—those cats would be at a huge disadvantage. They wouldn't last long in the wild at all.
Two—due to epigenetics, codon bias, Chargaff's second rule, and other sequence biases, it's fairly probable that the sequence itself would be under pressure to mutate regardless of evolutionary pressure, possibly rendering itself inert. The enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP) that most labs use is optimized for mammalian expression through things like intron addition, but not at these lower
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your thoughtful (and thorough) response.
I do not have the depth of domain knowledge in biology that you do (indeed, the software analogies were quite clarifying), so do not have the ability to specify which particular cases may be more "interesting" in terms of my thought-experiment, but I'm rather intrigued as to what might be a method for definitively discerning the origins of a particular biological feature for the "general case".
Say, as another scenario, we propose that 50000 years from now,
Re: (Score:2)
There are two categories, I'd say, in which genetic engineering could be undetectable with present technology:
1. A very small mutation or alteration, especially one produced by selective exposure to a chemical mutagen such as EMS. This has been a common technique in biology for many, many years to produce defective organisms; the idea being that if it's broken, you can figure out what it was supposed to do by examining what is no longer working. A mutation like this would just resemble a random event; it wo
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be most amused to run into an intelligent design advocate claiming God created families, and that genera and species evolved. A creationist finally admitting they're a monkey's uncle. [wikipedia.org]
-
According to its kind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all hinges on the precise meaning of the word translated "kind" in Genesis (...) Humans were created during the sixth period of creation as God's attempt to see how many of his own qualities he could squeeze into free space in the chimp genome.
Allow me to point out that an "omniscient" and "omnipotent" god would have no need to attempt anything. He's omnipotent, thus he can do anything and everything, no holds barred, no need to attempt something that he is guaranteed by definition to be able to do. And being omniscient he would know the outcome of any such attempt without trying.
The christian god is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent, which is one reason any human attempt to understand such a being or even explain his actions is futile, w
Grammar (Score:2)
Allow me to point out that an "omniscient" and "omnipotent" god would have no need to attempt anything.
"Attempt" was sloppy wording, for which I apologize. Grammatically, I needed a noun in that position.
And being omniscient he would know the outcome of any such attempt without trying.
The current age is how God demonstrates to the not-omniscient created beings (spirit creatures and humans) that man cannot effectively rule man.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we're omniscient and we don't even know it!
The way of man does not belong to man (Score:2)
The current age is how God demonstrates to the not-omniscient created beings (spirit creatures and humans) that man cannot effectively rule man.
And you know this... how?
The way of man does not belong to man (Jeremiah 10:23). Satan has challenged God, calling him a liar who withholds good from humankind (Genesis 3:2-5), right in front of millions of angels (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10).
You didn't address the other point, which was that trying to ascribe intent to an omnipotent and omniscient being is nonsense.
God makes his intent clear in the Bible. He built this earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18) by human beings who serve him. And he always fulfills his purposes (Isaiah 55:10-11), even when other forces make him change exactly how those purposes will be fulfilled.
[God] should know the proper way or ways to ensure that everybody will believe
And this proper way is not by forcing
Re: (Score:2)
but it doesn't solve the problem.
Man cannot solve man's problems; only God can solve them. He reveals his intent and his latest plan to achieve it in stages: the Torah, then the rest of the Hebrew scriptures, then the Greek scriptures. Spilling the beans [wikipedia.org] all at once would affect the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
God allows evil to exist to illustrate a point (Score:2)
Secondly, Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil before eating the fruit
But they knew their maker from a snake in the grass.
Christian theology associates the serpent with Satan, although there is nothing in the story itself to indicate this.
Explicit identification of the serpent with Satan is found later in the Bible. John of Patmos wrote in Revelation 12:9 of "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth".
If Satan tempted man, it's because God allowed it.
God allows evil to exist to illustrate a point: that evil is a destructive force that man cannot contain alone.
given the premise that there is evil in the world: is God evil, is he not omniscient, is he impotent to stop it, or does he simply not exist?
Allowing evil != being evil. God hates evil more than people do, but it's there for a reason. For one thing, it helps people a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the Christian notion of an omniscient & omnipotent God is a later conception. The story in Genesis taken at face value depicts a God who is neither.
So the christian god... evolved to become omniscient and omnipotent? that is awesome :)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it merely affirms that all the other less precise mechanisms did not survive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If there's an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the world, then nothing can "happen by accident." Ergo, in such a universe you would have no means to distinguish accident from non-accident.
Re: (Score:1)
A "god" can be omnipotent without being omniscient. For example, suppose you ran a powerful simulation on a Linux box(es) of a universe and it evolved intelligent life. You'd essentially become a "god" to that universe and be omnipotent. (We may be in such a simulation and couldn't tell the difference.)
You could poke into the code and data and fuck with anything you wanted. You are omnipotent because every actual bit is under your control. However, you will not know all the details in the simulation, and ar
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Indeed it does. A blind watchmaker [wikipedia.org], to be precise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's turtles all the way down.
Procrastination gene (Score:3, Funny)
The gene that controls procrastination
Re: (Score:1)
You said it.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
That is confidant, not cosmonaut.
Re: (Score:2)
Snakes have a defect!!! Then, they ARE in league with the devil! Grandma was right all along!
Crap, Annon, you beat me to it. It's only a defect if what you wanted is not a snake, for them is a feature. Opinions may vary but I for one don't feel so defective because I don't have gills or feathers for instance...