Human Gene Count Slashed 504
jd continues: "This has the potential for making life extremely interesting for genetic engineers, given that both individual genes and interactions between genes must be proportionately more complex, in order to get the same level of complexity out. Half the number of genes equates to twice the information encoded in forms other than discrete physical blocks of code.
There is no mention in the article of a story running in 2002 of genetic therapies unexpectedly causing cancer, although if you now factor in the increased complexity of interactions, it is possible that such side-effects can be better understood and therefore prevented. The new estimates, therefore, are more than just idle curiosity but have the potential for impacting how the science is approached."
Ah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah (Score:2)
But I still feel so insecure about my humanhood...
Only 20,000 genes?? Aw, man.
Re:Ah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ah (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ah (Score:2)
Re:Ah (Score:2)
Re:Ah (Score:2)
Eric Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts is quoted in the CNN story
Well, I guess he would know...
Re:Ah (Score:2, Funny)
No, Microsoft has been saying that the problem is how you use it.
Genomes? (Score:3, Informative)
Brandon
Re:Genomes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Internets? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Genomes? (Score:4, Funny)
Does that mean instead of being slashed, the number of genomes has been dotted?
Re:Genomes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Genomes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Only 25,000 genomes? (Score:4, Funny)
"The estimate for the number of genomes in human genetic code has been savagely revised downwards. The new estimate, of between 20,000 to 25,000 genomes..."
Only 20,000 to 25,000 genomes? I was sure that the number of genomes in human genetic code was closer to 6,500,000,000 [ibiblio.org].
Re:Genomes? (Score:4, Funny)
> wouldn't be more correct to say that the number of
> genomes in the human genome is equal to the number
> of men living in the earth?
I guess that as a typical geek you find women to be a completely different species.....
Steve.
genes, not genomes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:genes, not genomes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:genes, not genomes (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. I'd go out on a limb and say it was the process of translation or even protein folding that is the actual holy grail.
There are some camps that believe that the DNA->mRNA interaction (aka transcription) is less complex and more predictable than the mRNA->Protein interaction (aka translation). If my memory serves me well, the process of transcription usually produces a fairly good "copy" of the DNA sequence, while translation seems to have a few unknowns in how he sequence is transformed into AA chains. And then the way in which the proteins fold, and hence gain their function is still up for grabs.
Complexity for smaller? (Score:3, Interesting)
The iPod Lite Project [theipodliteproject.com] taking orders soon.
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We just have to get used to the fact that we don't have many more genes than a worm," Rubin said.
So how can humans be so complex with relatively few genes?
Seems to me like the instruction sets are the same, while the coding complexity varies?
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:5, Interesting)
More on topic: Why are people surprised that millions of years of evolution has resulted in a high entropy encoding "format" (the genome) whose consituent elements are multipurpose and have complex interactions with each other? An animal is more evolved (has a history of more complex environmental interactions) than a plant, so why shouldn't its genome be less redundant / contain more entropy? Comparisons of number of genes are (to return to the computing analogy) like comparing two processors based on their physical size.
D.
Animals are not more evolved than plants (Score:4, Informative)
It is a mistake to think that supremacy in one area (intelligence) means supremacy in all areas. Some people pride themselves on being efficient workers, others pride themselves on being paid well to do very little. In the biological world, plants would be the "blue pill" type of creature, the type B personalities, and they're REALLY REALLY good at it.
When I was working at Monsanto, I was told that wheat has a genetic strand about three times as long as the human genetic strand. This may or may not have relevance to the rest of the post, but I thought I'd toss it in just because it's interesting.
As another point, the length of the strand doesn't necessarily indicate a more evolved state. It can be assumed that some strands are more efficient than others, and thus don't NEED to be as long. Take Microsoft code, for instance. Just because they take more code to do the job doesn't mean it's a superior product.
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:5, Informative)
Evaluating the function of ncRNA is difficult because as of yet there are no statistically significant markers for them. Given the release today, and trends of late, more and more attention will be put on trying to decipher the utility of "junk" DNA.
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:2)
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:5, Informative)
"But investigators have since sequenced the genomes of diverse species, and it has become abundantly clear that to correlation between numbers of conventional genes and complexity truly is poor. The simple nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (made up of only about 1,000 cells) has about 19,000 protein-coding genes, almost 50 percent more than insects (13,500) and nearly as many as humans (around 25,000). Conversely, the relation between the amount of nonprotein-coding DNA sequences and organism complexity is more sonsistent.
Genes -- Proteins (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently little is known on the exact mechanism, which is a huge impediment to proteomics. As the phenomenon is elucidated, expect to see a lot more useful information coming out of genome projects.
Computationally predicting the 3-D structure and function of a gene is far more important than you probably realize. Reaching this point will revolutionize almost every aspect of your life, from pharmaceuticals, to nutrition, to silico-neural interfaces.
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:4, Insightful)
With less genes we then expect to have a larger amount of downstream interactions between other genes. It might seem that with less genes then we have less to worry about, but we have already speculated for a long time that gene regulatory networks are complex.
To use an analogy (for all you computer geeks), it's like a programmer trying to read poorly modularized code. When you have no idea what class is doing what, and how they interact with other classes (as every class has multiple roles and talks to multiple other classes) then it is difficult to understand why the program behaves the way it does. If the program had many classes that were well modularized and designed with very distinct roles, then it would be easier to understand why things work the way they do.
With less genes and increased complexity we have an even more difficult task. It also highlights some of the reasons on why microarray analysis has not done what we expected it to do. Increasing the complexity and dependency between genes means that we probably are going to take a longer time understanding and extrapolating information from all these networks (which means more job security for me
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:3, Informative)
To up the level of complexity, imagine that the blocks of code are randomly ordered (although blocks of genes tend to stay on the same chromosomes), are all executing in parallel, and can trigger reordering & rewriting of themselves & each other.
Yep, that's going to be one helluva debugger!
Re:Complexity for smaller? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, the complexity now increases.
I could not resist
No the complexity does not increase. Its like it ever waas. We only know now, that it is not that simple as we allways thought.
Some monthes ago, we thought it was simple. We realized things did not really work that good (gen therapy etc.) and wondered why. Now we know: oops, its not simple! And now we can look how to tackle the complexity.
angel'o'sphere
That's genes! Not genomes! (Score:3, Informative)
Go to the back of the class!
Re:That's genes! Not genomes! (Score:5, Informative)
As a mitochondrial researcher, I resent the most important organelle of the cell being overlooked or lumped in together with the nucleus here!
So I would say two genomes
enough... (Score:5, Funny)
great, we've been demoted (Score:4, Funny)
Damn elitist mustard, looking down on us.
Re:great, we've been demoted (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new Arabidopsis overlords.
Re:great, we've been demoted (Score:2)
Damn elitist mustard, looking down on us.
But according to Christ, you can do great things with the faith of a mustard seed [fathershands.com].
Re:great, we've been demoted (Score:2, Funny)
Revised number revised (Score:3, Funny)
Next (Score:2)
Great, more downsizing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great, more downsizing... (Score:2)
People vs. Flowers (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, there's a lot more research going into the human genome than into the Arabidopsis one. So one would naturally presume that the number of human genes would be known better.
But if the estimate for the number of human genes is subject to so much variation, how can you be so sure of that for the Arabidopsis?
Is this a meaningful comparison?
(Not to mention that the entire premise seems to be flawed..)
Re:People vs. Flowers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:People vs. Flowers (Score:2)
Just Curious.
Re:People vs. Flowers (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is, we've had the arabidopsis genome sequenced for a while now. And because the organism has a lower degree of complexity it is a lot easier to study in many ways. I don't know if I'd necessarily say that there is more study being done on humans than on Arabidopsis - In fact, I highly doubt it.
We have a much clearer idea of most of the inner workings of that lowly little mustard plant than of our own. It's a matter of understanding the simple stuff and then working our way up. Like with the nematode C. elegans -- we know more information about that than you could possibly imagine. We know how many cells it has at every stage of its life and what they are doing. We have its genome sequenced. And from all of this information we have learned a lot about the inner workings of our cells as well. You find a lot of homologies between organisms.
In fact, if you examine the RNA polymerases of humans, bacteria and archaea you would find that ours are much closer to archaea (the most ancient of ancient organisms still around) than to bacteria.
So looking at these organisms that have been around since the beginning of life, we can learn about the development of our genomes and by examining their functions we can learn much about how ours work. Even if we do have our entire genome sequenced, that doesn't mean we know what it all does.
Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
The "we must have more gene than (insert stupid animal or plant here)" is funny. Our superiority complex at its best.
Read about the whole thing (with more links) on my blog (see sig)
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
How long before someone blames this on Bill Gates or George Bush?
Link To Mirror (Score:2, Funny)
Damn newbies
Grade School Science Films Revisited (Score:3, Funny)
There was an actor playing a typical I-don't-care-about-no-science-so- long-as-my-tractor-runs-right yokel who, as the 'scientist' (read: guy in a lab coat) noted that the fruit fly has five chromosomes and humans have 23, remarked "well, that's because people are the most advanced creatures on the planet."
The look on his face was priceless when he found out that potatoes have over forty.
The Scariest Part of the Article... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Scariest Part of the Article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it really matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why it matters (Score:2, Informative)
The genome is ~2% gene, the rest is largely unknown. Traditionally, this has been referred to as junk DNA, good for spacing, but not much else. Growing consensus believes there is more to these regions, and efforts are underw
More complex? (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
What, did they revise the number with a chainsaw?
gene squatters (Score:2)
Interesting book...genomes and viruses (Score:2)
It has a lot to do with viruses (especially 'ancient' viruses) being part and parcel of the process of human evolution.
Fewer genes = more complexity among them? (Score:2)
Programmers already know it (Score:2, Insightful)
Woah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woah (Score:2)
This is only genes for proteins (Score:2)
Sure, you have a small set of proteins. But these proteins are expressed or not expressed based on binding sites for other molecules in the non-transcribed DNA around the portion for the proteins; this i
No one knows the answer... (Score:5, Informative)
Are these technically genes? They are regulated. They have a function. They are transcribed. The only thing different from the standard definition of a gene is that the RNA is not translated into protein.
In addition to multiple protein products from one "gene" as the article states, regulation of the gene may also be much more complex compared to "lower" organism. For example, the gene expression profile of the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum suggests very limited regulation. Basically, it looks like a linear progression with very limit amount of response. So, temporal and spatial regulation makes even multiple product genes seem to like a larger cohort of genes. Take the daughterless gene in Drosophila. It is used very early in embryonic development to control sexual differentiation. However, later, the gene product is used in neuronal differentiation. So, for the fly, sex is literally on the brain.
Stop being naive! (Score:2)
Re:Stop being naive! (Score:2)
Get an education before throwing arbitrary numbers at me: Homo Sapien Events [roperld.com]
gene therapy and cancer (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor should there be; general estimates of the number of genes have nothing to do with mechanisms by which gene therapy might cause cancer. Nor is it unexpected that gene therapy can cause cancer; that has always been a known risk.
although if you now factor in the increased complexity of interactions, it is possible that such side-efects can be better understood and therefore prevented.
Anything is possible, I suppose. But common ways in which gene therapy could cause cancer are already understood. Doubtlessly, there are many more possibilities, but to identify them requires a specific understanding of those "interactions", something that is being worked on anyway.
Re:gene therapy and cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Nor should there be; general estimates of the number of genes have nothing to do with mechanisms by which gene therapy might cause cancer. Nor is it unexpected that gene therapy can cause cancer; that has always been a known risk.
To be more specific, the cancer caused by that form of gene therapy seems that the retrovirus used to insert a block of engineered DNA into the genome inserts the p
Genome videos (Score:3, Informative)
PBS has excellent videos from the program Cracking the Code of Life [pbs.org]of the teams (Human Genome Project and private company Celera) that worked on decoding the entire 3 billion sequences of the human genome. It is very worth watching to understand this article.
Gene Therapy (Score:5, Insightful)
Let look at that stats:
Terrorist kill ~ 3000 people in 2001 and it becomes a focus of the US nation. While:
Breast cancer kills > 40,000 / year
Prostate cancer kills > 30,000 / year
Diabetes kills > 70,000 / year
The numbers world wide of course are much larger.
Yeah OT I know but these kind of discoveries convince me our priorities are misplaced.
Re:Gene Therapy (Score:2, Insightful)
Old news (Score:2)
non-encoding DNA (Score:2)
There are all sorts of DNA that don't encode for proteins, but do have functions. In the production of antibodies, for example, a cell uses a shotgun combinatorial attack using DNA as a template, basically a random-number source, to make a binding site for whatever antigen. There are certain sequences that are not genes, exactly, but can predispose a person towards autoimmune disorders.
Someone correct me if I'm making any egregious errors. The M
Frightening headline (Score:5, Funny)
Humans more complex than Monkeys? Rats? (Score:2)
In fact, plants will need MORE genes than animals because more genes mean more chemical reactions they can perform and plants need a lot (flowering, mating, chemical signaling, anti bacterial/fungal chemicals--pretty much everything they DO is chemical), whereas in animals lot of the tasks can be done behaviorally (washing hands).
It is surprising to me that scientists though thumans would have more genes than animals. The reason
Just wait, they will get it down to.... (Score:2)
the matrix has you.... on the 13th floor of eXistenZ
combinations (Score:2)
Genetic Code (Score:3, Funny)
Hardly (Score:2)
I love the implicit anthropomorphism here. It could also mean simply that there's half as much information in you than you thought. Would that make you feel bad about yourself, thinking that you're less complicated than certain flowers? It could mean that the information density of the resulting blocks is greater, but it could just as easily not mean that. It could also mean that th
Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was one of those pictures that if you stare at it right turns 3D... stupid waste of 4 hours!
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
We're not even close (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, this guy wants to create a genetic algorithm that results in a circuit that can detect the difference between two tones, one something like 200 HZ and the other 2 KHZ.
He uses an FPGA chip to do the testing with. After a few weeks, he has an FPGA programmed such that it reliably discerns between the two input signals.
So, how does it work? Downloading the program from the FPGA chip results in a nonsensical circuit - except that it works. Running the same program on another FPGA chip of the same model results in a total failure.
Even changing the power supply makes the circuit not work! Months of study results in a complete, total unknown. Results inconclusive.
The human genome is not built of simple, engineered pieces. Interactions will occur with the total sum of possible interactions, down to the molecular level.
It will be many, many years before our own microbiological structure is understood. As we proceed, we'll see information technology and biology merge, as, when push comes to shove, both consist of the replication of complex patterns.
Re:We're not even close (Score:4, Informative)
Frogs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2, Flamebait)
> Science requires objectivity and dismissing ideas because they are offensive to your tastes is a bias. While intelligent design may not be probable, there is still a minute possibility that it could have occured. This needs to be investigated like anything else.
Investigate what? A big steaming pile of non sequiturs and strawman arguments, and claims that <wink>maybe it's not God</wink> that they're talking about?
Re: Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. The creationists in 50 years will seem like the flat-earthers do today and witch-hunters did 50 years ago.
Yes, there are still some flat-earthers, just as there will still be creationists in 50 years. What can I say? To misappropriate a Buddhist aphorism, where there are humans you'll find Einsteins and shit--generally a lot more shit, but there you have it.
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you see now is simply the final skirmishes mopping up the resistance in intellectually backward groups like american right-wing fundies
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2)
> itself shows us how narrow minded these "scientists" are. "I
> can't understand it, so God must have done it," essentially.
> This does not open the door to further research and
> understanding. On the contrary it closes the door because
> there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".
That's my thoughts too. Looking at something like evolved electronic circuits that act in ways that arent understood easily, but us
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2, Funny)
Applause. No Bullshit...Serious, solemn, applause.
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:2)
Re:Death of Creationist Theory? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
What's junk DNA? (Score:4, Funny)
C'mon, it's trivial. Those are the comments in the code.