Study: An Evolutionary "Arms Race" Shaped the Human Genome 33
An anonymous reader writes "An evolutionary race between rival elements within the genomes of primates drove the evolution of complex regulatory networks that orchestrate the activity of genes in every cell of our bodies, reveals new research. The race was between mobile DNA sequences known as 'retrotransposons' (jumping genes) and the genes that have evolved to control them. Scientists at the University of California Santa Cruz, identified genes in humans that make repressor proteins to shut down specific jumping genes. "We have basically the same 20,000 protein-coding genes as a frog, yet our genome is much more complicated, with more layers of gene regulation. This study helps explain how that came about," said Sofie Salama, a research associate at the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute who led the study."
Don't evolutionary arms races shape ALL genomes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Per topic, when pushing rapidly into a new niche, doing the new X a little better than everyone else expanding there makes you the top dog. Once a new option becomes available, it seems natural that evolutionary pressure would push towards exemplifying that niche in a short timespan. That's the whole idea behind punctuated equilibrium as a theory.
That's not to discredit the amazing work these scientists have done to deduce the mechanics of how that might have happened to early humans.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The title doesn't cover the interesting part of this research. The "Arms Race" it talks about isn't an arms race with genes from other groups of people. It's basically a competition within the genome itself. These retrotransposons are genes that would basically make copies of themselves all around our genomes (likely to our detriment) if there wasn't another set of genes that suppressed that activity. To use a metaphor I've seen elsewhere, the regulator genes are basically like cops that beat the street loo
Re: (Score:2)
The title doesn't cover the interesting part of this research. The "Arms Race" it talks about isn't an arms race with genes from other groups of people. It's basically a competition within the genome itself.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org] has been a standard perspective in biology for decades.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're overlooking the root problem here. Science isn't geared toward to correct keywords that generate the articles that you'd like to read. From now on, we should rename "evolution" to "Kim Kardashian," "Mars" to "school shooting," and "SQL" to "Top Ten List."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
absolutely -- everything is in the race. It's like suggesting more complex beings (e.g. humans) are "more evolved", when in fact they (we) were pushed out of the simpler niches by "better evolved" organisms. There's virus that uses 5 of the 6 available reading frames along a stretch of its genome... THAT is good coding (humans use 1, very rarely 2, and often none (non-protein coding)).
So when the princess kissed the frog... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuck Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
Regulation of retrotransposons is relavent to retrovirus research. Also, retrotransposons are known to be disregulated in a number of neurological disorders.
Some research is dedicated to incrimental advancements in translational applications, while other efforts are directed at a more complete understanding of the whole system. Sometimes, basic research with no obvious application ends up revolutionizing how we understand disease. A couple examples include: What makes jellyfish glow? Why does feeding worms RNA silence genes? Persuit of these questions (fluorescent proteins and RNA interference) have transformed the entire field of molecular and cellular biology, which has identified drug targets and lead to new therapies.
Re: (Score:1)
No! I've finally been found out for the fraud that I am.
How could I have ever have imagined that my poor spelling skills would out me as a basic science shill?
Now, the world will uncover the great conspiracy us scientists have orchestrated all this time to steal tax money for studying trivial things that will never benefit anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
there's the question of how the rather non-Occamy process of sexual reproduction came into existence in the first place.
Is that really much of a mystery? Gene exchange as part of reproduction has obvious advantages for speed in adaption to changing conditions. There are plenty of hermaphrodite species that show the stepping stone to specialized organs for gene exchange. Splitting into 2 sexes, each with just one set of reproductive organs, is just a cost savings, reducing the amount of otherwise unneeded organs to maintain.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, "evolution" is the change in statistical distribution of alleles in a genetic population over time. There's little uncertainty about that happening - every genetic change over time is absolutely evidence of evolution, in the technical sense, because there's nothing more to it than that.
Any uncertainty is about what shaped the emergence, then dominance, of certain traits among species that survived today. But of course in the case of sexual reproduction with distinct sexes, it's still a reprod
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, seems I'm wrong about the fungi - randy little buggers.
Re: (Score:2)
A Quandary (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia Evolution Arms You!
Does that help?
All the mammals have very similar DNA. (Score:2)
This is no big surprise. All the mammals have surprisingly similar DNA. [genome.gov]