'Jumping Gene' May Have Erased Tails In Humans and Other Apes (science.org) 56
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: Mammals from mice to monkeys have tails. But humans and our cousins the great apes lack them. Now, researchers may have unearthed a simple genetic change that led to our abbreviated back end: an itinerant piece of DNA -- in a gene known as TBTX -- that leapt into a new chromosomal home and changed how great apes make a key developmental protein. The finding also suggests the genetic shift came with a less visible and more dangerous effect: a higher risk of birth defects involving the developing spinal cord.
Mice carrying both copies of the shortened gene didn't survive, but those with one long and one short version were born with a variety of tail lengths -- from none at all to nearly normal. That suggests the shorter version of the gene interferes with tail development. Because the genetically altered mice had a mix of tail lengths, other genes must be working together to eliminate all tail development in apes and humans, but the ape-specific change "was likely a critical event" about 25 million years ago as great apes diverged from other simians.
The genetically modified mice also had unusually high levels of neural tube problems, defects in the developing spinal cord. Such birth defects, which produce spina bifida, where the spinal cord doesn't close, and anencephaly, where parts of the brain and skull are missing, are fairly common in humans, affecting as many as one in 1,000 newborns. "We apparently paid a cost for the loss of the tail, and we still feel the echoes," says one author. "We must have had a clear benefit for losing the tail, whether it was improved locomotion or something else." The researchers reported their findings in a preprint posted last week on bioRxiv.
Mice carrying both copies of the shortened gene didn't survive, but those with one long and one short version were born with a variety of tail lengths -- from none at all to nearly normal. That suggests the shorter version of the gene interferes with tail development. Because the genetically altered mice had a mix of tail lengths, other genes must be working together to eliminate all tail development in apes and humans, but the ape-specific change "was likely a critical event" about 25 million years ago as great apes diverged from other simians.
The genetically modified mice also had unusually high levels of neural tube problems, defects in the developing spinal cord. Such birth defects, which produce spina bifida, where the spinal cord doesn't close, and anencephaly, where parts of the brain and skull are missing, are fairly common in humans, affecting as many as one in 1,000 newborns. "We apparently paid a cost for the loss of the tail, and we still feel the echoes," says one author. "We must have had a clear benefit for losing the tail, whether it was improved locomotion or something else." The researchers reported their findings in a preprint posted last week on bioRxiv.
Pinch science. (Score:5, Funny)
"We must have had a clear benefit for losing the tail, whether it was improved locomotion or something else."
Car doors. I blame it all on them.
Re: (Score:2)
"We must have had a clear benefit for losing the tail, whether it was improved locomotion or something else."
Car doors. I blame it all on them.
And rocking chairs.
Gene Gene, the Jumping Machine (Score:2)
I watch enough Nature Channel to know that monkeys with tails can scoot, so I'm not sure improved locomotion was the benefit of losing the tail.
"...humans and our cousins the great apes..."? (Score:5, Informative)
Humans are great apes. All the great apes, humans included, lack tails.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are great apes. All the great apes, humans included, lack tails.
The statement was probably altered to avoid triggering the fundies. Just like any studies about any positive effects of alcohol have to be vetted so that "Researchers are working on isolating the compound from grapes, or when they have to make strange claims about dangers of birth control pills, when they are hormonally simulating pregnancy.
Yo know, the same people who ask - "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the people who say there aren't men and women, just "them".
Not opposed to anything, just noting that there are people out there that believe that their gawd created each creature after it's own kind. That humans are separate from animals, and have no relation to them.
The blue haired twitter crew has it's own problems, but this ain't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the sentence "humans and other apes" in the title
What are you complaining about?
Next question (Score:4, Interesting)
After 25 million years of evolution... is the change reversible with today's human genome, and if so would it reduce those spinal defect odds?
Because I'd be happy if my kids had tails that we then cut off after birth. If that's the cost of a huge cut in the rate of spinal problems, hack away at that DNA. At least until we figure out how to suppress the tail AND prevent the developmental issues.
And yes, I know we're nowhere near that level of genetic engineering yet, I'm just having fun daydreaming here.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I know we're nowhere near that level of genetic engineering yet
We're really close.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe we are quite at the stage where we can confidently flip around genes that changed 25 million years ago on when it comes to humans.
If you're a mad scientist and OK with a lot of non-viables and a bunch of horribly disfiguring people resulting, sure, yes, we know how to snip and insert genetic sequences here and there. But that's a different game.
Re: Next question (Score:3)
Why cut off? I always thought having a tail was cool (Avatar anyone?), so I'd like to have kept mine thank you very much.
Just have to be more careful with banging that door behind you. Oh, and don't dangle it in the toilet bowl, that's pretty disgusting...
Re: (Score:2)
Why cut off? I always thought having a tail was cool (Avatar anyone?), so I'd like to have kept mine thank you very much.
Brings a whole new meaning to getting some tail, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey man, add in a "fur all over body" and "cat ears" and the furries have in made.
Re: Next question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trolling?
There are plenty of kids that are born with a tail, that is indeed cut off after birth.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention those kids that get one from annoying snotty future sorcerers . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Modern pregnancy already involves far too much surgery. You propose to perform surgery on a newborn in the very spot that's most likely to be contaminated with fecal matter? That's brave.
Percent Brain usage (Score:5, Interesting)
Tails are one more limb that takes brain usage. Brains are energy intensive organs, they use a lot of calories. Neurons are expensive, that is why we don't have any real competition for intelligence.
Humans gave up a ton of muscles to pay for our big brains. Particularly jaw muscles - the other apes brains are smaller in part because they have huge jaw muscles and larger bones in their head. We dropped all that bone and muscle, replaced it with a frontal lobe.
I bet we lost the tails and redirected all the neurons related to controlling it to higher thought.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really take your post seriously, but before replying I looked it up, and indeed you are correct. Typical humans burn 635 calories more than gorillas daily [science.org].
Re: Percent Brain usage (Score:2)
Interesting.
Incidentally, that's what every fat nerd ever longed to hear :-) "You need to get off that couch and do more sports" my ass. If anything, it's sitting in front of a computer that will burn you more calories, right? Right? RIGHT?!
Re: (Score:3)
No. When you are awake but not thinking hard then your brain consumes about 15 W. If you are thinking hard then it raises by about 5%. So it will increase by about 1 W. When you in a deep anaesthesia then your brain energy consumption can drop by about 60%. The point is you cannot burn calories by thinking in a way which would register on the needed energy in food.
If you exercise then you can produce 100 to 400 W of output energy (just the typical range). Our bodies are about 25% efficient converting energy
Re: Percent Brain usage (Score:3)
First off, important life lesson: never let facts get in the way of a good joke :-)
But since we're going to disagree anyway:
Anyway, the most easy way to get slimmer is eating less. Food just contains too much energy and it is very easy to eat a bit more and thus compensating for all the physical exercises done during the day.
Yes and no. You're making two mistakes.
First one is assuming "energy in = energy out" a.k.a. 2nd law of thermodynamics. Doesn't always apply. To be more precise, it applies to systms in thermodynamic equilibrium. Do you know what that is? The definition is "same temperature". Now the medical jargon for "person in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings" a.k.a. "same temperature
Re: (Score:2)
First one is assuming "energy in = energy out" a.k.a. 2nd law of thermodynamics. Doesn't always apply.
The way I say it, "Energy in = energy out" explains what is happening, but it doesn't explain why it's happening. Not everything you put in your mouth is absorbed, and of course, you gave many other fine explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
The only mistake I had in my post was that I should have written "... of output energy rate ..." instead of "... of output energy ..". Otherwise it all holds.
Your post is true as well and I agree with it. Except that nonsense magic you want to create with complicating it a way too much. And one quarter of your sentences are questions. Hardly useful.
The law of energy conservation (1. law of thermodynamics) does apply. No need to complicate it with the 2. law. Whether the energy flow includes ATP or not is no
Re: (Score:2)
And one quarter of your sentences are questions. Hardly useful.
This is because I don't know the answers. But I am very well aware of the problems, and the questions I asked are a reflexion of those problems. If you don't know the answers, either, then you don't have as much standing as you like to believe.
The law of energy conservation (1. law of thermodynamics) does apply.
I was referring to the 1st law of thermodynamics as the definition of temperature, the 2nd is conservation of energy, the 3rd/4th is definition of entropy and thereabouts. But apparently everybody else starts counting at zero, so "my" 2nd law is "your" 1st law. And al
Re: (Score:2)
I still say it is simple as that. OK, you roughly explained why efficiency of extracting energy from food varies somewhat. But it does not matter overall and in the long term. If one decreased his energy intake and it was not enough to lose weight because body efficiency somewhat improved then he just needs to decrease calories in food intake more. Big deal. Overall our bodies need about 100 W just to stay alive and are about 25% efficient converting food energy to kinetic energy. Small variations of effici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently serious chess players sometimes burn over 6000 calories in a day during big tournaments. The brain definitely burns a ton of energy... many theories around humans eating high calorie diets, especially animal-based foods and sugar based foods, that lead to the ability to think better.
https://www.menshealth.com/fit... [menshealth.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Now image how smart men could become when they got rid of the other tail.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa there, I never imagined the day would come when I'd agree with Barefoot. Times' achanging indeed...
The meme probably comes from "testosterone makes less intelligen, more agressive" experiments. Fun fact: the initial experiment was performed on prison inmates, where higher testosterone levels were correlated with higher agressivity. But the conclusion was flawed.
We know that because subsequent experiments were performed double-blindly on male/female population at large. Couples were put in waiting rooms
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa there, I never imagined the day would come when I'd agree with Barefoot. Times' achanging indeed...
The meme probably comes from "testosterone makes less intelligen, more agressive" experiments. Fun fact: the initial experiment was performed on prison inmates, where higher testosterone levels were correlated with higher agressivity. But the conclusion was flawed.
Oh sheesh! I wonder if they checked those inmates for lead levels. Because that was a huge factor in aggressiveness and lowered IQ.
The whole "men are stupid" meme is just internalized misandry that is socially approved today.
There is a fellow on youtube who makes commentary on TikToks that women make. Most are women wondering why they can't find a mate, simultaneously yelling out their hatred of men.
They are confused that men are not interested in 35 year old single mothers who still want to go out c
Re: (Score:1)
Can you please stop that sexist meme of "men are dumb"? The last time some losers thought that was cool, was when Peggy Bundy said it.
And we would not become anything. We'd be extinct. No sexual drive, no reproduction. Though that would be a good thing for the many peopleoids.
Isn't it a funny world we live in today? A world built by men, who are now claimed to be stupid and evil.
Where you will be called sexist for pointing out that the socially approved hated of men that exists today, is in itself the ultimate in sexism.
Where women are now better educated, in positions of power and wealth, have the legal system tilted in their favor, and yet are still claiming victimhood at every juncture.
Only now, the big victimhood claim is why they can't find a man to pair with.
You
Re: (Score:2)
c-section (Score:2)
There will be many surprises when society collapses and women have to deliver babies the old way.
Re: (Score:1)
Uuum, all healthy humans already do.
In what dystopia do you imagine you live, where the majority would be c-sections?
(Ask a woman ... if you ever meet one, cause I doubt you have: C-sections are ruining *everything*. They are only for emergency cases!)
Re: (Score:2)
Uuum, all healthy humans already do.
I guess you haven't heard of CDMR (Caesarian Delivery on Maternal Request) then.
In what dystopia do you imagine you live, where the majority would be c-sections?
I am not aware of any country in which the majority of deliveries are C-Sections, but I'd consider the roughly one third of US deliveries that are a significant minority. Should they all cease (the GP's hyperbole, not my opinion of a likely future) I'd say they're correct that there will be some 'shock' in adjusting.
C-sections are ruining *everything*.
I'd suggest they are concealing an evolutionary change in (wo)mankind. Ask yourself / others / doctors: "How long
Can we undo that? (Score:2)
I think I speak for everyone: Can we have our tails back?
If at all possible, a pill to pop two weeks before you need it, followed by a bit of mutation, would be ideal. :)
And make sure the anti-pill is available too.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 WantOne
Re: (Score:2)
I think I speak for everyone: Can we have our tails back?
Always looking for some tail, aren't ya? 8^)
CRISPR to the rescue!! (Score:2)
The finding also suggests the genetic shift came with a less visible and more dangerous effect: a higher risk of birth defects involving the developing spinal cord.
Good thing we now have the tech to prevent these birth defects!
This is exactly what CRISPR and the other gene manipulation methods are intended for right? Isn't the entire justification of manipulating Human DNA and the genetic heritage of the species to prevent birth defects and other genetic disorders?
We need to repair this damage to our DNA so no parent will ever have to worry about their child suffering from this genetic disorder ever again.
So what if Humans will have tails again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CRISPR to the rescue!! (Score:4, Funny)
Catgirls (Score:3)
Does that mean we are getting one step closer to having Catgirls? /Ducks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we have proof* that humans and apes evolved from common ancestors.
*at least as good a proof as you're going to get from millions of years ago
Evolution isn't always efficient (Score:3)
We must have had a clear benefit for losing the tail, whether it was improved locomotion or something else.
I think it's interesting that *every* genetic change that occurs *must* be advantageous and *must* be naturally selected. What if the animals that lost their tail did something totally unrelated better, or got lucky and survived, whereas those without the genetic change did not. Thus the tails disappeared, but it wasn't because the lack of a tail was directly superior.
This is especially true when you consider that changes would tend to propagate in specific geographic regions, and branches go extinct purely because of where they live and not because of any genetics.
In this particular example - tails - another factor could be sexual attraction. You know, those baboons where females have gigantic red butts which apparently are more sexually attractive to males? Well maybe not having a tail tended to trigger greater sexual attraction (for whatever reason) at that point in time. Thus the trait was propagated not because it was better, but because it was conducive to higher-level sexual attraction.
So I always wince a little when I hear people stating that *every* genetic change had to be a good, selected thing. It could have been to the detriment of the species, but not to the point they couldn't survive or reproduce, and yet they became the dominate variation.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to say furries are attractive now because they have tails? But seriously, the sex part is always a big component of evolution, and I was thinking the same thing. No tail leads to sexy butts, at least for that species and their perception, including humans.
I wonder what else might have happened with tail loss and natural selection...
Maybe we could sit down better and conserve energy better while still doing things with our hands. Look at horses and cows... always on all fours. Cats and dogs, w
Bummer (Score:1)
I think a tail could be pretty useful.