SCI/TECH: Further Reduction in Human Gene Count, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 21-10-2004 @ 01:42 PM by jp1111

Finishing a detailed analysis of the human genome, researchers of International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium found that humans have far fewer genes than originally estimated. The number of genes has been reduced from 100,000 a decade ago, to 30,000-35,000 three years ago, and the most up-to-date estimate is only 20,000-25,000.

www.genome.gov
BETHESDA, Md., Wed., Oct. 20, 2004 - The International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, led in the United States by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the Department of Energy (DOE), today published its scientific description of the finished human genome sequence, reducing the estimated number of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a surprisingly low number for our species.

The paper appears in the Oct. 21 issue of the journal Nature. In the paper, researchers describe the final product of the Human Genome Project, which was the 13-year effort to read the information encoded in the human chromosomes that reached its culmination in 2003. The Nature publication provides rigorous scientific evidence that the genome sequence produced by the Human Genome Project has both the high coverage and accuracy needed to perform sensitive analyses, such as focusing on the number of genes, the segmental duplications involved in disease and the "birth" and "death" of genes over the course of evolution.

One of the central goals of the effort to analyze the human genome is the identification of all genes, which are generally defined as stretches of DNA that code for particular proteins. According to the new findings, researchers have confirmed the existence of 19,599 protein-coding genes in the human genome and identified another 2,188 DNA segments that are predicted to be protein-coding genes.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

As the number of genes is reduced, we get a clearer picture of the human genome. Considering there are only 341 gaps in the latest map of the genome in contrast to 150,000 gaps in the draft released four years ago, I think that's a great improvement. However, we still don't have the perfect picture of the genome. There is still a lot to discover and a need for better research and technology.

For the detailed description and assessment of the finding, please visit the article from Nature cited below.

Related News Links:
www.nature.com
news.bbc.co.uk
www.sciencedaily.com

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 05:35 PM by soficrow

...I hope this might encourage pundits and journalists to get off their genetic kick. Contrary to popular opinion, it's NOT "all in the genes." ...There just aren't enough genes to explain our many problems. Maybe now we can shift the focus to genetic mutations, and start looking more closely at just what the heck is causing all these mutations. The research is out there: contaminated food, air and water, epidemic but invisible disease... Prevention is possible, but involves costly clean-ups. LOL

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 06:01 PM by Jamuhn

You know, it's interesting that Intelligent Designers and even some creationists claim that the more advanced a species gets, the more genes they lose. And that, the original animals on this earth contained a multitude of genes, but as people evolved, they shed them off. Interesting, no?

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 07:33 PM by surfup

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You know, it's interesting that Intelligent Designers and even some creationists claim that the more advanced a species gets, the more genes they lose. And that, the original animals on this earth contained a multitude of genes, but as people evolved, they shed them off. Interesting, no?

I don't understand. Common sense dictates that as a species grew intelligent and superior persay, should it get more genes? For sustaining itself in a superior state?

Surf

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 11:01 PM by jp1111

Surprisingly, tiny roundworms C. elegans have almost the same number of genes as humans.
You can ask why do worms need such a high number of genes? or how come humans are so complex with relatively fewer genes?

The answer lies in gene regulation, how, when and where the genes are turned on or off. As, Eric Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridgem, Mass says, "It's not just the number of genes that matters, It really is how nature uses these genes."(Link)
"It means that each gene can be used in a variety of different ways depending on how it is regulated," said Dr Tim Hubbard, of the Human Genetics group at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK. (Link)

For the human genome map and gene database, here are a couple of sources:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ensembl.org...

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 11:05 PM by surfup

Originally posted by jp1111
"It's not just the number of genes that matters, It really is how nature uses these genes.

Kind of like efficiency?

Meaning humans are more efficient than C.elegans or human gene turn on and off at difference places than C.elegans?

Surf

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 11:13 PM by Jamuhn

Originally posted by surfup
I don't understand. Common sense dictates that as a species grew intelligent and superior persay, should it get more genes? For sustaining itself in a superior state?
Surf

It's like a form of natural selection. Genes that are needed stay, genes that aren't are thrown out.

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 11:45 PM by Solasis

Wouldn't preventing the mutations be bad in general? I mean, obviously if our genes are mutating, they're trying to evolve...

Assuming evolution is true, of course.

reply posted on 21-10-2004 @ 11:47 PM by surfup

Originally posted by Solasis
Wouldn't preventing the mutations be bad in general? I mean, obviously if our genes are mutating, they're trying to evolve...

Assuming evolution is true, of course.

Not preventing every mutation is bad. I don't know about preventing it, I would guess it is more like correcting it or isolating it.

Could any Bio majors clarify and expand on that?

reply posted on 22-10-2004 @ 12:22 AM by jp1111

Originally posted by surfup
Meaning humans are more efficient than C.elegans or human gene turn on and off at difference places than C.elegans?

Surf

You can say that, but humans don't have the same genes as the roundworms, therefore you cannot really compare the efficiencies. But yes, a complex system such as a human body needs to be very efficient in regulating the available genes.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
It's like a form of natural selection. Genes that are needed stay, genes that aren't are thrown out.

You are right. Recently, they found that around 37 genes in humans have "died" due to mutations.

reply posted on 22-10-2004 @ 12:32 AM by jp1111

Originally posted by Solasis
Wouldn't preventing the mutations be bad in general? I mean, obviously if our genes are mutating, they're trying to evolve...

Assuming evolution is true, of course.

You are correct in stating that mutations are an essential part of evolution. However, certain mutations are caused by human activities in general and not by nature itself, such as air pollution, water pollution, etc. and those I think need to be prevented.

Pages: ^^TOP^^