Slashdot Mirror
First Sequencing Of Plant Genome
cthugha writes: "The genome of Arabidopsis thaliana has just been completely sequenced, making it the first plant species to have its genome fully sequenced. The fact that we have animal and plant genomes now should give us greater insight into the common aspects of eukaryotic life. Nature has good coverage here. The ABC has a shorter and easier-to-digest report, but the emphasis is on the fact that Australian scientists could not participate due to lack of funding rather than on the technical details."
If you want to, um, compile your own version of A. thaliana, see
/
ftp://warthog.mips.biochem.mpg.de/pub/cress/MAR
It was picked because
1) it has a small genome -- many plants actually have genomes longer than the human genome.
2) Arabidopsis is is a small, fast growing plant, well suited for experimentation.
It is important that people realize that sequencing a genome is a beginning and not an end. Having a genome means that more sophisticated studies can be done -- it doesn't mean that we now know everything about the plant.
Quantity is confusing in the genetic world.
Wheat has 16 billion base pairs or five times human.
Plant genes tend to duplicate alot according to the first plant genome.
With regards to animals, the fly genome has only 2/3rds the gene of the worm genome.
The low end of human of human estimates- 35,000
genes- is not much more than these plants or animals.
Further analysis is needed to figure out what molecules are created by each gene and under what circumstances. For example, neurons have on part of their surface a receptor for serotonin. This "receptor" is a molecule of a certain shape which the serotonin molecule fits into, and when this happens the receptor causes a change in behavior in the cell. There's a gene sequence someplace which builds the receptor molecule and adds it to the surface of the cell -- but this level of genetic maps don't tell us exactly where this gene sequence is and what the shape of the receptor is. Further research is needed to find the location of this genetic sequence, to analyze the exact genetic code, and what molecules that code can build.
Even that won't tell us everything about a cell -- some drugs work by fitting into a receptor near a receptor whose action they are targeted to block, and the drug works because the rest of its physical shape crowds the target receptor so what usually activates that target receptor cannot reach the receptor. It takes a lot of study to figure out the 3-D shape of the surface of a cell to understand what can be going on in the molecular soup of life.
Cornell researchers have used the genome sequence of the Arabidopsis to obtain information on its origins as a species. See here.
"These genome projects are the way to gather intellectual property positions, for example if we identify the function of a useful gene we could patent it. Without participation in this type of pure research, we will be left behind."
This is a shame. All that scientists are worried about these days is patenting the genome of something so they can get rich. Whatever happened to research for the benefit of mankind? Whatever happened to putting politics aside when it came to science? A damn shame.
--
The World is Yours.
There are some strange contradictions in the ABC article.
It first claims that "The sequencing of 118.7 billion base pairs of the nuclear genetic complement of a model plant is enormously significant". Then it says something near the bottom regarding "the 3.2 billion base pairs of the human genome". So what's going on here? The plant can't have more genetic information than us.
The Nature article talks about giving away 5000 CDs containing the data, and mentiones somewhere that the dataset is 120 Megabytes. So I presume that is compressed, down from the 3.2(*2) billion bits that ABC quotes. Are these numbers accurate? (And just how much information is there per base pair? Is my translation of four nucleotides to 4 possible states (2 bits) correct?)