Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Genome Surprise

Posted by timothy on from the paring-down-estimates dept.

Catskul writes "Along with the news that the polished and (more nearly) complete human genome being published Monday, comes a surprising observation about the genome: We have substantially fewer genes than expected; between 27,000 and 40,000 as compared to an original estimate of 140,000." Update: 04/14 01:22 GMT by T : For everyone who can't look at a Z, headline updated with an S in "surprise."

3 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. I thought so. by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are simple creatures, no doubt. But the number of genomes does not point to our complexity. Rather, these genomes could be incredibly complex, controlling all sorts of things. They could intermingle, with no clear linear relationship between a single function and a single genome. It would have been easier to decode had there been more, because now it is clear that these genomes are more complex than originally thought.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:I thought so. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yeah, I was astonished at the stupid claims being made in the article based on this percieved lack of genes.

      The small number of genes is significant [because it means] we're not hard-wired

      It means no such thing! It could just mean that fewer genes are necessary to hard-wire us. Nobody really knows how much effect particular genes have on us, so saying that 140,000 would be enough but 40,000 isn't enough is just spewing hot air.

      The low number of genes means humans have as few as 300 more genes than a mouse and only twice the genes of the fruit fly. "A lot of people will find that philosophically disturbing," says theoretical biologist Jean-Michel Claverie

      I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

      The low number of genes [means] that there is no genetic basis for race.

      Totally not true. Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children. It just means that the number of genes necessary to determine race is smaller than we thought.

      ...how have we become so much more complex than other creatures, whilst having relatively few extra genes.

      I don't think it's any mystery. We're NOT "so much more complex!" The only part of us that is more complex is our brains. And animals have brains too, some of which are quite sophisticated by any measure of complexity.

      Looks like people are having a field day speculating about what this low number could mean. I think it just means that we were wrong before, and we still don't have a clue about how big an effect single genes can really have on an organism.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  2. The less one makes declarative statements... by eidechse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What we've got now is what we'll have for all eternity"

    Perhaps in the future we'll get to see this next to:

    "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell

    "640k should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

    I grant that this particular case may seem less "philosophical" than the cases in the quotations above but a "stick a fork in it...it's done" mindset is not only arrogant but detrimental to science as well.