Genome Surprise

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."

Comments

Genome Surprize

[InterruptDescriptorT]

Ingredients

1 genome (preferably human)
4 eggs
1/4 cup flour
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1-1/2 teaspoons dry mustard
1 cup cottage cheese
1 cup shredded Jack cheese
1 cup shredded cheddar cheese
3 chopped peeled green chiles
One 16-ounce package frozen hash browns
Shaker of paprika --dust top of casserole just before putting in oven - looks pretty.

Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Spray a small casserole dish with vegetable oil spray, 7 to 8 inches square or round. Line the pan with 1/2-inch layer of potatoes. Beat eggs. Add dry ingredients and beat well. Blend in remaining ingredients. Batter will be lumpy. Pour in dish and bake 25-30 minutes.

Serves 4.

I thought so.

[Capt'n Hector]

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.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

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.

Re:I thought so.

[JDevers]

Actually no, still wrong. A genome is the entire complement of genes an organism possess, a chromosome is a relatively arbitrary unit in which the genome is broken into. I doubt any scientist ever suggested that "more chromosomes=more complex" seeing as how most higher plants have significantly more chromosomes than any animals. A gene on the other hand is a functional unit, it can code for one or more proteins but they have a well known beginning and end (both to us and to the transcription machinery). These three words are about as non-exchangable as three words can be. You noted you weren't "intending to be scientific", however you were commenting on a somewhat scientific article in a moderately well-read community. If you don't want anyone to insult you, don't comment on things you don't understand.

Re:I thought so.

[evilquaker]

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?

The brightest minds of biology did, over 10 years ago... and so the central dogma of biology ("one gene => one protein => one function") was taught to a generation of students.

Of course, this completely misses two of the biggest results in the last few years: the acknowledgment of alternative splicing as a common phenomenon (10 years ago, people thought it happened in 5% of human genes, now we know it's more like 50%) and the identification of miRNAs as regulators of gene function.

But it's so hard to argue with dogma...

Not a new observation

[zach_smith]

Along with the news... comes a suprising observation about the genome: We have substantially fewer genes than expected

This observation was already made a couple of years back when the first draft was published. Note the date on the second link.

Suddenly

[cyril3]

I'm only half the man I used to be.

Damn you scientists.

Background Info

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Want To Know What The Human Genome Project Is?

Begun formally in 1990, the U.S. Human Genome Project is a 13-year effort coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. The project originally was planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances have accelerated the expected completion date to 2003. Project goals are to

• identify all the approximate 30,000 genes in human DNA,
• determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
• store this information in databases,
• improve tools for data analysis,
• transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
• address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.

To help achieve these goals, researchers also are studying the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms. These include the common human gut bacterium Escherichia coli, the fruit fly, and the laboratory mouse.

A unique aspect of the U.S. Human Genome Project is that it is the first large scientific undertaking to address the ELSI implications that may arise from the project.

Another important feature of the project is the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. By licensing technologies to private companies and awarding grants for innovative research, the project is catalyzing the multibillion-dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostering the development of new medical applications.

Sequence and Analysis of the human genome working draft was published in February, 2001, in Nature and Science. See an index of these papers and learn more about the insights gained from them.

For more background information on the U.S. Human Genome Project, see the following

• HGP Goals (1998-2003)
• HGP Progress
• HGP History
• Human Genome News

What's a genome? And why is it important?

• A genome is all the DNA in an organism, including its genes. Genes carry information for making all the proteins required by all organisms. These proteins determine, among other things, how the organism looks, how well its body metabolizes food or fights infection, and sometimes even how it behaves.
• DNA is made up of four similar chemicals (called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G) that are repeated millions or billions of times throughout a genome. The human genome, for example, has 3 billion pairs of bases.
• The particular order of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs is extremely important. The order underlies all of life's diversity, even dictating whether an organism is human or another species such as yeast, rice, or fruit fly, all of which have their own genomes and are themselves the focus of genome projects. Because all organisms are related through similarities in DNA sequences, insights gained from nonhuman genomes often lead to new knowledge about human biology.

  To understand more read

  • The Science Behind the Human Genome Project: Understanding the Basics

The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

"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.

Don't tell God...

[gilesjuk]

He'll sue citing the DMCA.

The Real Human Genome Project

[Mars Ultor]

While I'm certainly not a learned expert, as a new graduate of an Honours Genetics program in Canada, I feel I must point out a few misconceptions found in the story intro.

I let out an audible groan over the 'revelation' that the human genome contains at most 40,000 genes, compared to the original estimate of ~150,000. I was relieved when I noticed that the article linked to dated to 2001. This makes sense, since that discrepancy was first discussed during my courses over two years ago.

The other grain of salt that needs to taken is the idea of a "completed" genome. The human genome is nearly sequenced, however it the annotation of the genome that matters most. To place this into context, the genome of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, is over 75% annotated. Currently only a small portion of the human genome is annotated, that is to say, the roads are mapped, and the streets (or in this case, genes) are identified and their function characterized. This is one of the most essential tasks still facing biologists today. Without knowing all the potential genes, as well as their function and expression patterns, the human genome is no better a guide than using a globe to navigate the streets of Toronto (or New York, take your pick).

As it has been mentioned before, I won't delve too far into the fact that a given stretch of DNA can code for genes in two different directions, and in three different "frames" per direction. On top of this, the mRNA produced from the DNA can be spliced in numerous ways. A single expanse of DNA can produce countless different proteins - and its proteins, not genes, that carry out all the functions our body needs to survive.

Humans are extremely complex, but as we go about our 'very' important lives, it's humbling to know that on the surface, we do not contain many more genes than some other 'lesser' forms of life on this planet.