Mutation Creates SuperKid

Tzarius writes "It's not exactly regular Slashdot fare, but the NYTimes has a story about a kid in Berlin (now 4 years old) who was born with naturally massive muscles. It's not a new condition, but it apparently hasn't been recorded in humans before. It also looks like the cause is a suppression of the myostatin protein, which could be reproducible." Reader Spazmasta adds "A gene that blocks production of a muscle-limiting protein (called myostatin) has been found in a abnormally muscular German baby. This news comes apparently 7 years after researchers at Johns Hopkins created 'mighty mice' through a related approach, turning off the gene that produces the muscle-limiting protein. I, for one, welcome our new myostatin-free overlords."

Comments

makes you wonder...

[MagicM]

If in most humans there is a process that actively limits muscle growth, then there must be a downside to being muscular... I wonder what it is.

Re:makes you wonder...

[swv3752]

The kid looses cuteness. We are hardwired to protect cute. A kid that looks like a miniature adult will get treated like an adult. The kid would not get the benefit of automatic responses to protect children. One might try to distract a bear from menacing your neighbor Bob. One is more likely to fight the bear to protect Bob's child.

Re:makes you wonder...

[Moraelin]

""Evolving into something more muscular and slower was _not_ an option."

To nitpick to death, it was an option. Just not a good one :)."

Well, given the time intervals needed for evolution, and the environment, I still say that it wasn't an option at all. Small mutations in that direction happened all the time, and died, but actually _evolving_ in that direction for any signifficant interval was not realistically possible.

As you undobtedly know, evolution works in _very_ small steps. The mutations along the line are almost infinitesimal.

Such abrupt one-in-a-million mutations like this kid don't count, because the chance is pretty much zero that in a tribe of, say, 100 people he'd also find a similar wife, so they can transmit this abrupt mutation to their children. Or if they do, it's not too far.

Such big deviations randomly appear, and then die.

So to start evolving in a given direction, _tiny_ deviations in that direction have to offer a very immediate short-term advantage.

I.e., you can imagine that an 800 pound ape, pure muscle, and with razor sharp claws and tiger-like teeth, would have been _perfect_ for that environment. However, evolving into that was not an option. Why? Because it involves going through steps like a _slightly_ more musculare ape, and maybe with _slightly_ bigger fingernails.

Which step just lacks the survival advantage to continue along that line. It would need to go on like that for a couple million years, before it starts being an advantage. Before that it's actually a disadvantage, so it gets purged out of the gene pool.

The opposite direction, namely the ape with a _slightly_ bigger brain and other small deviations towards human had a much bigger advantage, so those were the ones who lived to have kids.

Re:makes you wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we can stop making food companies zillions of dollars and *gasp* eat less!!!!!

The only diet that will EVER work is eating less. That's all there is to it. Eat less food than you use and you will lose weight. No food company will ever tell you that and they lobby the government not to tell you that. Instead they promote low fat/ low carb diets. Why? They can make money off of these diets. Sell the same food for more money with different serving sizes and put a low carb/low fat label on it. Start a trend and rake in the free cash. See "Supersize Me" for more info. But yeah, stop fucking eating you fat fuck!

Re:makes you wonder...

[DDX_2002]

I.e., you can imagine that an 800 pound ape, pure muscle, and with razor sharp claws and tiger-like teeth, would have been _perfect_ for that environment. However, evolving into that was not an option. Why? Because it involves going through steps like a _slightly_ more musculare ape, and maybe with _slightly_ bigger fingernails.

True, but as I understand it, the real question is if there is some minor advantage to those intermediate steps - you know, the old slightly photosensitive cells -> barely being able to sense a shadow falling on you -> millions of years -> stereo colour vision thing. It doesn't have to be useful in the same way as in the ultimate form (not that there's really any such thing) for it to be selected for along the way. I should thing tougher fingernails and more powerful muscles could be of use in digging, cracking things open/scraping meat from bones, climbing trees, etc. Eventually they'd enable you to be a nasty predator, in the interim they might make you a better scavenger.

Re:makes you wonder...

[evenparity]

While I wouldn't deny the existence of a DOWNSIDE to this kind of muscle growth, readers are probably overestimating the UPSIDE. Think about it, the major human evolutionary advantage was the brain, not the brawn. Being stronger can lead to incremental advantages, but more intelligence was "evolutionary" because it was more unique.

Will be used in athletics for a limited time...

[SilentChris]

I like the fact that they're already touting this as an advance for athletics. That is, until people find out that (for example) it increases ALL muscles, including the heart, which'll then overgrow and collapses at the age of 35. There's a reason why mutations don't happen all the time.

Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time...

[kneecarrot]

Or perhaps the muscle will become so developed that it will bring flexibility down to zero essentially rendering the individual athletically useless.

Re:There must be a major downside...

[Timesprout]

Wouldn't everyone want to be big and muscular?

For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.

That aside there are health and dietary implications. You heart has to work harder to supply blood, particularly under heavy exercise, you lose mobility, and endurance sports become a lot more difficult (not really a bad thing :-) ). I'm sort of half expecting to hear this kid keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out.

Heart problems

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Technically your heart is a muscle (okay so not technically but follow me), if your heart becomes too strong wouldn't it in theory screw up your blood flow? Also penis problems come to mind as well as many other things, but they seem to be the two major problems with having overly active muscles.

Re:here's a picture of his asscrack!

[kir]

It is an unfortunate photo (it's a pretty gross photo actually, surprised it was the only one they could get their hands on).

I'm curious. Why do you think it's a pretty gross photo? It's a baby's butt. That's about as "ungross" as you can get. Well... unless the kid is taking a dump. HE HE HE

When my daughter was a baby, her butt was the cutest thing... well... until odor starting hitching a ride with the payload. Damn solid foods.

Re:There must be a major downside...

[Waffle Iron]

That's the real reason. The human body is very energy constrained, mainly because that big brain burns energy at 20% of the basal metabolic rate. Giant muslces would need to provide a major guaranteed increase in food to be favored by evolution.

...Then this sounds like a perfect adaptation for an environment full of double-meat burgers, super-sized fries and 1/2-gallon sodas. This baby's genes seem to have a very bright future.

Re:There must be a major downside...

[swv3752]

The kid is no longer soft and cuddly. We have parental instincts hardwired to respond to soft and cuddly. (This is a bit of oversimplification). A kid built with the hard lines of an adult will not get the automatic benefit of a doubt that a regularly child will receive. If you have kids or been around kids, think of the ire they raise when they do something worng, whether crying as babies or making a mess, or breaking your PS2. Now think of how much madder you'd be if you viewed them as miniature adults instead of children. While having the extra muscle mass might be an advantagous, there is a severe downside in that as a species we would have been less likely to raise such mutants.

Zero Gravity

[Tekoneiric]

I wonder what effect the blockers would have on the human body in zero gravity.

Spooky thought...

[Dr. Smeegee]

From Associated Press Article

Researchers would not disclose the German boy's identity but said he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong, with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy curbstones by hand.

In the mother, one copy of the gene is mutated and the other is normal; the boy has two mutated copies. One almost definitely came from his father, but no information about him has been disclosed. The mutation is very rare in people.

I hate to sound the banjo alarm, but I suspect the easiest way for these genes to double up in the bairn would be in a case of incest.

Eep. Wonder if they are recessive?

Re:It's destiny

[BarryNorton]

Zee Germans may have a few tricks up zhere sleaves.

And they were the rascists?...

Marvel Comics

[razmaspaz]

Wasn't there (I suppose there still is) a Marvel character called Juggeernaut where this was his mutation?

Will this guy be allowed to compete in the Olympics when he grows up?

Are we going to accept this guy or make him an outcast like the X-Men series predicts?

So many unrelated questions so little time.

Re:There must be a major downside...

[John Harrison]

This kid can already hold 7 lb weights from his arms, something that adults have a hard time doing.

Adults would have an easier time of this if their arms were the length of a 4 year old's. I don't mean to belittle his strength, but this is an odd way to measure it since the length of the arm plays as much of a role as the weight involved. I would be more interested in what he can bench press compared to a normal 4 year old.

Re:Evolution

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Could it be the effect of the new work cycle in the last 100 years that is delaying sexual reproduction until after 30?

Re:Why would that be an advantage?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

We're not talking NBA- or NFL-muscular here. This kid may grow so much musculature that he will have trouble walking in a straight line later on. Physical handicaps are seldomly ever a "chick magnet".

Re:Muscular Dystrophy

[SteveZep]

The article says:

In mice with muscular dystrophy, blocking myostatin helped overcome muscle wasting....

Hopefully this type of therapy proves useful in people with MD too.

The article also says:

There is also the potential to help people who have muscle loss from normal aging or from cancer and diseases like those of the lung or kidneys.

This would be a huge benefit to people who are bedridden because of long term illnesses. It could allow them to resume their normal lives quickly once their primary illnesses are resolved, without having to deal with the effects of muscle atrophy that set in after extended periods of inactivity.

Poor Kid

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

He grows up to have damaged skelatal structure, heart problems and will probobly die before he's forty and all the while biotech companies have patented his DNA, reaped massive benifit and he hasen't seen a cent, let alone a euro.

You doubt me. Call me back in 2050 and we'll see.

Re:There must be a major downside...

[maxpublic]

You've got it wrong. It is an advantage, and it has no downside in a society where you can get regular access to a lot of food.

But for nearly the entire history of the human race, and for much of the world today, starvation has been common. Prior to the advent of agriculture humans starved about one out of every three years. Under those conditions, the demands of big muscles which apparently don't easily convert to food will get you killed.

For the kid in Germany who won't have a problem getting enough food to eat, this is one big bonus with no downside.

Max

Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding

[lazn]

Errm I grew up in Africa and did not die of cancer by age 12.. nor did plenty of my friends. (there is a "white" population in africa)

And I spend enough time outdoors, that after moving back to the USA some of my friends had a hard time recognizing me when I lost my (very) dark tan. (yes I am now "pasty white boy")

==>Lazn

Having spent 18 years in belgium...

[Phil John]

...I can say that they have some of the tastiest steak on the face of the planet...really lean, but yet still very, very flavoursome.

Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding

[orthogonal]

Errm I grew up in Africa and did not die of cancer by age 12.. nor did plenty of my friends. (there is a "white" population in Africa)

I'm going to guess that you weren't living like humans lived in Africa 40,000 -- or 120,000 -- years ago: unclothed except for skins (and many days would be too hot for wearing skins), spending most of the day under the hot sun gathering uncultivated fruits and vegetables or running down undomesticated game, without sunscreen or medical supplies beyond naturally occurring plants, with no doctors or even any understanding of why skin cancer occurs.

And quite possibly before natural mutations offering resistance to skin cancers had spread through the human population (by the death of those without those mutations).

And I spend enough time outdoors, that after moving back to the USA some of my friends had a hard time recognizing me when I lost my (very) dark tan. (yes I am now "pasty white boy")

And even with all the modern conveniences of (opaque but light enough to wear in the heat) clothing, sun-screen, and medical care, your body caught enough sunlight to provoke increased melanin production even in your white, European descended body.

I not trying to be overly critical of you here; it's normal for people to think that the conditions that they have personally experienced obtained universally and throughout all of human history. Part of the challenge of learning history or understanding evolution (human or otherwise) is to begin to grasp the enormous differences and the great epochs of time -- time far, far in excess of the span of any single human's life, time measure in the millions of years -- that separate us from our origins.

Let's play a game by pretending that every year only lasts a minute. It's 2004 today, so, by this game's metric, a "minute" ago it was 2003, and thirty-five minutes ago -- a little over half an hour ago -- Neil Armstrong, in 1969, set foot on the moon. In these terms, World War Two ended just a minute less than an hour ago. Three hours and forty-eight minutes ago -- in 1776 -- Thomas Jefferson declared independence for one nation while, essentially simultaneously in our terms, Adam Smith revealed an Invisible Hand that regulated commerce among all nations.

Each hour is comprised of sixty minutes, each day of twenty-four hours, for a total of 1440 minutes per day. So by our scheme, one "day" ago, 1440 minutes ago, an English King named Riothamus -- or Arthur -- had just recently failed to keep south-western England from plunging into barbarity in 564. Since Arthur's reign, the rest of "yesterday" saw the Dark Ages in Europe offset by the flowering of Islamic science and mathematics, the rebirth of Europe in the Renaissance, the exploration and colonization of most of the world by Europeans, and, an hour ago, the beginning of the atomic age. All this in one busy "day".

Even given the brevity of our metric, compressing one year of 525600 minutes into a single minute, it's still easily possible to recite the salient historical events on a year in the sixty seconds we are given, and even include our own particular history: "1903: first heavier-than-air flight; Grandma born." or "1943: Battle of Guadalcanal, Allied invasion of Italy, Warsaw Ghetto uprising against Nazis, Dad born."

But what's most interesting isn't those years, like 1943, crammed full of events, but the far greater number of years which our histories don't distinguish from one another. Two days ago, 48 hours ago, we come to the year 875 BC (since there's no year zero, 1 AD being preceded immediately by 1 BC). While I'm sure that a historian of that era could come with an interesting event of that year, the nearest I can come up with is the ascension of Osorkon II to the pharoah's throne in Egypt the next year in 874 BC. The remainder of day two will be pretty packed: Rome will be founded and will reign for most of the day, Christ will be born and crucified in a brief half-hour - but will give rise to over a "day"

Re:There must be a major downside...

[PantsWearer]

This is simply a case (an interesting case) of variation in the genome.

That's what evolution is based on. It's generally not substantial never-been-seen-before mutations. It's the accumulation of a number of these "interesting cases" that slowly, over generations, redirects the genome of a population.

These little mutations may cause this population to become non-breeding with other parallel populations due to a number of issues. With some species this may simply be the fact that one sub-population's breeding season no longer overlaps with another's (spring vs. fall), even though it's only a minor genome variation. It might be that some new mutation that plays well with other mutations accumulated with the population proves fatal when interacting with the original population's genes. It might also just be a social change; if one population is unattractive to the other, there's not much chance of cross breeding. (Like slashdotters and supermodels.)

In the end, no matter what the reason, separation of populations generally leads to further genetic drift. Not necessarily completely new species, especially if their environments are similar, but drift nonetheless.

Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded this post up (hence the AC status), and I'd just like to say that it is quite simply one of the greatest and most interesting posts I have ever read on Slashdot.

We should have a /. hall of fame or something for comments.

Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding

[geschild]

I had no mod points to give so I can respond under my own name, but I second the AC's reaction that this is one of those memorable posts that you wish you could give a bonus on top of some mod-points. If this is your own writing, please keep it up, it makes up for all the trolls and blabbering idiots out there.

Thanks. Again.

Re:Natural Selection, not evolution

[Josh Booth]

I don't think you understand evolution. Evolution is not an improvement in a population, it is simply a change in the DNA of a population due to random genetic mutations. By applying the fairly obvious observations that organisms that survive and procreate, do, organisms that can't survive and/or procreate, don't, you can see that the population will always be fairly well suited to its environment. Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read up on evolution, so correct me if necessary. And also, neither evolution nor natural selection require a change in the amount of DNA information and don't make statements about progress.