Slashdot Mirror
Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV
WindozeSux writes "According to research done by Dr. Stephen O'Brien, a mutated gene known as delta 32 found in Black Death survivor descendants, stops HIV in its tracks. In order to be immune both parents have to have the delta 32 gene. From the Article: 'In 1996, research showed that delta 32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O'Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O'Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents...'"
. . . is another's saving trait.
This article is interesting on several levels. The fact that some people are completely immune to the disease isn't really remarkable. That's been known for quite some time. What's amazing is that this fairly basic gene (a way of bringing stuff into cells) is completely redundant. It makes me wonder how much of our cellular machinery is simply there in case another part fails.
Don't worry. I don't think there's intelligent design behind it. Just cases of plagues that have swept through populations from time to time, causing these interesting redundancies to appear.
Nothing but cost, [lack of] technology, and religious fundamentalists, I think.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Initially few took up the practise. Interesting many clergymen dennounced the vaccine practise as sin. The clergy believed smallpox was god's design and all, even the children, who died of smallpox were decreed by god to so die. What finally turned the tide some years later was the adoption of the vaccine practise by a high ranking member of the British aristocracy. She (her name and title don't immediately come to mind) had her children vaccinated. The strong british caste system was momentum enough to swing favour toward vaccination.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Plague doesn't cause the mutation, it SELECTS the mutation.
i.e. if you don't have the mutation, plague won't give it to you. It just won't kill you even if you don't get treated if you have the mutation.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Nobody seems to have noticed that TFA is just a summary of a TV show. And one that doesn't seem to have that much to say about Delta 32 either. Anyway, judging from Google, Delta 32 is old news.
yes it's very old news, found this at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi76.htm -
The August 7, 1998, German daily, Die Welt, contained an article by Susanne Horst
"Zehn Prozent der Europaeer sind vor Aids geschuetzt", summarizing the genetic findings of the national cancer center in Chicago as presented by molecular biologist Stephen J. O'Brien.
Human Gene Mutation CCR-5-delta-32
There is apparently a human gene mutation, "Mutation CCR-5-delta-32", which makes its holders nearly immune to AIDS, since this gene has no receptor for AIDS-similar viruses.
Whoever has inherited this gene from BOTH parents is fairly immune to AIDS. Whoever has inherited this gene from only ONE parent also has a good deal of immunity. (The immunity is not perfect in either case, since rare strains of AIDS can use the receptor CXCR 4).
What finally turned the tide some years later was the adoption of the vaccine practise by a high ranking member of the British aristocracy. She (her name and title don't immediately come to mind) had her children vaccinated.
It was the Princess of Wales (though she wasn't the first, she was the person who made it popular). See the Variolation section of this page for more information. This form of vaccination had been practiced in Asia for a couple thousand years before making it to the West.
While much of your post is generally on the fringes of what we know, I can say with general certainty that the answers to these questions is "No" and "No."
For the first question, one shouldn't leap to the conclusion that the number of generations equates to evolutionary success. The two aren't necessarily related. Remember, evolution is essentially about the filling of available biological niches. The niches that humans and bacteria fill are vastly different. In light of this, calling one type of successful species "more evolved" than vastly different, yet also successful, species really carries little meaning. Perhaps a better way of putting it is this: Evolution is not forward-looking. There is no beginning, middle, or end to the evolutionary path of a species. Any species present today (simply by virtue of the fact that it has survived) is just as "evolved" as any other.
For the second question, I seriously doubt our genome will (naturally) become smaller over time. Unlike bacteria, finding the extra nutrient sources to accommodate the amount of unused DNA or non-useful protein products doesn't appear to be a selective pressure. I'd suspect that this is because such an inefficiency is relatively minor for a large multi-cellular omnivore such as us and wasn't an evolutionary driving force in the past nor will be in the future.
Lastly, I'm suspicious to call the DNA whose function remains unknown "junk DNA" as others do. Who's to say that it doesn't serve a purpose simply because we lack a theory for one? To do so reeks of scientific arrogance.
-Grym
Not when the Vatican and religious leaders have been telling them that not only do condoms not prevent HIV infection, but are laced with HIV themselves:
Still think religion in Africa helps fight HIV?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
PBS ran a documentary on this a few years ago. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/index. html