Humanity Gene Found?

Banana_Republican writes "Nature is reporting that that multiple copies of a mystery gene may be what makes us human. It appears that humans have multiple carbon copies of a recently discovered gene that other primates lack. In particular, one sequence not so romantically or emotionally termed 'DUF1220' was mentioned . Humans carry 212 copies of DUF1220, whereas chimps have 37 copies, and monkeys have only 30 copies. Apparently the current thinking is that this gene is responsible for coding important areas of brain function."

Comments

Don't forget human antigenes

[Baldrson]

Although there are some critical genes for expression of human characters, one of the characteristics of rapid evolution seems to be the inactivation of genes. As you progress along the line to humans there appear to be fewer and fewer genes being expressed. This seems to be the result of mutation's default action which is to damage gene function which in general means to deactivate it. Its a lot easier to deactivate a gene than it is to create a gene with positive action. So you can expect that if there are ways to create positive characters at the phenotype level by deactivating genes that would be main way those characters emerge during the early stage of evolution. It is probably also be that some older genes need to be silenced to so that newer genes that actually do function can express less competition.

Speaking of Bars

[iluvcapra]

Can't get enough of the wonderful DUF.

DUF1220 slashdot handle

[lems1]

Ok, this was going to be my new name in Slashdot but some bastard already registered it!

Re:DUF1220 slashdot handle

[dUf1220]

ha ha! foiled you!

Re:DUF1220 slashdot handle

[dUf1220]

ha ha! (you get the point)

Re:Carbon copies?

[elgee]

I guess they don't have DRM. Good thing as if it were up to the RIAA, there would only be one human.

Re:They couldn't have come up with a better name..

[danudwary]

Not that it's going to stop all the Simpsons jokes, but DUF just stands for Domain of Unknown Function. It's not a name so much as a placeholder. There are lots of DUFs.

er... thats a bit of a leap

[gsn]

In other news the more midi-chlorians in your blood, the greater the person's Force ability

TFA says that there is a gene that humans have more copies of than primates and that this gene makes a protein in the brain. They don't know what the protein does in the brain indeed they have no idea what having multiple copies of the gene does. Yet they reach the conclusion that this gene may be responsible for giving us our humanity.

All they seem to have is a weak correlation between the number of this gene and intelligence (which is arguable - I know some really dumb people) and as we've all learnt many times "Correlation does not imply causation."

IANAGS but I'd wait until there was some more evidence on offer.

Re:er... thats a bit of a leap

[Daniel Dvorkin]

All they seem to have is a weak correlation between the number of this gene and intelligence (which is arguable - I know some really dumb people) and as we've all learnt many times "Correlation does not imply causation."

If you RTFA (I know, I know, this is /. and that's against the rules or something) you'll see that the researchers are not claiming anything except "we found this gene, humans have a lot more copies of it than monkeys, and we think that might be important." Anything else is reporter's and/or story submitter's hype.

But there are a couple of other notes I'd like to make in response to your post, which are really responses to lots of posts of this nature. First, this is not a weak correlation; 212 vs. 37 vs. 1 is a significant difference in almost any context, and yes, we've all known some really dumb people, but unless those people are severely retarded, they're still a hell of a lot smarter than the smartest chimp or monkey. Second, I really wish people would stop invoking "correlation does not imply causation" as a mantra. Yes, it's true, but it's also true that correlation implies correlation -- by which I mean that if there is a statistically significant correlation between two variables, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that there exists some connection between them, and to use this assumption as, at the very least, a basis for further investigation.

I think people are so used to misinterpretations of correlation (almost never by scientists, BTW) that they forget that it is still a powerful and useful tool. Actually, this is true of statistics in general. Yes, it's very easy to lie with statistics; it is somewhat harder, but entirely possible and fairly common, to use them to discover great truths.

In other news...

[Evro]

RIAA and MPAA members found lacking new gene...

There's a gene that confers some resistance...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...to HIV. Chimps have more of them than humans. It seems likely that SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) has existed in chimps much longer than HIV in humans. As a result, Chimps with more copies of the gene have outlived their less well endowed relatives and now almost all chimps can coexist with SIV without showing symptoms of immunodeficiency. Apparently humans have started making similar adaptations and in some areas of the world there is now a generation of humans who seem to do a fairly good job of coexisting with HIV. But all humans still have many fewer of these genes than chimps.

But nobody would make the mistake of saying that this gene is the gene for 'chimpness'. It's just an accident of history that SIV arose before HIV.

I learned all of this from an excellent podcast whose name I dare not write for fear of offence...

I hate science reporters

[Luxifer]

from paragraph 2 of TFA:
"Scientists don't know what the gene does."
    No, they know what the gene does, it codes for a protein. They don't know what this protein does.
    Then they say that the protein is expressed all over, including the brain, so that means it may be involved in brain function.
For all they know it could be a structural protein, which is a better bet if it's expressed outside the brain.
    Somehow I doubt that a single gene is responsible for humanity.

    I try to be positive when I post, but what kind of morons do they have writing this stuff? And this is Nature magazine? How about some info on what sort of protein it is: Kinase? Carboxylase? Protease? How about some info on the expression levels instead of how many copies there are? There could be 1000 copies in our genome, but if the expression is low, it doesn't matter.
    Guess I'll have to RTFP, where P=Paper.

Great....

[TrebleJunkie]

...now somebody's going to shove this thing a couple hundred times into a monkey, and it'll be fucking Planet of the Apes for real.

Whats the opposite of DUF?

[CrazyJim1]

If DUF makes us smart, FUD must make us stupid.

Let's Uplift the Three-Toed sloth!

[StefanJ]

Three-toed sloths are an obvious first candidate to become earth's second sapient species.

They can be put to work installing Wi-Fi nodes and spy cameras on telephone poles.

And if they decide to rebel against their human creators, it will be really easy to outrun them.

More Common Elsewhere

[dorath]

I sent a link of the Slashdot article to my brother, with the requisite Duff joke. He responded by saying that DUF1220 is more common in rabbits, elephants, and some other stuff than it is in humans.

I for one welcome our new armadillo overlords.

http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?hgsid=7703 1393&hgt.out2=+3x+&position=chr1%3A142191957-14219 9015

Not as widely reported, but still interesting

[g1zmo]

Humans carry 212 copies of DUF1220, whereas chimps have 37 copies, and monkeys have only 30 copies.

Corporate CEOs carry between 3-6 copies of the gene, and no one has yet to find a middle management specimen exhibiting even a single instance.

In addition, a representative sample of Slashdot readers was tested and there was a remarkably strong correlation between their karma level and copies of the gene. Digg readers came in slightly above MySpace users with 10 and 4 copies, respectively. 8^)