Slashdot Mirror


One Species' Genome Discovered Inside Another's

slyyy writes "The Universtiy of Rochester has discovered the complete genome of a bacterial parasite inside the genome of the host species. This opens the possibility of exchanging DNA between unrelated species and changing our understanding of the evolutionary process. From the article: 'Before this study, geneticists knew of examples where genes from a parasite had crossed into the host, but such an event was considered a rare anomaly except in very simple organisms. Bacterial DNA is very conspicuous in its structure, so if scientists sequencing a nematode genome, for example, come across bacterial DNA, they would likely discard it, reasonably assuming that it was merely contamination--perhaps a bit of bacteria in the gut of the animal, or on its skin. But those genes may not be contamination. They may very well be in the host's own genome. This is exactly what happened with the original sequencing of the genome of the anannassae fruitfly--the huge Wolbachia insert was discarded from the final assembly, despite the fact that it is part of the fly's genome.'"

224 comments

  1. There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are multiple retroviral genomes in our own genome. So I am not too surprised.

    http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/reviews/1017

    1. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but it's part of a virus' nature to insert its DNA into the host. THat's how they work. This is a BACTERIAL genome. Bacteria don't just mix themselves into the hosts.

    2. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe I'm a little slow, but I thought that this story indicated that the Bacteria had done precisely that.

    3. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Prysorra · · Score: 1

      >Bacteria don't just mix themselves into the hosts.

      Sure they do. You just see it happen *as a virus*.

    4. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by martinX · · Score: 1

      IIRC (and it's been a few years), bacterial transposons can move DNA from one bacterium to another, and even incorporate it into host chromosomal DNA, but this discovery does seem to be unique. The whole frikken' genome is there! Sounds like a goof on the assembly line. I blame a god.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    5. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by eli+pabst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wolbachia are kind of funky though. They can live inside of host cells (as an intracellular symbiont) which is a bit uncommon for most bacteria. They do weird things like infect female gametes (eggs) and kill male offspring, that way only infect females will be produced. Still doesn't take away from the fact that you have a bacterial genome integrated into it's host. But they're definitely not a run of the mill bacteria.

    6. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by eiapoce · · Score: 5, Funny

      the Bacteria had done precisely that. Do you think that the retrovirus now could sue for this outstanding patent violation?

      Enrico
    7. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by originalnih · · Score: 0

      I came here for the jokes about interspecies genetic material insertion via the anus.

      I am sorely disappointed. Get on to it! There's nightvision movies of iraqis with donkeys waiting to be linked to!

    8. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wolbachia are kind of funky though. They can live inside of host cells (as an intracellular symbiont) which is a bit uncommon for most bacteria.

      Sounds a bit like the story of the mitochondria

      All your base (pairs) belong to us!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      the Bacteria had done precisely that.

      Do you think that the retrovirus now could sue for this outstanding patent violation?

      Depends on if the retrovirus filed first or if the bacteria could show prior art.

      Personally, my money's on the retrovirus.

      Anyhoo, this should show how it's possible for mutant DNA can get into a genome. Any bets on what this does to ID?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    10. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      It's just as well I never get mod points any more... I can't decide if this should be modded funny or insightful.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    11. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "possibility of exchanging DNA between unrelated species and changing our understanding of the evolutionary process."

      My first response was "DUH".

      Is this not common knowledge?

    12. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's part of a virus' nature to insert its DNA into the host. THat's how they work. This is a BACTERIAL genome. Bacteria don't just mix themselves into the hosts. What happens if a funky DNA-transferring virus infects a symbiotic or parasited host?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by indifferent+children · · Score: 2
      Any bets on what this does to ID?

      This doesn't do anything to Intelligent Design. No scientific evidence will ever do anything to Intelligent Design, because "God did it" covers a multitude of sins. If Intelligent Design were a scientific theory, then it could be proven wrong by such pedestrian things as "evidence".

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    14. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      the Bacteria had done precisely that.

      Do you think that the retrovirus now could sue for this outstanding patent violation?

      Depends on if the retrovirus filed first or if the bacteria could show prior art.

      Personally, my money's on the retrovirus.

      From TFA,

      "Such transfers have happened before in the distant past" notes Werren. "In our very own cells and those of nearly all plants and animals are mitochondria, special structures responsible for generating most of our cells' supply of chemical energy. These were once bacteria that lived inside cells, much like wolbachia does today. Mitochondria still retain their own, albeit tiny, DNA, and most of the genes moved into the nucleus in the very distant past." So, I'd say the bacteria has a pretty strong case for prior art.
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    15. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by dextromulous · · Score: 1

      Because everyone knows that "bacteria and host DNA just don't splice"

      Or was that "pig and elephant," I forget.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    16. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Maset · · Score: 1

      Except that mitochondrial DNA is separate to our own DNA.

    17. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      You can plz takez biolagee? k, thx bai

    18. Re:There are retroviral genomes in ours genome by armareum · · Score: 1

      But as he said, mitochondrial genes moved to the nucleus. That would be DNA of bacterial origin then...

      --
      Is this a rhetorical question?
  2. What about the bacteria in our gut? by Neotrantor · · Score: 0

    Does that mean the bacteria that helps us digest could have lifted some human dna?

  3. mmm... home made mutants! by cez · · Score: 3, Informative

    This might have an interesting impact on the 10 year forecast to creating artificial life discussion from earlier today.

    --
    Walk with Music;
  4. i don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    as long as i don't get the genes from my neighbour

    1. Re:i don't care by ds_job · · Score: 1

      as long as i don't get the genes from my neighbour Well, I might be more interested in getting into the jeans of your neighbour
    2. Re:i don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Agreed. He is a rather attractive fellow in a greasy, bald kind of way.

    3. Re:i don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jim.. that slug diet doesn't work.

    4. Re:i don't care by martinX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get a DNA test. You may have gotten the gene's from your neighbor's father...

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    5. Re:i don't care by ds_job · · Score: 1

      Agreed. He is a rather attractive fellow in a greasy, bald kind of way. Ah, my mistake. I thought you were the Anonymous Coward from Bolton. Thanks for clearing it up.
      I also suppose it depends on which neighbour you are taking about. For example, my neighbour to the left is a reasonably attractive divorcee whilst to the right I have a retired vicar in his 70's. They are both entirely different prospects...
  5. Stargate by Bibz · · Score: 1

    First thing that pops in my mind reading this are the Wraith from Stargate Atlantis. (parasites infesting humans and evolving in a human eating monster)

    --
    I didn't found something funny to put here.
    1. Re:Stargate by medge_42 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more Aliens. Although they seem to copy the DNA of their host.

    2. Re:Stargate by wizardforce · · Score: 1
      they didnt really infest humans, they fed off them somewhat like leeches and their exposure to us somehow altered their DNA to evolve them into the deadly hominoid we know in sg atlantis.

      parasites infesting humans and evolving in a human eating monster
      that sounds more like the zerg infested terran unit, the zerg larvae infest humans and steer/accelerate their evolution into a biolical bomb. true they don't infect on a cellular level [more like the goulde come to think of it] but they do some interesting genetic tricks in the game.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Stargate by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Yet more proof that the Stargate is really real and the show is there to provide plausible deniability for the Stargate project, they even went so far as to have an episode with exactly that scenario to provide another layer of deniability.

    4. Re:Stargate by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      First thing that pops in my mind reading this are the Wraith from Stargate Atlantis. (parasites infesting humans and evolving in a human eating monster)

      Oh pshaw! Thats just completely wrong and reactionary.

      Wraith don't *eat* humans; they suck the life out of them. Totally different.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Stargate by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Wraith don't *eat* humans; they suck the life out of them. Totally different.

      My ex-wife's a Wraith? That certainly explains a lot...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:Stargate by morcego · · Score: 1

      Please to meet you. I think I married your ex-wife.

      Unless there is than one of them.

      --
      morcego
    7. Re:Stargate by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Unless there is than one of them.

      In Soviet Russia, Wraiths eat your words !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  6. scifi tag? by haluness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's with the scifi tag? This is real stuff, not fiction. And not entirely surprising sicne mitochondria in humans are (hypothesized?) ancient bacteria that have been incorporated into the human genome

    1. Re:scifi tag? by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Informative

      The mitochondria have not been incorporated into the human genome. Mitochondria contains its own circular DNA structure, which exists and replicates independently of the genomic DNA. There must have been some gene loss/exchange, however, because many proteins necessary for mitochondrial structure and function are found solely in the genomic DNA.

    2. Re:scifi tag? by linguizic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but it seems that geneticists are now thinking that mtDNA directs the expression of the genes encoded in the nuclear DNA. So things are MUCH more complex than we once thought (no surprise there).

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    3. Re:scifi tag? by khallow · · Score: 1

      There doesn't have to be any interaction at the gene level. Remember survival of mitochondria and nucleic DNA are mutually dependent.

    4. Re:scifi tag? by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Informative

      The mitochondria have not been incorporated into the human genome.
      funny you mention that, apparently when two species merge into a symbiotic relationship like that not only is there genomic reduction but integration of parts of the endosymbiont's genetic material into the host genome. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=166356
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:scifi tag? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I believe the mitochondria DNA is considered part of the human genome, but only by definition.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:scifi tag? by izomiac · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right, but "some gene loss/exchange" would be an understatement. IIRC, there are about 1600 mitochondrial genes, and only about 20 of them are actually on mtDNA (most of those are tRNA). So the rest have been integrated into the "host" genome. This is actually an ongoing process and gene transfer happens a lot more frequently than you'd think. Mitochondrial genes that get inserted are called NUMTs and have actually been associated with human disease.

    7. Re:scifi tag? by catbutt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree. Mitochondria are separate from the nuclear dna, but they are still part of the human genome...just not the nuclear genome.

    8. Re:scifi tag? by RDW · · Score: 2, Informative

      'There must have been some gene loss/exchange, however, because many proteins necessary for mitochondrial structure and function are found solely in the genomic DNA.'

      In fact _most_ of the genes that encode mitochondrial proteins are now in the nucleus, presumably a result of ancient DNA transfer from the primordial mitochondrial genome to the nuclear genome, so the parent post is substantially correct. The modern mitochondrial genome is pretty vestigial (smaller than that of many viruses). The original article speculates that a Wolbachia bug might one day evolve into an organelle by similar processes, and suggests that the existing insert may have a selective advantage for the host.

    9. Re:scifi tag? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      But what about the midichlorian genome? Is that included by default too?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    10. Re:scifi tag? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      A genome is defined as "The complete genetic material of an organism." If the organism can't function without some other organism, you have to include the genome of that other organism.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:scifi tag? by yabos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are there mitochondria in a woman's egg before fertilization? I'm wondering how they get there in the first place if it's not in the DNA of the 2 parents.

    12. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I could say the same for your sister, but it was like trying to fuck the Grand Canyon. I suppose that says something impressive about your girth, but that's about it.

    13. Re:scifi tag? by catbutt · · Score: 3, Informative

      So the genome of the e. coli in our intestines is part of our genome? I don't think so. Mitochondrial dna, yes, because mitochondria are not considered separate organisms, but e. coli are. Admittedly, the lines can be a bit blurry, but still. One big difference is that mitochondrial dna normally passes from parent (specifically mother) to child and ancestry can be traced with it, but e. coli can move "horizontally" much more readily.

    14. Re:scifi tag? by eli+pabst · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are mitochondria in both sperm and egg. Offspring generally inherit only the mothers mitochondria, though their have been a few reported cases paternal mitochondria inheritance. I believe the theory is that while they are present in both male and female gametes, the males mitochondria are degraded almost immediately after fertilization.

    15. Re:scifi tag? by yabos · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thanks for the info. I don't remember learning that in HS Bio.

    16. Re:scifi tag? by bitrex · · Score: 1

      the males mitochondria are degraded almost immediately after fertilization. Rather like the male's sex life.
    17. Re:scifi tag? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me you don't know what midichlorians are.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    18. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The mitochondria have not been incorporated into the human genome."

      The above is only partially true. Many proteins that are fundamental for mitochondrial functions are encoded in genes hosted in the main cellular genome, and are known to be direct homologs of baterial genes. There are many possible benefits that can explain the migration of the genes, but primarily and above all may be the advantages of sexual recombination: to mix into a single individual inventions that occurred in separate family trees. Mitochondrial genomes change very, very slowly, and almost never mix up with other mitochondria (i.e. the norm is to inherit directly the mitochondria from the mother, unmixed with that of the father.)

    19. Re:scifi tag? by Angry+Toad · · Score: 1

      It isn't even new. There's plenty known about bacterial genes in eukaryotes. This is just a striking case of large-scale horizontal transfer into an animal genome. It isn't even the first time transfer from bacteria to animals has been seen. It seems to be a pretty widespread process in general in eukaryotes. Of course that's also ignoring the gigantic contribution of bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes from the mitonchondrial symbiont, and the equally huge contribution of cyanobacterial genes from the chloroplast as well.

    20. Re:scifi tag? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      IANAB, but I believe their are. We inherit our mDNA exclusively from our mothers. By the way, this is how they traced back the human genome to find the 'Mitochondrial Eve', a theoretical female ancestor of all humans alive today. She lived about 200,000 years ago, and they figured this out by looking at the mDNA from people around the world and figuring how long ago it was the same.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    21. Re:scifi tag? by Bob54321 · · Score: 1

      In fact most of what appears to be the genome form the organism that mitochondria are derived from is now in the nuclear genome.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    22. Re:scifi tag? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Interesting article. Thanks from an ex Molecular Biologist grad student.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not. However, chloroplasts (similar to mitochondria as far as the Endosymbiont Theory is concerned) do have functions that are encoded in the nuclear genome, which presumably were integrated ala Wolbachia. RUBISCO anyone? The most abundant enzyme on earth.

    24. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "their"
      there
      credibility

    25. Re:scifi tag? by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are. There are also mitochondria in sperm, but they are (usually) destroyed upon fertilization.

    26. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is generally accepted that there has been a large-scale transfer of genes from mitochondria to nuclear DNA; also chloroplasts have done something similar.

      But nonetheless the *entire* genome of the alpha-proteobacterium which is believed to be the mitochondrial ancestor is not extant in modern genomic DNA so it's not quite correct to say they have been incorported into the "genome" as such although this is a trivial terminology issue.

      However the mass migration might potentially have started by the wholescale copying of the genome in this way, it's such a long time ago it's hard to say. The most interesting question is which mechanisms are responsible in each case.

    27. Re:scifi tag? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Yep, each cell has several mitchondria. When a cell divides each daughter cell gets roughtly half of them (if it doesn't get any then it dies). As the cell grows the mitochondria detects that it has a relatively low population relative to the cell size so it divides. When a woman produces eggs the mitochondria are included (causing mitochondria to be inherited solely from the mother, baring extreme circumstances).

    28. Re:scifi tag? by Spurion · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm wondering how they get there in the first place
      The same way they get into any other cell. Eggs, like all cells, are produced by cell division. It's not exactly the same process (meiosis rather than mitosis) but many aspects are the same.
      --
      Any sufficiently self-referential snowcloned .sig is indistinguishable from nonsense.
    29. Re:scifi tag? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but I actually meant 'they', as in "they are".

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    30. Re:scifi tag? by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Can you cite a source on this? I am not doubting you, because you sound like you know what you're talking about, but I had been under the impression that sperm cells did not have mitochondria, and had a limited amount of energy to use before they burned out.

      In fact, I was under the impression that the whole reason sexual reproduction requires two different types of gametes is that one gamete has to be responsible for providing all the mitochondria in the fertilized cell, or the two differing breeds of mitochondria would somehow interfere with one another and leave the cell underpowered.

      Obviously I'm just an interested layman, but I'd love to read up on this some more if my impression of how this works is not right.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    31. Re:scifi tag? by eli+pabst · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is some info on it at the Wikipedia page for mitochondrion:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Replica tion_and_gene_inheritance
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Mit ochondrial_inheritance

      I don't know what kind of access you have to scientific journals but this abstract has a pretty good description of sperm mitochondria and how they are degraded via ubiquitinylation (a common degradation pathway)

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12672125

      Hope that helps.

    32. Re:scifi tag? by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    33. Re:scifi tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you can't cite a source on this; you're entirely wrong.

    34. Re:scifi tag? by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      lol. I'd mod-up if I had points.

    35. Re:scifi tag? by Founder+of+PostGenet · · Score: 1

      What was Scifi in Jules Verne's time is today's science & technology. The "Genome inside a Genome" (and as seen in Junk DNA Portal ) also, "an entire Gene in the intron of another Gene", the Genome seems to show an architecture (algorithm) of nested hierarchies, that can e.g. be described by (multi)fractals. What is truly mind-boggling, that with the ENCODE-Report (led by NIH, a USA Government Agency) essentially all dogma of Genomics (as we knew it) are invalidated; "Junk DNA" is dead as a doornail, "Gene" concept needs "an updated definition", "Central Dogma" (of Crick) is demonstrably invalid. Now, this finding "offers new mechanisms of evolution"... pellionisz_at_junkdna.com

  7. Mitochondria by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, weren't mitochondria, that occur in all our cells, originally symbiotic bacteria?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Mitochondria by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      They still are symbiotic bacteria. They have their own DNA, life-cycle, etc.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  8. Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by Erris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This discovery is unsetling and I hope that it's an error. There's already evidence that pesticide resistance from GM crops has turned up in weeds. Gene swapping in the wild might happen more often than we would like. Some of the unpleasant possibilities include food you can't eat, cotton you can't wear and weeds you can't get rid of.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "There's already evidence that pesticide resistance from GM crops has turned up in weeds."
      oh?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We've long known about a few genes getting transfered between species but this is talking about a whole genome not little pieces like genes.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by cez · · Score: 1

      While I don't hope it's an error, (learning something new can always be a positive) Gene swapping in the wild and mutations due to antibacteria soap let alone who knows what else, may lead to some interesting problems to solve in the future. I for one, eh never mind, our new bacteria overlords haven't mutated enough to hear me, yet. But kidding aside, innovation can be driven by necessity...but even lacking some dire, yet I'm sure comically relieving dependant on how dark your humor is, circumstances; who's to say that a discovery such as this won't lead to some sort of world changing improvement?

      --
      Walk with Music;
    4. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by linguizic · · Score: 1

      RoundUpReady crops were genetically modified using a gene that was found in nature, in fact, right outside the the RoundUp factory. So these genes were already in the wild before people started using them to modify food crops.

      I know you didn't state this, but let me put this out there, because there is a lot of confusion about this: there is no RoundUp in RoundUpReady crops. But there is a gene that makes them resistant to roundup, so you can spray with extra strong roundup and kill all the weeds around it with harming the crop. So as a food source RUR crops are OK. The real problem is all that herbicide going in to the soil.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    5. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Provide a cite, please. I follow this and don't recall reading that. Again, cite please.

    6. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      I think that the resistance to Roundup was already there... What happened is these weeds that had it, now have little competition from other weeds that didn't (since they are dead)... but that's a good thing because Roundup will soon become useless.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    7. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Puts a new spin on you are what you eat. I need to quit eating the Burger King customers.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by catbutt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this is so scary. This is something that happens naturally, so it's presumably been going on since long before humans were around. Issues with pesticide resistance and genetic modification seems peripherally related, at best.

    9. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by Erris · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this is so scary. This is something that happens naturally, so it's presumably been going on since long before humans were around.

      Intensive agriculture is the very antithesis of natural selection. Natural selection has given us cotton that bugs can eat and we can wear. GM is giving us cotton that bugs can't eat and there's evidence that we should not wear it either.

      Harmful organisms we accidentally create may revert to harmless forms given normal evolutionary timeframes. Want to wait a few thousand years to find out?

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    10. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing how you got the "cotton you can't wear" part...

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by caino · · Score: 1

      The bacterial DNA had direct exposure to the fruitfly's nucleus, which of course makes dna transfer and incorporation much easier. DNA transfer between plants is not likely, more likely is the overuse of glyphosate (round-up) on genetically modified "round up ready" crops which creates an opportunity for resistant weeds to flourish. Not the same thing. The research is interesting, but I'm sure that the researchers understand the power of the publicity created by this kind of study. Fly people and wraiths abound.

    12. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Great, and pollution is a problem too, but I don't see how it is related to this issue.

      This story is about things that happen naturally. Your concerns are things caused by humans. See the difference?

    13. Re:Round up ready weeds and other horrors. by CYDVicious · · Score: 1

      Next step is to GM Weeds to produce fruit giving new meaning to the term "weed eater" :D

      ~CYD

      --
      //Nothing to see here, please move along.
  9. Wow by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought I was into some kinky shit, but I never tried to stick my genome into someone.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have... you should get out of the basement sometime and try it. It's really a lot of fun.

    2. Re:Wow by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      I thought I was into some kinky shit, but I never tried to stick my genome into someone. I recommend you try it some time. It turns out it is pretty fun.
    3. Re:Wow by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I suggest you try it. More fun than letting it spill.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    4. Re:Wow by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I realized the literal interpretation as soon as I posted that. Usually make an effort to keep the gametes apart, though.

      -Peter

    5. Re:Wow by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      That's one point of view . . .

      -Peter

    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I bet you have done. Well, a random selection of half of it, anyway...

  10. Descolada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like they found the descolada!
    Now to infect some piggies with this bacteria a la enders game series

    1. Re:Descolada by xerxesVII · · Score: 1

      Since I'm in the middle of reading this series for the first time, Descolada was the very first thing that came to mind. I know this case isn't like that, but the timing was just too coincidental.

      --
      "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  11. Is this new? by dbolger · · Score: 1

    I vaguely remember reading about the human genome being found to contain the genome of viruses that we our bodies had defeated aeons ago, but which had been incorporated into our own genetic code as a result. I can't find the text now, but I'm guessing I read it on Slashdot. It is an intriguing idea - imagine in millenia to come, some gigantic alien species carrying around the human genetic code inside their own bodies :)

    1. Re:Is this new? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I vaguely remember reading about the human genome being found to contain the genome of viruses that we our bodies had defeated aeons ago, but which had been incorporated into our own genetic code as a result.


      That's fairly expected for viruses: virus entire mode of operation is injecting their DNA into cells which then reproduce them (sometimes this destroys the cell, sometimes not). Viral DNA in the genome of a host species isn't, therefore, very surprising (it does require the virus to have at some point infected, non-fatally, a germ cell rather than a somatic cell, but given enough time and population, that's bound to happen a number of times.)

      Finding a large segment of the genome of another organism (a virus isn't an organism), though, is more surprising, since that's usually not how we understand organisms to work.
    2. Re:Is this new? by Denis+Troller · · Score: 1

      You might have read it in a novel.

      I think Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio (http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Radio-Greg-Bear/dp/ 0345459814/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9184374-4734362?ie= UTF8&s=books&qid=1188518531&sr=8-1 novel is based on that premise.

      --
      That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
    3. Re:Is this new? by DToid_Nex · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      And philosophically speaking, perhaps this gives evolutionary, biological credence to the archaic practice of some cultures who ate the hearts/brains/blood of their enemies to absorb their strength.

      I mean, that idea had to come from somewhere, right? What better inspiration than a subconscious knowledge of the human organism's own basis in the biological structures of other, lesser entities?

  12. It'd be cool if we could spawn our own bacteria by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course I'm being high, here, and talking out of my ass, but it does lend a whole new perspective on our role as a part of the ecosystem, as opposed to separate from it.

    1. Re:It'd be cool if we could spawn our own bacteria by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is in line with Terrence McKenna's theory that there aren't individual <i>species</i> on earth -- instead, there is a "gene swarm" going on.

      If you're high right now, I bet you'd love Terrence McKenna.  Youtube for his DMT videos and other stuff.

    2. Re:It'd be cool if we could spawn our own bacteria by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I'll have to check him out, then.

      I'm glad to know I managed to get that "I'm so high" tone in my post!  That actually is what I was going for

      Kinda like right now. :-)

  13. Dawkins by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not so surprising if you've read Dawkins (For the non geneticists among us).

    You see, according to him, we are machines whose purpose is to allow genes to replicate. The fact that other genes co-opt this mechanism isn't entirely surprising if you look at it from that perspective.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Dawkins by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      Not so surprising if you've read Dawkins (For the non geneticists among us).

      You see, according to him, we are machines whose purpose is to allow genes to replicate. So Slashdot is like a huge, broken robot?
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Dawkins by Empiric · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...that is, your purpose insofar as you and Dawkins know. ;)


      Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

      --Gospel of Thomas


      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Dawkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHO said WHAT? Am I supposed to know who that is?

    4. Re:Dawkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick that bible shit up your stupid fucking ass, where it belongs!

    5. Re:Dawkins by tukkayoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Of course, we've always known for a while that it's possible for biological agents to co-opt other organisms ... viruses co-opt cellular functions to reproduce themselves and retroviruses will co-opt the host's DNA itself, often to the detriment of the host organism. Non-viral parasites can also co-opt the metabolic functioning of a host organism or even control the hosts' minds.

      So this sort of dog-eat-dog, inter-species warfare (as well as friendly symbiosis and back-scratching) between genes for the purpose of gene replication is nothing new or surprising to people familiar with biology, but what is new is the fact that bacteria apparently interact with the DNA of organisms in ways we didn't quite expect. It's just not something most people quite expected ... this is probably a flawed analogy, but it'd be like learning that some turtles can fly. Sure, you can imagine there might be an advantage to the genes belonging to the turtle that can fly, but it's still not something you expect to discover ... of course, we understand the qualities turtles have which would prevent them from evolving the necessary characteristics for flight perhaps better than we understand the way bacteria work.

      Incidentally, these findings seem to be an additional point of evidence against the common creationist argument that you can't add information to the genome through any known naturalistic mechanism (there is a video out there where Dawkins is supposedly stumped when asked for an example of how this might occur). These findings seem to demonstrate that in addition to other known and speculated mechanisms of genetic change, bacteria can integrate aspects of their genome into that of another organisms. As the article indicates, this may have significant implications for our models of biological evolution. Pretty incredible stuff.

    6. Re:Dawkins by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      I have mod points and wanted to mod you down, but I thought I should reply instead -- just in case the less well informed take the grandparent post to be christian in nature.

      I hope you realize the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible and was just making a joke.

      Elsewhere, people make comments that show that they know zilt about biology (and get modded way up nonetheless!). I wonder where all the more mature readers of slashdot are.

    7. Re:Dawkins by witte · · Score: 1

      >I wonder where all the more mature readers of slashdot are.

      Probably gettin' busy on version n+1 of their gene code -> no more time for slashdot.

      (Oh, sorry, how immature of me. :-)

    8. Re:Dawkins by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      this is probably a flawed analogy, but it'd be like learning that some turtles can fly. Sure, you can imagine there might be an advantage to the genes belonging to the turtle that can fly, but it's still not something you expect to discover ... A flying turtle did not surprise me...that the flight was rocket-powered was another matter entirely.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:Dawkins by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, these findings seem to be an additional point of evidence against the common creationist argument that you can't add information to the genome through any known naturalistic mechanism

      That is interesting, but despite the researcher's optimism...

      Werren and Clark are now looking further into the huge insert found in the fruitfly, and whether it is providing a benefit. "The chance that a chunk of DNA of this magnitude is totally neutral, I think, is pretty small, so the implication is that it has imparted of some selective advantage to the host," says Werren. "The question is, are these foreign genes providing new functions for the host? This is something we need to figure out."

      ...insertion of bacteria DNA as a mechanism for evolution is a pretty weak theory. You would have to show some likelihood of that gene insertion conferring some advantage or contributing toward some significant change. It will be interesting to see what they find.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    10. Re:Dawkins by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

      --Gospel of Thomas'

      Since Thomas didn't write the Gospel of Thomas (and the same is true of all the books in the new testament) what you are really saying is that someone wrote that someone said that someone else said "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man." And lets just ignore the fact that the one who wrote that knew neither Thomas nor Jesus and lived long after the death of anyone who did.

    11. Re:Dawkins by tukkayoot · · Score: 1

      ...insertion of bacteria DNA as a mechanism for evolution is a pretty weak theory. You would have to show some likelihood of that gene insertion conferring some advantage or contributing toward some significant change. It will be interesting to see what they find.

      I don't know that it's a weak theory.

      It may be an as yet uncorroborated hypothesis, but it seems like a strong one to me. I'm not a biologist though.

      I'd be a little surprised if these prokaryote to eukaryote gene transfers never ended up conferring a survival advantage or a new function (though I would imagine that they, like most genetic changes, usually end up being detrimental or generally neutral), if such transfers are as common as this research seems to suggest. As you say, it'll be interesting to see what they find out, and it certainly seems to bear further investigation, as now we know that many of those apparent "contaminations" found in our past efforts to sequence animal genomes may in fact be functional components of the subject's DNA. There could be some real gems in that pile of genes that were, apparently, previously being simply discarded and ignored.

      I can't wait to hear the take some other geneticists and biologists have on this.
    12. Re:Dawkins by tukkayoot · · Score: 1

      I remember having read this in "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkings that was written 30 years ago... whats so great about this? or is it just a prove that it actually works that way?

      The selfish gene hypothesis is a very good one. It basically makes the argument for the gene as the unit of selection (as opposed to the individual organism, some sort of "group," or the species), which before Williams and Dawkins, was a fairly uncommon idea. The idea turned out to be a great one for advancing our understanding of evolutionary biology and is now very well subscribed within the field. However, The Selfish Gene didn't very explicitly cover, or enumerate all of possible ways in which genes might replicate -- only that such replication is their primary goal, and the successes and failures of such replicators (determined by natural selection) are the driving force of evolution.

      This study is great because it tells us something new about how changes can occur within the genome of multicellular organisms and it's a specific mechanism for change that few seem to have expected, probably including Dawkins (though there is certainly nothing about these findings that contradicts the selfish gene). These findings may have implications for our models of plant/animal evolution that could be highly significant ... or fairly minor. Regardless, it is an interesting finding.
    13. Re:Dawkins by Empiric · · Score: 1

      In brief (and I tend to be brief nowadays since I realized simply by waiting I automatically win)...

      As stated, your "Since Thomas didn't write... the same is true..." is simply a direct, blatant, lie. There is no possible way you could -know- this as the case, in particular with respect to Thomas. In fact, this book tends to cause some consternation within the mainline Christian churches, as it is quite difficult to counter the scholarly consensus of first-or-second-century provenance, and many find it doctrinally objectionable. In other words, to remove some perceived bias from the discussion, though many Christians themselves would like your statement to be known as true regarding Thomas, that simply isn't the case. Naturally, you're going well beyond what any serious scholar would state regarding a 2000-year-old document, and going ahead and stating that you personally know for a certain fact it was not written by Thomas, nor anyone who knew him. Not merely that, but somehow you know this as a fact regarding -all- New Testament books. Unfortunately for you, that claim is absurd on its face.

      But let's say you are correct--in that case, it still wouldn't matter. "The Gospel According to X" does not assert that "X" wrote the document, simply. If I collected, say, statements of Yoko Ono regarding John Lennon, which were provided verbally and/or second hand, it is still perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that my document is "John Lennon According To Yoko Ono". You may choose to not believe that my claim that Yoko Ono said something is factually true, but the mere title does not get you to that conclusion. Somehow, I expect you already realized this, some time while you were wishing it was logically coherent that attacking your personal expectations of authorship would invalidate the content.

      For any readers who would be interested in historical analysis that is actually serious regarding these books, by actual Christian -and- secular historians, I suggest http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ .

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    14. Re:Dawkins by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'As stated, your "Since Thomas didn't write... the same is true..." is simply a direct, blatant, lie. There is no possible way you could -know- this as the case'

      There is a very simple way. There are no two thousand year old printing presses, and there are no copies of any new testament gospel that are two thousand years old. In fact, there aren't any that are even close to two thousand years old.

      'But let's say you are correct--in that case, it still wouldn't matter. "The Gospel According to X" does not assert that "X" wrote the document, simply. If I collected, say, statements of Yoko Ono regarding John Lennon, which were provided verbally and/or second hand, it is still perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that my document is "John Lennon According To Yoko Ono". You may choose to not believe that my claim that Yoko Ono said something is factually true, but the mere title does not get you to that conclusion.'

      No, the fact that you got the statements second hand does. There is a little game they play in school to demonstrate this concept, the result is unavoidable because it is a result of how our brains function and store memory which in turn is the same reason eye witness accounts are so inaccurate that they shouldn't be allowed in court. In the game the teacher whispers a statement to one student, that student in turn whispers to other students. After the message has passed around the room, the teacher asks the last student what he heard and various students before him. The answer is different each time and none will have the correct answer. The more complex the message the greater the variation. Real historians studying ancient texts will tell you that this is equally true of books being hand copied. Every author changes them.

      Is it possible that the stories originated with the life of Christ but it really doesn't matter. It is safe to say that while there may be a kernel of truth in each as in any legend, none are the actual events that transpired or likely anything close to those events.

  14. humility, what's that? by Once&FutureRocketman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But of course we understand genetics and the dynamics of genome development well enough that it's perfectly reasonable for us to manipulate the genes of our primary food crops and release them into the wild. No problem there.

    --

    "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun

    1. Re:humility, what's that? by cnettel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, no problem. After all, this shows that the species barrier (which is one of the main criticisms against GM crops) is thinner than believed. We get an interesting variety through modern methods. The problem of a not completely described monoculture is still a significant one, but the foodcrop varieties already in use are already such monocultures. Preserving local varieties in some form is essential, but those varieties are on the other hand not good enough to feed us all.

    2. Re:humility, what's that? by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      Only one way to know for sure. Bring me the 2 hearted artichoke!

    3. Re:humility, what's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god I love sarcasm. And the way you used it to cover up a subject which you obviously know so little about, just genius. "Releasing into the wild"? It's not some bald eagle with a broken wing that's been subsequently nursed back to health...
      The reality is that until people stop pumping out babies, we've no choice but to increase yield, in fact that's exactly what every seed company is pumping money into genetic research for. Rather than sitting behind your little laptop computer at starbucks and making smug sarcastic comments, how about putting your birkenstocks back on and sterilizing those you perceive to be less intelligent than yourself? Or just walking into traffic?

      You'd think someone who must eat only rocks would save enough money to buy a clue...

    4. Re:humility, what's that? by nateb · · Score: 1
      And we all know that human beings would be much better off without fire.

      You know, being smart and all that doesn't make life better. My cats are very happy to run around the fields and catch mice, my cows are happy walking around eating the grass. We would be just fine without a prefrontal cortex, I guarantee it.

      --
      -- Nate
    5. Re:humility, what's that? by IConrad01 · · Score: 1

      You know, being smart and all that doesn't make life better.
      Why don't you try telling that to the fact that the sun is eventually going to simply burn out, eliminating all solar-dependent life on this rock? Human-level or greater intelligence is the only way to avoid such existential risks as this, and giant rocks falling out of the sky. Because the happy little dinosaurs did so well when that happened to them, too. A happy life is not necessarily a better life. Hedonism is only one philosophical value set, of many.
    6. Re:humility, what's that? by egg_sucking_leech · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do have a solid grasp of genome dynamics - especially for for modification of food crops. In fact, scientist use naturally occurring processes to insert genes into plants. One of the best and most stable way of introducing genes into plants is using a bacteria Agrobacterium to insert genes into plant cells. Agrobacterium, along with other genera of bacteria, have long been inserting DNA into the genomes of various plant species. Also, in North America alone there has been the destruction of over 250 million acres of native ecosystems to plant things like corn, soybean, wheat note: that none of these plants are native to the US and all have been subjected to artificial selection (genetic modification) for thousands of years. Genetic engineering of crops has only brought in a small number well tested genes into food crops. Finally, horizontal gene transfer (the movement of genes between two different species, usually large taxonomic differences) is somewhat common in plants http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract /58/1/1

      Also, horizontal gene transfer is common in other photosynthetic organisms such as Dinoflagellates....

      So yes, we have a good understanding of gene transfer technologies and the general biology of gene transfer both in nature and in the lab. Yes, there are likely to be even more exciting results as more genomes are sequenced.

      The question is what genes do we use to genetically engineer organisms? How far do we want to modify food versus say energy crops? Who owns or controls the production of these crops? It is important not to fear the technology but understand the technology and understand that genetic engineering helps scientist understand basic plant biology and can be beneficial both for humans and if done right for the environment (less use of land for crops, less use of insecticides and fungicides which leech into streams...).

    7. Re:humility, what's that? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try telling that to the fact that the sun is eventually going to simply burn out, eliminating all solar-dependent life on this rock?

      Actually, before that happens the sun will become a red giant star, engulf Mercury and Venus and probably the Earth as well (either that or its surface will be so close to the Earth that the entire face of the planet will melt into volcanic slag). But I guess the point is the same.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:humility, what's that? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      a-bloody-men.

      "Happiness is a Mediocre Sin" - saul williams

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    9. Re:humility, what's that? by Once&FutureRocketman · · Score: 1

      Play with fire all you want. You have every right to take risks on your own behalf. But releasing a fertile, open-pollinated GMO crop is effectively making that risk decision for everyone else. Does Monsanto have the right to do that, in pursuit of profit. I think not.

      Note that the greatest hazard of GMO crops is not the poorly studied potential dangers of the GM organism itself: it's the danger of running afoul of Monsanto's intellectual property.

      --

      "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun

    10. Re:humility, what's that? by kanweg · · Score: 1

      So, the big fireballs in the WTC towers must have been great, right? Or can we agree that we're better of with some phenomena being nicely contained?

      Bert

  15. Already proven by Destroy All Humans by $pace6host · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on, you all knew the Furon genome was secreted into the human genome, right? That's why Crypto 137 is wandering around collecting brain stems!

  16. Wraith? by Starteck81 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rodney is that you?

    --
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  17. mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by brit74 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I haven't heard of a whole genome being inside another species. Although, the mitochondria (which are small energy producing factories inside most life - including mammals) have their own DNA which is separate from our nuclear DNA. Its DNA sequence resembles the sequence of single-celled organisms, which hints that there was a fusion of two different organisms hundreds of millions of years ago. Additionally, plants have chloroplasts (which do photosynthesis), and these are similar - they appear to have been cyanobacteria (independent organisms) that fused with another organism and became organelles within those cells. There are also bits of viral DNA in our own genome - it apparently fused into our DNA long ago. (In fact, you can trace evolutionary relationships by comparing the sequence and positions of these viral bits of DNA across species. Unsurprisingly, humans and apes share a remarkable number of matching viral DNA chunks.)

    1. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Unsurprisingly, humans and apes share a remarkable number of matching viral DNA chunks.)

      Well DUH, considering humans ARE apes

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wonder what horrible mutilating illness caused us to lose our nice shiny fur and prehensile tails...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apes... don't have... tails.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      The most supported theory currently is we're better off without fur due to all the parasites that can turn fur into a lovely home.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    5. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by weicco · · Score: 1

      Although, the mitochondria (which are small energy producing factories inside most life - including mammals)

      For a second I thought it said midichlorian...

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    6. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard of a whole genome being inside another species.
      Many insects have complete bacteria living in each of their cells. These are called endosymbiont.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    7. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I bet that guy's a DBZ fan. Oozaru and all that. Dimes to dollars, I bet he is.

    8. Re:mitochondria, chloroplasts, viral DNA by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'The most supported theory currently is we're better off without fur due to all the parasites that can turn fur into a lovely home.'

      I've got a better one, tits and ass are sexier when they aren't covered in fur. There is no particular reason that selected genes will actually be superior unless your only criteria for defining superiority is 'more likely to be selected'.

  18. phoenix by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

    roughly 8% of our own species' genome consists of bacterial and viral genetic material. some of the segments are nearly complete with at least one case of a virus being resurected called Phoenix. it seems to be a fairly common process, viruses can lose critical genes while trying to replicate in cells which can leave them unable to reproduce as usual, the genome becomes integrated into our own. there are also cases [herpes for example] which can integrate their genome with ours in certyain cells and effectively become dormant, they start the cycle again when and if certain conditions are met. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/07virus. html?ei=5088&en=492dd1d370217836&ex=1320555600&adx nnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163032655-5n RqAOkgWGeKvh/qQcSYCg

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:phoenix by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      Well if its true that there are process by which our DNA can be changed by other organisms, and some older traits brought out through some sort of manipulation (like Phoenix), it just stands to reason that dormant parts of our DNA could theoritically be brought out if you used the right bacteria. Couldn't it stand to reason that you could introduce certain bacteria which can then change our DNA into something really cool like regeneration properties often found in reptiles, and/or CO2 tolerance found within aligators/crocs who can increase their underwater time by a lot?

      I mean if you think of it like that, the possibilies could be limitless.

    2. Re:phoenix by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      cancer frequently turns on dormant genes such as genes involved in angiogenesis [blood vessel growth], telemerase [immortalisation] and certain tumors switch on genes entirely unrelated to their own growth, there are examples of teeth, hair and other structures forming because of the influences of a tumor [they actually found a tumor with its own teeth] it has also been demonstrated that stem cells from other species introduced into young chicks resulted in the growth of teeth [chickens retain the genes to do so but not the chemical signals needed to start the process] which could very well hold true for our own species as well. the liver for example can grow back from a relatively small fraction of a fully grown liver to become a fully functional healthy liver, this is the case with certain liver transplants where only a section of a living liver is used for the transplant. in addition, many mammals also have some form of hibernation mechanism, a very old one it seems that can under some circumstances be activated.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:phoenix by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that mitochondrial DNA are unable to do so because cells out there in our nucleus don't have maps and I believe that replication such as in bacteria and the virus everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our replication over here in the mitochondrial should help the genomic or should help bacteria and should help the virus and the wolbachian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  19. Apparently. by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    I was just going to post something along this line. I believe the process is termed endosymbiotic theory.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our genome rewriting bacteria overlords!

  23. Benefits for the host? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful
    FTA:

    Werren and Clark are now looking further into the huge insert found in the fruitfly, and whether it is providing a benefit. "The chance that a chunk of DNA of this magnitude is totally neutral, I think, is pretty small, so the implication is that it has imparted of some selective advantage to the host," says Werren. "The question is, are these foreign genes providing new functions for the host? This is something we need to figure out."


    I wonder if this has already happened to humans through generations. In fact, I wonder if this is a standard working component of evolution, where bacteria are a catalyst. It seems that nature always gives us nice surprises to keep us in awe and realizing we don't know anything about biology.

    (As a side note, I was suddenly reminded of the Metroid Fusion game, where Samus absorbs the X cores' DNA and incorporates them into her system)
  24. Parasites and host behavior by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It dosen't stop there. Certain parasites are apparently able to change the behavior of their hosts.

    1. Re:Parasites and host behavior by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just read a superb book called "Survival Of The Sickest" that went on at *length* about parasite control of parasitized animals, from wasps that sting spiders and implant eggs, that during their development cause the spiders to weave cocoons for the hatching wasps, through the effects of toxoplasmosis on altering how mice behave so they get eaten by the toxoplasmosis host, to other things I'd never even considered. Guinea worm is this horrible disease where a worm bores through your skin with acid. It hurts, a lot, so people go find rivers and pools because the water makes it hurt less -- and the guinea worm dumps eggs as soon as it's in water, to get the next person who drinks from that water. Rabies infects brains, making animals aggressive, and also concentrates in saliva, so the aggressive animals are more likely to bite and transfer the disease. The book even went over some guidelines for predicting how lethal a disease would be, based on its mode of transmission: typically, we've thought that diseases get less lethal over time because that increases their ability to spread, but the book says it depends on the transmission path. Malaria wants -- inasmuch as a disease can want anything -- people to be very ill indeed, so that they spend lots of time not moving, giving mosquitoes a better chance of finding the people, while colds do want people to be as mildly sick as possible so they can maximize their distribution. A particularly neat case is cholera, which can be spread by human-human contact, or more usually by contamination of drinking water. In the latter case, the sicker the person, the better, because more bacteria will be voided by the person through diarrhea, while in the former case, milder infections spread more because there's longer-term contact with heath care personnel, meaning more chances to spread. Watching cholera epidemics in South America, that's exactly what they observed: in countries that were poor, where there wasn't really any official health care, the disease became progressively more lethal over time, while in countries where infected people got immediate health care, the disease got less lethal over time. It's not a bad read, although the doctor who wrote it, Sharon Morel (I believe) should've just written it, instead of hiring a ghost writer who turned it into a succession of USAToday-feeling articles.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Parasites and host behavior by salec · · Score: 1

      That is evolution: the mold shapes the cast. Given the circumstances, development direction of the change will highlight all viable optimization scenarios, just like molten material fills all the pockets and grooves on the mold's inside surface. In real life, this "casting" is done with multitude of different materials in a mold ... that varies its shape so it is altogether pretty much chaotic, but principle holds - evolution is very simple rule at work and not strictly a biological process. What I find very interesting thought is that clearly shows us the cross-scan of everything possible. For instance, since we never observed paranormal activity in nature (other species), we can pretty much discard it as either impossible, or disappointingly worthless.

  25. Intelligent Design by DiscoLizard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly a copy/paste error...

  26. Ad-Aware for genome now! by kaos.geo · · Score: 1

    What I first though about when I read this story was.. We should clean the host's genome and then defrag it! We need some ad-aware like tool to clean the genome! :-) I guess this is a new form of car analogies. Now what would be really good would be to know if this dna can become a parasite again in any way... And if so.. what triggers it?!! :P

  27. Opens the possibility? Already open by noidentity · · Score: 1

    "This opens our eyes to the possibility of exchanging DNA between unrelated species and changing our understanding of the evolutionary process."

    There, fixed that for you. Us finding out about something doesn't mean it didn't exist before we knew, as much as we like to believe.

  28. Doesn't mean two organisms combined by ross.w · · Score: 3, Funny

    it just means the FSM reused his code. Doesn't everyone?

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    1. Re:Doesn't mean two organisms combined by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Flying Spaghetti Monster! The Spaghetti stands for its code structure liberally sprinkled with tons of GOTO statements. But the bacteria and viruses use an even more archaic and more difficult to debug construct, the COME FROM statements.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Doesn't mean two organisms combined by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      Was that code released GPL? If so, are we now entitled to the entire genome?

    3. Re:Doesn't mean two organisms combined by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Go for it. But you'll have to write your own compiler, and build the OS and hardware to run it on.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    4. Re:Doesn't mean two organisms combined by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Flying Spaghetti Monster! The Spaghetti stands for its code structure liberally sprinkled with tons of GOTO statements. But the bacteria and viruses use an even more archaic and more difficult to debug construct, the COME FROM statements.

      They use COBOL????????????

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  29. Fixed link by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  30. Mebbe it's just me but by hyc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it would be interesting to take a person's stem cell and try to remove all the "junk DNA" from the nucleus, then grow the cell thru a few generations (perhaps even to a full clone) and see how different it is from the original person. Very likely a lot of what we think is junk DNA isn't useless after all. Probably the reason we have 46 chromosomes in the first place is that we've been accumulating genetic material from other microbes over the span of millions of years...

    --
    -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    1. Re:Mebbe it's just me but by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 1

      The reason we have 46 chromosomes is that chromosomes accidentially break (or join together, or swap bits of material) sometimes during cell divisions.

    2. Re:Mebbe it's just me but by glwtta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it would be interesting to take a person's stem cell and try to remove all the "junk DNA" from the nucleus

      Uh huh, and how exactly do you propose to do that? (also, doing this on a human seems like a pretty bold move)

      People tend to throw around "junk DNA" without really specifying what they mean. For humans, we know that about 1.5% is coding, about 4% is highly conserved (so, probably very important) and we suspect that a fair amount more is involved in transcription regulation (there's been a lot of activity in that particular area recently), but we have a very faint idea of how much that would be. I saw a talk a few weeks ago where they claimed that nearly all non-coding DNA is involved in this function; that's not a widely held view, though.

      It seems likely that since there are so few actual genes and they are so sensitive to mutation, then a highly redundant and more "flexible" mechanism for transcription regulation is one of the primary mechanisms for evolution.

      So yeah, I am not sure where the popular perception that non-coding DNA is considered to do nothing comes from.

      Oh, and as someone already pointed out, the number of chromosomes a particular organism has is completely meaningless (chickens have 78, some primitive plants have hundreds or even thousands).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Mebbe it's just me but by hyc · · Score: 1

      It seems odd that the number would be completely meaningless. You take a huge complex chain, you decide that the sequence of base pairs in the chain is significant, but you decide that breaking this chain into two pieces is not significant? If it's so insignificant then why is it (usually) replicated so consistently? If a chromosome just randomly breaks somewhere, will a centromere just automagically form in the center of the two pieces so that they can replicate themselves the next time the cell decides to divide?

      We know that trivial little things like deleting the wrong portion of a chromosome can have pretty big effects (e.g. mental retardation, other physical changes too) so it seems that there's more than random breakage to account for.

      re: bold moves - people already think they're entitled to create artificial life, that seems pretty bold. I think it's smarter to understand more about the life that already exists, before going off and creating something totally new...

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    4. Re:Mebbe it's just me but by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 1

      It seems odd that the number would be completely meaningless. You take a huge complex chain, you decide that the sequence of base pairs in the chain is significant, but you decide that breaking this chain into two pieces is not significant? If it's so insignificant then why is it (usually) replicated so consistently? If a chromosome just randomly breaks somewhere, will a centromere just automagically form in the center of the two pieces so that they can replicate themselves the next time the cell decides to divide?

      Rearranging the order of genes is not always important in a functional sense - imaging changing the order in which functions are defined in a some software, or moving some definitions around from one file to another. That's certainly different to changing what goes on inside each function. Lots of people are walking around right now totally oblivious to their strange karyotypes. Obviously deletions and duplications are another matter entirely.

      And I don't know the answer regarding new centromeres but I can think of two possibilities - either pseudocentromeres already exist somewhere along the chromosome that come to life, or chromosomes break at the centromere, forming two new acentric chromsomes.

    5. Re:Mebbe it's just me but by glwtta · · Score: 1

      You take a huge complex chain, you decide that the sequence of base pairs in the chain is significant, but you decide that breaking this chain into two pieces is not significant?

      The sequence is only significant for small, self-contained (more or less, that's one of those vague things) regions; you can generally rearrange them without incident, it's only if the break happens to land on an important region that you are in trouble.

      If it's so insignificant then why is it (usually) replicated so consistently? If a chromosome just randomly breaks somewhere, will a centromere just automagically form in the center of the two pieces so that they can replicate themselves the next time the cell decides to divide?

      Sure it's maintained for a specific species, part of it probably is conservation and part is probably that that's just how the replication mechanism works. The point was that between species essentially the same chunks of DNA are rearranged into completely different chromosomes, looking at their number gives you no information; that's what I meant by "meaningless". How centromeres get formed is a fun question, that I don't know (for many species they aren't at the center, btw).

      We know that trivial little things like deleting the wrong portion of a chromosome can have pretty big effects (e.g. mental retardation, other physical changes too) so it seems that there's more than random breakage to account for.

      I am not sure what you mean. Deleting a portion of a chromosome obviously deletes the genes contained there and can lead to severe effects, that's pretty self-explanatory. So?

      re: bold moves - people already think they're entitled to create artificial life, that seems pretty bold. I think it's smarter to understand more about the life that already exists, before going off and creating something totally new...

      So you are saying it's more responsible to create a human embryo with a severely compromised genome and grow it to some unspecified stage of development (you want to observe phenotypic changes, so I'm guessing you'll need a pretty developed fetus), rather than creating a self-replicating bacterium with a minimum set of genes? There's a reason these types of experiments are done in yeast, worms, and flies. Also, you do realize it's not going to be "something totally new," but rather the common minimum functional set from the simplest organisms that's "packaged" artificially?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  31. So we have a bacterium's genome in fruitfly... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    ...how long until we have fruitfly genome in human DNA?

    Answer that, André Delambre/Seth Brundle!

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  32. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why is this modded up? As other people have already asked, please kindly provide PROOF that pesticide resistance from GM crops has appeared in the wild. Then you can have all the mod points you want.

    Otherwise, just post a correction to what you said.

    1. Re:What? by ElBeano · · Score: 1

      There is little doubt that resistance to roundup is showing up in weeds. It is less likely that it is coming from any kind of gene transfer between crop and weed species than simply from evolved resistance within weed species themselves, due to heavy reliance on roundup. Roundup resistance crop species contribute to this by encouraging more use of Roundup. http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.las so?id=6820&title=Roundup%20Resistance%20Armors%20W eeds

  33. Groundskeeper Willy... by wramsdel · · Score: 1

    ...was unavailable for comment.

  34. Re:maybe you don't know everying by Hucko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Can someone explain how the parent is a troll? Off topic maybe, funny at a long stretch (use drugs, that sometimes works. Redundant or recursive... I don't understand!

    --
    Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  35. Time to revisit the Barnacle Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps those birds were hatching from the trees after all.

  36. Any Scottish DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    found in sheep?

  37. Microsoft Motto by xactuary · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    First Do Evil.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  38. Just a little reality-check, please? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why do we put so much stock in people so often surprised?

    We don't know it all. We don't control it all; it's an illusion.

    What's THE most exercized part of your body- your mouth and toungue? It's been going before you 'knew' you were alive. You use it tens-of-thousands of times a day- everyone (not in a coma) does. But STILL there are 80yo's that bite their lip.

    Science follows the Bible, not the other way around. The Bible brings up key points about how to live a happier (not thrilling, not rampaging, not miserable) life, but doesn't say why. Later, science comes along and shows why. Ask yourself; how did the Jews have germ-avoiding techniques during the plagues? Why were they not so ticked-off to be put in ghettos in those ages? [Because there, in the places no one wanted to go, they could keep things clean- no peeing in the streets, which the French still do.]

    Long, long ago the Bible talks of the Earth being suspended from nothing, and the north pole pointing to the center of the universe (in so many words). It's the only ancient book that gets it right. SURE, the Roman Catholic church imprisoned geniuses for crossing what the Pope thought, but that's not a religion-thing- that's a people-thing. Just like when Christians blow up abortion clinics. They know it's wrong to kill this way...but they should also know it's not the Christian's job to make such decisions. [The parable of the tares].

    So sure, being able to float a frog with magnetisim is cool; very cool, in fact, but understand our place...we're occupants of a very rich and complex environment in which we live. Go with humility and non-judgement into science; soak it all in. To ignore the Bible when searching the heavens is kinda like splitting atoms while ignoring Einstein.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by EonBlueApocalypse · · Score: 1

      Sorry I disagree, those were based on observations from that time period and as we know now they were not very good ones. I suppose you might be able to say the "science" that was known of the world and universe at time was incorporated, but we've seen beyond that. And why exactly do we need to be told what to believe? As a species we both know a great deal and are learning so much about the universe these day that religious views distract and generally point in the opposite direction. When people allow them self to get past the fear eternal damnation and take information in realistically I'm sure most are able to find a significantly better position of them self with in the universe. God may even be at the end of that tunnel, but that doesn't mean ancient texts hold any value or key to finding that.

    2. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      Well, you'll never know if you don't go looking, now will ya? :)

      There are *lots* of checkable features in the Bible; some that come to mind are the dimensions necessary for a sea-going vehicle describing the ark, the command to bury, not leave in the open feces. (Sure, we know now, but when it was written it seemed like a strange request.)

      But the Bible isn't a chronology- the big-bang start of this universe doesn't stop to define terms or measure in units...it's meant to explain it in (mostly) general terms to the largest audience, ever...not just college kids at MIT.

      And it's not a comprehensive manual, either; don't go looking for the development of animals from bacteria to amoeba, for example- there's no room for 20M+ species in a hand-held book. It has a message to tell, with citations of history and a very loving message- it's not a issue of JAMA. Parts are poetry, parts are written more like the Wall Street Journal, and some use hyperbole like you and I use punctuation.

      But there is a mention of the development of plants, talking about mosses, pines, and the other trees (well, fauna) by category. That matches the fossil record.

      Much like Shakespeare or Keats, if you pick it up thinking it's a scientific manual and use a literal translation, you're not going to get what you should...see also: Christopher Hitchens who does exactly that.

      And the reason we 'must believe'? (Other than a huge field of checkable information we didn't know until recently) because science and Christianity are cooperative efforts- the desire to know "why" drives science, the message "how" is in the Bible.

      But there's always money to support/publish/advertise heretics; people who would have you believe the book is a simple collection of quaint fairytales with no reason or rhyme. But that's not the truth; there's more connections and themes in the Bible than anything Shakespeare wrote. Blind faith is dumb. Dangerous, too. There actually are people that believe that the billions of years of planet-spinning and oxygen-trapping all happened in 7, 24-hour days. And that the world is only 6,000 years old.

      The 6,000 year thing comes from a priest trying to make sense of Numbers, and determine how many years since Adam. Problem is, while he meant well, his five assumptions, which he listed duly as any scientist would, are all incorrect. But you'd not believe how many people will believe it, anyway, even though this isn't in the scriptures.

      If you've had problems with Christianity, and the reply suggests you have, it's most likely with bad Christians, not bad scripture. Ya see, in Christianity, UNLIKE ANYWHERE ELSE MANKIND DOES THINGS people like to protect their 'turf' of understanding. They _want_ to remain true to the word, but often times the follow priests/pastors/Jim Jones who leads them astray without ever asking these people for a head-check.

      For example, the entire Left-Behind series is based on Dispensationalist doctrine- the idea that we much move all the Jews back to the land called Isreal, have them conquer the old temple and do sacrifices (as done before Christ) and then 3/4 of them will die. And there will be TWO returns of Christ, not just one, for both people. But God doesn't care- he has one message for all. All are welcomed. He doesn't care if you're slave or free, Greek or Hebrew...those are things *we* as people made up.

      This doctrine's wrong. But it's about to get millions killed, as the Arabs want to snuff out Isreal. I don't want'em snuffed out, but maybe moved. Read Leviticus 26; once they're 'vomited out' of the land, others will claim it. The patent on the land was in no way permanent.

      And why would you support something that would kill 3/4 of any nation? That's just mean.

      Yeah, there's more for you to find in the Bible. And it's YOUR choice to read it, or discard it, at your choosing. But don't quote it, if you don't read it...too many people do that, now.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    3. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by truckaxle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Science follows the Bible, not the other way around.

      What are you smoking. Not *one* discovery of the natural world has ever originated from the bible or even an inspired reading of the bible. It is always after the fact the people find the amazing facts in the bible.

      It's the only ancient book that gets it right.

      The earth is not suspended on nothing, does not have four corners, is not a circle and does not have foundations.

      Genesis gets the order of appearance wrong and is based on a bronze age cosmology that includes a dome and a flat earth.

      The sun does not "rise" and moon does not give her light. Shadows cannot go backwards, and the sun cannot "stand still". Stars cannot "fall from heaven".

      There is *no* evidence of a world wide flood, dinosaurs did not live contemporaneously with humans.

      This is just of the top of my head. You are fooling yourself.

      They know it's wrong to kill this way...but they should also know it's not the Christian's job to make such decisions.


      Exodus 32: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."

      Ezekial 9: Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark
    4. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      PERFECT! Yes, thank you for an example of someone reading the Bible for things it's not intended. Things like 'four corners of the Earth' and such are part of the literature. Each and every instance you cite is precisely what I was talking about. Good show!

      And taking individual verses out of context is a brilliant example of the work of Christopher Hitchens- take a line from Shakespeare. 'Every cock will crow, every ass will bray, and every dog will have his day." Think *that*'s literal? Think *that* is prophecy? Of course not.

      And this is what I'm talking about, when I say that if you've had problems with Christianity, you've had people-problems, not Bible problems. But is that to say the rest of your life involves only trouble-free people? Everyone at work lives in a utopia? Heck, no. They're people like everyone, everywhere else.

      Think you can get away from hippocrits? Dig a deep hole, throw yourself in; you'll STILL be in the presence of one hippocrit. We all are. But that doesn't stop you from going to the supermarket....doesn't stop you from going to work, doesn't stop you from anything else- why would it stop you from finding God?

      I'm not gonna yell at ya; my responsibility is to speak truth to those seeking...and I'm not gonna push you into anything. You need to find your own way. And good luck with it, aye?

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    5. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've presented absolutely nothing to demonstrate divine causation in the content of the Bible. Please return and inform us when you've made more progress.

    6. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can understand some of the universe without the help of the bible.
      You cannot understand any of the universe with just the bible.

      It's a book of interesting philosophy and religious ideas, not a scientific paper.
      Trying to pretend it is anything more than that is silly. No one would ever refer to the bible for answers to a scientific problem, and no one would refer to a theoretical scientific work to learn about ancient Juedo-Christian traditions and customs.

    7. Re:Just a little reality-check, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But there's always money to support/publish/advertise heretics; people who would have you believe the book is a simple collection of quaint fairytales with no reason or rhyme. But that's not the truth; there's more connections and themes in the Bible than anything Shakespeare wrote."

      No. If we are comparing works of fiction, Shakespeare has the edge.
      He is a better writer than any of the bible authors, with razor sharp observation and wit. His characters are more convincing, better drawn and with more believable motivations. He does not have to keep bringing a god into the story to get out of difficult situations or for a plot twist.

      With Shakespeare you can understand the internal thinking of the characters as their thinking leaks into their speech. (Othello is a great example of this.)

      With the bible, the characters are wooden, their motivation bizarre and there is virtually no dialog. It recycles loads of older material from different religions (the flood, god king as man etc) too. A lot of the good bits in the original versions never made it to the editions we have today too. The whole thing was sanitized by a succession of religious leaders and has become very dry and over worked. Shakespeare still retains its vitality.

  39. Oh yeah. by Erris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Weeds have already been given pesticide resistance through regular polenation and natural selection. This is bad enough because it defeats the purpose and there are plenty of studies that GM crops are harmful to wildlife, including mysteriously disappearing honey bees.

    Newer concerns are better written and documented here by a Monsanto whistle blower. We already know that the industry was sloppy because unapproved GM crops have contaminated the US rice supply. It may be that the people who worried about GM crops were right and evidence of genes crossing species is just one of the many things they feared. Genetic sequencing is new and bound to bring big surprises.

    It's good practice to keep an open mind but be careful until you know things are safe. A couple of historical examples show how caution works and what industry does when it's not careful. People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money. At the opposite end of the of caution is Rontgen, the discover of Xrays. He was very careful to shield all of his sources with lead bricks because he did not know what his newly created rays would do to him. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not die of cancer. People continued to expose themselves needlessly for half a century before sane practices were finally codified.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Oh yeah. by crashfrog · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not die of cancer.

      You should have looked that up before you said it. Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen, the discoverer of X-rays, died of carcinoma of the colon in 1923.

      Also you're wrong about the bees thing. There's been no established connection between GM crops and bee populations. Indeed, it would be somewhat surprising if there were - bees eat pollen, and GM crops express nearly none of the GM proteins (usually one or another of the Bt complex proteins) in their pollen.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    2. Re:Oh yeah. by Erris · · Score: 1

      Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen, the discoverer of X-rays, died of carcinoma of the colon in 1923.

      He was 78 years old and his cancer was not radiation induced. Those kinds of cancers were more common before refrigeration reduced the need for cured meats.

      There's been no established connection between GM crops and bee populations.

      Oh, it's hard so say but there is evidence that's more convincing than cell phone towers.

      bees eat pollen [which lack GM proteins]

      Don't forget nectar, fruit juice and other stuff. They pollen for proteins, especially while "milking" to feed the queen, so any modified proteins will get into the population and effect the colony.

      You don't need GM to kill bees anyway. Pesticides do the job too.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    3. Re:Oh yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plenty of studies that GM crops are harmful to wildlife

      Wow, that's the most retarded thing I've read all week.

    4. Re:Oh yeah. by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

      mysteriously disappearing honey bees?
      Here's the argument from the highly biased source you linked to:

      Test 1: Spring-sown oilseed rape, October 2003

      Nationwide tests found that biotech oilseed rape sown in the spring could be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalent. There were fewer butterflies among modified crops, due to there being less weeds. Verdict: GM fails.


      I'm sorry, but reducing weeds means GM passes, that was it's goal. There's nothing mysterious in observing that a product designed to reduce weeds does in fact reduce weeds. That the "researchers" declare a reduction in weeds an assault on wildlife is their issue. Gimme a break and stop the crying.


      People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money.

      Sorry, the above is technophobia defended by anecdote. In the 40's DDT powder was used directly on people's skin to get rid of lice and other nasties. Yes, turns out DDT was harmful, but it saved a lot of lives in the use they applied it to. It was the best option available with what we knew at the time. Waiting until we know everything means waiting forever since we never can know everything. When we've studied a new technology closely and find the known benefits outweigh the costs then we go ahead. That's called technological progress. Oh, and "don't eat paint", seems to be just good old fashioned common sense.

    5. Re:Oh yeah. by kalaf · · Score: 1

      It saved a lot of lives? Those were some nasty lice...

      Seriously though, weren't there likely alternatives at the time? DDT was possibly a cheaper and/or better marketed solution, but I doubt it was the only solution.

    6. Re:Oh yeah. by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, weren't there likely alternatives at the time? DDT was possibly a cheaper and/or better marketed solution,

      One of the biggest deployments was by the allies at the end of WW2. Dis-infecting prison camp survivors with a DDT dusting was part of the process at medical tents. When you talk big scale deployment cheaper saves lives, it was not about maximizing profit. Similarly DDT usage to hold back malaria in Africa through the 50's and 60's saved lives. Even counting the lives lost to the unforeseen poisoning of the environment, the DDT program saved lots of lives.
      A solution needn't be perfect, just better than the alternatives. Thankfully we've got better chemicals for much of this now. Similarly, GM crops may eventually reduce chemical use in agriculture. If it could accomplish that, it might be step up from current methods environmentally speaking.

    7. Re:Oh yeah. by kalaf · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the original post, and the backlash against GM food in general, is that we don't know the potential for damage. Couple that with the fact we only use them to support a particular lifestyle, not save lives. Put together, it doesn't really make sense to be putting them out in the wild while we are still in the dark about long term goals.

      That said, there is probably going to be a lot of good stuff coming out of this branch of science. Stopping the experiments would be silly, but requiring them to spend a little more time focusing on what could go wrong than on what will sell, wouldn't be a bad move. Food is pretty cheap. If they have to make it cost more to cover all our asses, I'm willing to pay for that.

    8. Re:Oh yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no doubt that being safer with potentially dangerous science is smart. There is also no doubt that a lot of people are more worried about quick money than long term effects. It's just a bonus when that greed or carelessness kills them instead of others or the environment. :)

    9. Re:Oh yeah. by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, the evidence is also pretty strongly in favor of a pandemic fungal infection that weakens the hive's ability to overwinter. That's another strike against the GM crop silliness.

      Folks, if you're going to oppose GM crops, do it for the right reasons: Monsanto is a company of fucking douchebags, genes shouldn't be patentable, and GM crops are almost always monocultures derived from a single modified plant.

      The reality is that most of the genes people want to add to GM crops are a selective disadvantage in the wild. Plants don't spray Roundup on each other in the wild, so all the effort spent making a plant glyphosate-resistant is wasted energy that could have gone into something productive. Likewise for golden rice (the rice doesn't need the Vitamin A, after all) and just about anything else humans would care to add to a crop.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    10. Re:Oh yeah. by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      He was 78 years old and his cancer was not radiation induced.

      I didn't say it was, of course there's no way to know for sure. Nonetheless he did die of cancer. See parent.

      Oh, it's hard so say but there is evidence that's more convincing than cell phone towers.

      Parasites, like the varroa, are the more likely candidate. Your article doesn't really support any kind of connection with Bt crops; indeed, it asserts a decline in bee populations as bad in Germany as in the US, and then turns around and claims that Bt crops are rarely if ever planted in Germany.

      I kind of wonder if you read the article, even.

      They pollen for proteins, especially while "milking" to feed the queen, so any modified proteins will get into the population and effect the colony.

      Right, but the Bt proteins aren't found to any significant degree in pollen.

      You don't need GM to kill bees anyway. Pesticides do the job too.

      GM crops mean less use of pesticides. Personally I think that's a net gain. The Bt protein is deactivated in our stomachs by the acid; on the other hand, many pesticides can persist for weeks or even years inside the body.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  40. My DNA... by NoseBag · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...include the complete genome for pizza.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  41. Re:Effect of retrovirus on Human Evolution by IConrad01 · · Score: 1

    It gets even better when you consider the implications of this in the light of Creationists' "Genesis Kinds" argument. If hybridization is so absolute between radically different species, with bacteria acknowledgedly and fundamentally evolving in 'real time' -- then you put two and two together and you get: "So sorry, you're just plain stupid, Mr. Creation Scientist." I would normally call comments like this 'flamebait' -- but this time I just had to get it out there. lol

  42. Evolutionary Tree not a Tree by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    This may mean that the idea of the "inheritance tree" needs to be revisited. One speculation for the Cambrian Explosion is that a genetic system evolved that made inter-species gene swapping easier (assisted by microbes and viruses). This could speed up evolution by swapping "good ideas". Species A could steal the eye design of species B, and species B could steal the immune system of species A, etc. But it may make paleontology and fossil evolution interpretation tricky. (As species grew more complicated over time, swapping became more difficult.) Instead of an evo tree in the textbooks, we may start seeing Directed Acyclic Graphs.

    1. Re:Evolutionary Tree not a Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in my research group, the concept of 'tree' has been discarded long ago (we work on microbial evolution). We've been seeing that horizontal gene transfer is way more prevalent than what is thought in conventional microbiology (antibiotic resistance is a prime example). So this case (one that dows not involve a microbe) is not really surprising... plants are very, very promiscuous creatures.

      If you are interested, search for horizontal gene transfer... You'll find a good deal of work there.

    2. Re:Evolutionary Tree not a Tree by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      git > svn, after all.

  43. The Bactirium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Goldbug stars in a remake of the classic horror film. A brilliant insect scientist accidentally merges his DNA with a Bacterium whilst experimenting with teleportation and undergoes a frightening transformation.

  44. I, for one, ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... feel strangely compelled to think about my new Inner Lords.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  45. What's that sniffing sound? by ian_mackereth · · Score: 1
    Oh, it's just the patent lawyers smelling a new revenue stream...

    1. Find an 'embedded' genome
    2. Patent the original (and unimportant) organism's genome
    3. Sue the sellers of the commercial crop with that embedded genome
    4. You know this bit...

    Nobody cares if you patent the genome of some boring bacterium, but if that turns out to be a constituent of, say, rice or racehorses, then you have a goldmine!

  46. Re:Effect of retrovirus on Human Evolution by CelebrityDNA · · Score: 1

    > Hard to imagine that viral DNA is 5% of our genome without having any impact Maybe it's a good thing. Maybe it's why we are immune to those. Or it helps us develop immunity to new viruses, which surely are based on these ancestors. The deeper we delve, the more wonderous it is.

  47. Obligatory by Klowner · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Hey, you got fruitfly in my wolbachia"
    "You got wolbachia in my fruitfly!"

  48. Actually, it's very easy to imagine by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hard to imagine that viral DNA is 5% of our genome without having any impact..


    Actually, it's very easy to imagine. Transcribing DNA to proteins happens between a START and a STOP marker. If those markers are lost -- heck, even if just the START marker is lost -- then that piece of code is never "executed". In programming terms, it's commented out.

    And, yeah, your genetic code contains a whole bunch of commented-out sequences. Dunno, I don't have much trouble believing that they have no impact whatsoever :)
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  49. Dawkins by managementboy · · Score: 1

    I remember having read this in "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkings that was written 30 years ago... whats so great about this? or is it just a prove that it actually works that way?

  50. Wow; You are WEIRD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You point to conspiracy type sites that have little evidence and just lots of theory, and yet you are a neo-con loving moron. You are just plain WEIRD.

  51. Horizontal gene transfer - nothing new by bizbuzz · · Score: 1

    Horizontal gene transfer is already known:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_trans fer

    That's why I'm not so worried about genetic engineering.

    1. Re:Horizontal gene transfer - nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, even knowing it was pointing to Wikipedia I was thinking "horizontal dance" along the lines of "jean" transfer.

  52. host genome vs guest genome by b100dian · · Score: 1

    Is this the equivalent of computer virtualization on humans?
    Now if only the host genome ran XEN..

    --
    gtkaml.org
  53. Serial Endosymbiosis by Roxton · · Score: 1

    On a related note, mitochondria and chloroplasts are thought to have been introduced when one cell devoured another, and the two cells formed a symbiotic relationship. Over time, their ability to replicate together became fine-tuned, and the inner cell lost abilities that were no longer necessary. This process is termed serial endosymbiosis.

    1. Re:Serial Endosymbiosis by Baldrson · · Score: 1
      It seems Serial Endosymbiosis has a lot in common with vertical transmission as an evolutionary source of symbiosis. I wonder if there is really any ultimate difference?

      PS: I find the statement that a vertically transmitted bacteria is a "parasite", without clear evidence that it is on balance a negative influence on the host, to be rather questionable. We need a word for organisms that are "sited with" other organisms in a damaging way and if we are to use "parasite" in other ways then it harms scientific communication. Indeed, "parasite" suffers from "parasitic" definitions. Fascinating when you think about it that way.

    2. Re:Serial Endosymbiosis by Roxton · · Score: 1

      Sure, I think you could call it vertical transmission. However, while the term captures the transmission of the "acquired" trait, it doesn't encapsulate the actual acquisition of the trait, which is pretty remarkable on its own.

  54. Wolbachia bacteria DNA in Fruitfly by EuroBorg · · Score: 1

    Wolbachia bacteria DNA in Fruitfly Erm.. it does this.. this is what it does. Could also be related to junk DNA issues. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia EuroBorg "You can be assimilated if you want to."

  55. Details Matter by hey · · Score: 1

    I like that other labs just throw out this as contamination. This guy looks into it and has a break thru.
    That's good science. Like Enstien explaining why those pesky Newtonian equations don't always work.

  56. Who let the hogs out? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    That DNA is in there because God put it there . It's supposed to be there. It's just coincidental that it resembles bacterial DNA.

    See? It's science!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Who let the hogs out? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Epic satire.

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Likely clears up old news and classifications by MCampbell001 · · Score: 1
    Reports from 2004 indicate that humans are bacteria-human hybrids.

    With the new report that some organisms' genomes exist within others, maybe Wired's article is missing the point - that non-bacterial genomes often encode bacterial proteomes (collections of proteins). Maybe, then, bacterial proteomes decode non-bacterial genomes. That would make them factories for non-bacterial genetic expression.

    All that blurs the lines of classification if they ever really existed. Maybe a different classification scheme is in order (pun intended) - one that categorizes primarily according to (inter)action, not morphology.