Slashdot Mirror


DNA Differences Observed Between Blood and Organs

Scrameustache writes "Researcher working on a rare type of aortic abnormality found that the DNA from diseased tissue did not match the DNA from the blood of the same patients So far it's unclear whether these differences in the blood and aortic tissue are the consequence of RNA editing, which changes the messenger RNA but not the gene, or DNA editing, which involves differences in the gene itself. Based on the evidence so far, the researchers believe the differences resulted from developmental rather than somatic DNA alterations. 'Traditionally when we have looked for genetic risk factors for, say, heart disease, we have assumed that the blood will tell us what's happening in the tissue,' lead author Bruce Gottlieb said in a statement. 'It now seems this is simply not the case.'"

4 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Chimera by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps some of those patients were chimeras .

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  2. I'm curious and not a Biologist- by mckinnsb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... but would this discovery have any potential legal ramifications on DNA testing, potentially casting doubt on its validity? Their testing method has to be accurate, or else they could not observe the differences in DNA between blood and organ cells - but are the differences enough to cause one person's DNA to be mistaken for another, or are they small enough to not risk a false positive? I'm not a lawyer or a biologist, but thats the first thing that popped into my head.

    1. Re:I'm curious and not a Biologist- by turtledawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Typically one would compare DNA collected via the same method as the original specimen- thus if you were testing for DNA in a skin flake, you would get a skin sample, while for semen, you'd get a semen sample, etc. It shouldn't make a difference in a well-run criminal case (and I'm not going to touch whether or not DNA-reliant cases are well run).

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  3. Re: Mosaic by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually TFA did raise the possibility of chimeras. My thought was that it could be a mosaic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)

    People sometimes get mosaicism after stem cell transplants or organ transplants.

    I saw an interesting example of mosaicism in a medical journal. An infant was born with half male genitals, half female genitals. The most obvious explanation was that he/she was born of two embryos, one male, the other female, that combined at an early stage (but not too early) and formed a mosaic individual, with patches of male and female cells. Mosaicism actually is pretty common in biology. Sometimes you get patches of skin that vary between 2 colors. The later the embryo recombines, the bigger the patches are.

    But this raises the possibility that the DNA of the cells in one developmental branch -- the arteries, or the aorta -- goes through some epigenetic doubling, on a routine basis, because it happened in several samples, even healthy tissue. I wonder if it happens in mice.

    My understanding of the article was that they sequenced DNA -- both strands -- not the RNA. But for reasons I don't understand, Schweitzer said it might be the consequences of RNA editing, to the messenger RNA.

    Actually they got into chimerizaton at the end of TFA:

    In an e-mail message to GenomeWeb Daily News, Navigenics Co-founder and Chief Science Officer Dietrich Stephan said the team's work is interesting and deserves further investigation.

    "Differences between the germ-line genome and somatic cells is well established in cancer. It is also well described that chimeras can result from early DNA changes in early embryonic development that propagate to form regional differences in the genome across the body," Stephan noted.