Slashdot Mirror
Aphid's Color Comes From a Fungus Gene
Iron Nose writes with an account from Byte Size Biology of horizontal gene transfer from a fungus to an insect. The author suspects that we will see lots more of this as we sequence more genomes. "The pea aphid is known for having two different colors, green and red, but until now it was not clear how the aphids got their color. Aphids feed on sap, and sap does not contain carotenoids, a common pigment synthesized by plants, fungi, and microbes, but not by animals. Carotenoids in the diet gives many animals, from insects to flamingos, their exterior color after they ingest it, but aphids do not seem to eat carotenoid-containing food. Nancy Moran and Tyler Jarvik from the University of Arizona looked at the recently sequenced genome of the pea aphid. They were surprised to find genes for synthesizing carotenoids; this is the first time carotenoid synthesizing genes have been found in animals. When the researchers looked for the most similar genes to the aphid carotenoid synthesizing genes, they found that they came from fungi, which means they somehow jumped between fungi and aphids, in a process known as horizontal gene transfer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Well fuck me sideways.
fungi grow out of insects all the time.
As an aside, many of our pseudogenes and other contents of “junk DNA” are thought to have been acquired by horizontal gene transfer.
The guy behind the genetically mutated guido, look at his hand. (I'm sorry you cannot un-see that)
On a more serious note, my roommate, a biology/pre-med major, found this article very interesting and said thanks.
Apparently horizontal gene transfer (or at least inserting useless bits of DNA) is not very hard to do in a lab environment and is very common in bacteria, viruses, and other single celled organisms. Here is another link I found from 08 that talks about bacteria (E.coli) if anyone wants a read http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/1/R4 (full text). Whatever I'm no expert in this field, but I like this type of stuff.
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
I wonder how soon I'll see this used in a movie.
My bet is: Man becomes werewolf after eating many wolves.
According to this hottie (see link) black and brown are natural colors produced by pigments; usually red, oranges and yellows are the carotenoids which animals get from foods, and blues and greens (in birds) come from microstructure rather than actual color. (Obviously a green caterpillar gets the color from the diet. A bit different for animals, since I've never seen a green cow.)
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/Science/Biology/Basics-of-Genetics/31316
She also says that horizontal gene transfer is very common, and that 90% of our DNA is viral. The viruses we hear about are the ones that make us sick. The ones that have no ill effects we don't notice so much; these are also called viruses or jumping genes.
http://wheatoncollege.edu/quarterly/q2003fall/bacteria.html
From the source paper:
Until you observe the process happening, all you've got is correlation. Even if it is gene transfer, how do you know the transfer wasn't the other direction? I call XKCD on that.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Find something your precious "evolution" can't explain and suddenly it's "horizontal evolution"? Can't you see the facts as clear as day? This is the Intelligent Designer porting features from one creature to another!
Well he's doing a shit job. Probably using ClearCase.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Deadhead Aphids always like their fungus for the visual effect.
Individuals are sued by Monsanto for being polluted by their patented genes.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Nature is constantly performing billions of genetic engineering experiments, most of which don't work out. Sometimes there is a small evolutionary advantage. I don't worry about the "frankenfoods" taking over the world. Nature is constantly performing these experiments and the result is the the current highly optimized system we call "life on earth". Anything man creates just goes into the universal gene pool and has to compete with an already highly evolved system.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
There are a LOT more virus running around and we have very little appreciation for what they (and the lowly mosquito) do. Basically, as biologists continue to explore and some more get a bit of logic, they will realize that the vast majority of virus are asymptomatic (at least in a short term). Oddly, it will take time for ppl to accept the fact that virus do the majority of gene transfer (iow, it is not from mutation). Several interesting implications for this is that bio-diversity is conferred by bird/mosquito's/virus vectors moving from one SPECIES to another.Most will be in the same area, though some will travel. So, what this means is that as we wipe species, we will lose OUR evolution. In addition, as we grow larger and larger in density, then it is only a matter of time before we see another species acquire intelligence. We will credit it to Darwinian evolution, when in fact, it will be simply that virus carrying OUR genes, took enough snippets to enable it.
IOW, Virus is the 3'rd major form of genetics (sex/mutation) that does more introducing new genes into a species than another other form.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
interesting news like this is why I love slashdot almost as much as dubli!
U know, there are probably idiots around the USA, and likely on this site, that buy into that garbage.
Doesn't explain why WW2 night fighter pilots didn't turn orange.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Carrot Top!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Since the caratenoid gene can make things as red as cooked lobsters, why don't scientists find a way to transfer that gene into those tanning-philes?
One treatment and you got free tanning for life !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Your tax dollars at work: Finding out why nearly-microscopic bugs are colored.
This adds a whole new meaning to the phrase: "You are what you eat" ....
Like Echolocation?
the mosquito bit a bat, then bit a dolphin!!! ftw!!!
He can't be all that intelligent, considering fungi aren't creatures. ...Or are they?
This is an example of why I don't worry about man-made genetically modified organisms. It you have studied biology, you realize that nature is constantly shuffling DNA from one organism to another across species, genera, phyla and here across kingdoms.
And the above statement is precisely why I have begun to worry about genetically modified organisms.
The whole concept of safety in GMO is defined in terms of species and genus, and that these abstract categories humans use to think about biology are somehow intrinsic in reality. That genes can migrate so easily across these categories shows this is not the case. Species, genus, phylum, and kingdom turn out to be convenient fictions, like centrifugal force. These fictions are an inadequate framework for working with GMO concepts in a safe manner.
We need a much better understanding of really basic biological principals to replace the rigid classification hierarchy with a way of thinking about the flows of information, materials, and energy that are an ecosystem. Until we have that more realistic framework and can use it to guide research and applications, I find the concept of using GMO in the field rather disturbing. At a very basic level, scientists and engineers involved in GMO research and applications don't know what the f*ck they are doing.
That disturbs me.
Will
... in his Science Blog.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The whole concept of safety in GMO is defined in terms of species and genus
Safety is assessed based on if it can be shown to cause health effects, even if it produces a new chemical that could cause those effects. The evidence to indicate that the vast majority of GMOs possess these health concerns is hugely underwhelming. I don't know where you get that taxonomy plays into it.
We need a much better understanding of really basic biological principals to replace the rigid classification hierarchy with a way of thinking about the flows of information, materials, and energy that are an ecosystem. Until we have that more realistic framework and can use it to guide research and applications, I find the concept of using GMO in the field rather disturbing. At a very basic level, scientists and engineers involved in GMO research and applications don't know what the f*ck they are doing.
And when will that be? What amount of knowledge will be sufficient to safely work with individual genes instead of mixing thousands of genes like we've been doing with selective breeding? Think about it, where else have we heard this appeal to ignorance with claims that the experts don't know what they're doing and moving the goalpost every time more info comes in? Oh yeah, the guys who brought back measles said the same thing about vaccinations. Same argument, same tactics, different topic, and it makes about as much sense. The science is there, and while GMOs certainty have the potential for doing bad things, the evidence to indicate that they are/will become dangerous is scant indeed.
Ack, forgot a part: Safety assessment for environmental damage- again, nothing hugely great to indicate that there's much worry there, although I have heard reports of cross pollination in wild populations of corn (by which I assume they mean corn relatives). Not sure just how prevalent it is or how accurate those reports were, but either way, the issue here isn't so much what harm they cause to the environment as the net harm. Farming is very bad for the environment, especially with our large population, so it isn't if GMOs cause harm, but if their use is a net reduction in damage, which it appears to be.
Not so long ago, transposons (jumping genes) were thought to happen only in "lower" animals, not in humans. We now know that transposons are common in humans. They also said the same of copy number variations, or of DNA letters different from A/C/G/T.
The current dogma of genetics says that DNA homology between species is caused solely by evolutionary relationships. How long before we realize that this isn't true either?
I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of evolution has a religious zeal.