Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Virus DNA Discovery Could Be a Breakthrough In How Diseases Are Treated
concertina226 (2447056) writes "Understanding how retroviruses are passed down through our DNA could be the key to helping researchers re-programme normal cells to become stem cells for treating diseases. Researchers from Canada and Singapore have discovered that the ancient viruses which entered our ancestors' genomes thousands of years ago have altered the way our cells behave; the material left by dead viruses in our cells is the answer. 1,000 copies of one particular class of retroviruses, known as the human endogenous retrovirus HERV-H, is still in our genome, and while the HERV-H retrovirus DNA is dead and cannot replicate itself, it continues to send out messages telling the embryonic stem cell how to become other cells in the body, and this is what makes the cells pluripotent."
That anti virus sure did, sure did.
"which entered our ancestors' genomes thousands of years ago"
Millions. One might hope that errors of three orders of magnitude would be uncommon on Slashdot.
Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
There's too much that sounds wrong to me in this story.
Maybe the 1000 copies could be correct, but that sounds a bit too high. But the last phrase and this is what makes the cells pluripotent sounds quite wrong. Does this mean that pluripotency didn't happen before this virus got into the genome? This would have to be at least 600 million years ago then. I note that the date in Australia is now 1 April 2014 already.
Anyone read the actual journal article. NSMB is one I do not have access to.
Hierarchical evolution (AKA "tree of life") may be technically wrong. Viruses and other microbes have probably crossed genes among many species and perhaps even phylum (especially early on when wiring was more similar).
It may have even sped up evolution because "good ideas" could cross tree boundaries such that a given branch didn't have to re-invent everything from scratch. Branch A may have the best eyes and branch B have the best immune system. If genes from A and B can be intermixed among two species then each gets the best of both (eyes and immune system).
This could pose a problem for evolution in court because one can no longer claim "evolution predicts a tree of life". Creationists could argue that whether a tree is found or a graph (crossed genes), both can be "explained" by natural processes and thus the predictive nature is diffused. (On the large scale, we still find mostly tree-ness, but I'm not sure if "mostly" is good enough in court.)
Table-ized A.I.
This could pose a problem for evolution in court because one can no longer claim "evolution predicts a tree of life".
Not sure why. It's moving past where Evolution was taught when I was in High School, but in college and since this sort of stuff started popping up, first noticed with Bacteria, which turn out to share DNA quite often.
Indeed, I believe that the more complex methods of DNA transfer existing only weakens young-earth creationist arguments. Leaves them with less wiggle-room in trying to refute Evolution.
Remember, the core theory of 'evolution' doesn't require only the sexual method of DNA sharing, though that's perhaps the easiest to explain to kids. Bacteria sharing chunks of DNA coding for antibiotic resistance is getting into advanced territory.
Finding out that 'life' is more of a messy ball with lots of weird interconnects is more in line with what you'd expect from evolution than some sort of 'neat' process controlled by some sort of designer.
I don't read AC A human right
Now we will wait until some other labs independently reproduce these results before taking them as fact.
Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. I read it recently, and can recommend it.
Perl Programmer for hire
200 types of cells making up the human body, and this "junk" tells them how to be themselves, and when.
"Not to worry though" - that's reassuring.
For a long time, scientists thought that this retrovirus DNA was just junk sitting around in the cells.
I have always said, "Junk DNA isn't." From time to time, articles like this prove me correct.
Having said that, stem cells must specialize in order for an embryo to develop into an adult. The "human endogenous retrovirus" can't be responsible for the specilization of stem cells, because at some point in history, there was a first time that a human was infected by this retrovirus; and somehow, that human's parents managed to develop normally.
Also, my cat was once an embryo, and stem cell specilization took place and allowed him to become a normal adult cat. Presumably, every nonhuman species is able to develop without the aid of the "human endogenous retrovirus." Why would humans be the only species dependent on this particular retrovirus for stem cell specialization?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I ain't descended from no virus!
pluripotent:
adj. Able to develop into more than one mature cell or tissue type, but not all.
What's the problem, just add acid!
200 types of cells making up the human body, and this "junk" tells them how to be themselves, and when.
Fascinating. I guessed it would be much more than 200.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We should be careful in attributing an effect of viruses observed on human embryonic stem cells to an important role on human embryogenesis and evolution. ES cells are grown in tissue culture conditions, which are related to embryonic conditions, but are not the same. Without knowing the mechanism whereby HERV-H affects ES cell self renewal, it seems just as likely that it is due to some artifact of cell culture as it is due to an effect of evolution.
Depends on how you define a "type." You can make reasonable arguments for as few as 3. Or as many as you want.
Technically, "humans and other great apes" :-) But not other primates, even the lesser apes. This stuff is really recent, which makes its activities especially strange.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks