Slashdot Mirror
Plants and Animals Sometimes Take Genes From Bacteria, Study Suggests (sciencemag.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Magazine: Many genome studies have shown that prokaryotes—bacteria and archaea -- liberally swap genes among species, which influences their evolution. The initial sequencing of the human genome suggested our species, too, has picked up microbial genes. But further work demonstrated that such genes found in vertebrate genomes were often contaminants introduced during sequencing. [...] Debashish Bhattacharya, an evolutionary genomicist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and UD plant biochemist Andreas Weber took a closer look at a possible case of bacteria-to-eukaryote gene transfer that [William Martin, a biologist that concluded that there is no significant ongoing transfer of prokaryotic genes into eukaryotes, has challenged in 2015]. The initial sequencing of genomes from two species of red algae called Cyanidiophyceae had indicated that up to 6% of their DNA had a prokaryotic origin. These so-called extremophiles, which live in acidic hot springs and even inside rock, can't afford to maintain superfluous DNA. They appear to contain only genes needed for survival. "When we find a bacterial gene, we know it has an important function or it wouldn't last" in the genome, Bhattacharya says.
He and Weber turned to a newer technology that deciphers long pieces of DNA. The 13 red algal genomes they studied contain 96 foreign genes, nearly all of them sandwiched between typical algal genes in the DNA sequenced, which makes it unlikely they were accidentally introduced in the lab. "At the very least, this argument that [putative transferred genes are] all contamination should finally be obsolete," says Gerald Schoenknecht, a plant physiologist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. The transferred genes seem to transport or detoxify heavy metals, or they help the algae extract nourishment from the environment or cope with high temperature and other stressful conditions. "By acquiring genes from extremophile prokaryotes, these red algae have adapted to more and more extreme environments," Schoenknecht says. While Martin says the new evidence doesn't persuade him, several insect researchers say they see evidence of such gene transfer. "I've moved beyond asking 'if [the bacterial genes] are there,' to how they work," says John McCutcheon, a biologist at Montana State University in Missoula who studies mealy bugs. The red algae, he adds, "is a very clear case."
He and Weber turned to a newer technology that deciphers long pieces of DNA. The 13 red algal genomes they studied contain 96 foreign genes, nearly all of them sandwiched between typical algal genes in the DNA sequenced, which makes it unlikely they were accidentally introduced in the lab. "At the very least, this argument that [putative transferred genes are] all contamination should finally be obsolete," says Gerald Schoenknecht, a plant physiologist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. The transferred genes seem to transport or detoxify heavy metals, or they help the algae extract nourishment from the environment or cope with high temperature and other stressful conditions. "By acquiring genes from extremophile prokaryotes, these red algae have adapted to more and more extreme environments," Schoenknecht says. While Martin says the new evidence doesn't persuade him, several insect researchers say they see evidence of such gene transfer. "I've moved beyond asking 'if [the bacterial genes] are there,' to how they work," says John McCutcheon, a biologist at Montana State University in Missoula who studies mealy bugs. The red algae, he adds, "is a very clear case."
As the human genome as embedded entire viruses and bacterial genes can be transported by virus-like creatures (Phages), I would think this was old news.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Bacteria have never cared what scientists think
Yeah, wait until they meet lawyers. /s
Yeah, wait until they meet lawyers.
I'm pretty sure flesh eating lawyers are a real thing...
We suffer genetic mutations all the time. Usually if such a genetic tinkering causes a problem the few cells that got messed up die out, and are replaced with better working cells, or if they go haywire, and start reproducing like mad, then we get cancer, which causes an awful lot of deaths.
Our genes also have a lot of useless stuff in it anyways. Evolution isn't Optimization. If the useless stuff doesn't kill us, then it gets passed to the next generation as useless stuff. So we may take some genes from bacteria and nothing will happen, because such changes doesn't effect anything useful
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
shh! Don't tell the anti-GMO people about this horrible trans-species genetic meddling, or Mother Nature will never hear the end of the protests.
In bacteria, they are more likely to intake loose genetic material if things are going poorly for them. Like if you're starving and you eat something sketchy because the worst that happens is you die which is going to happen soon regardless. In higher order animals it is only going to affect your offspring if the changes make it into the germ line cells, so even if it turns out we do uptake loose genetic material under certain conditions it is less likely to be something passed on, so the risk stays in the individual rather than the population.
Bacteria have never cared what scientists think
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that bacteria (especially gut bacteria) can influence WHAT we think. We're sentient beings, but we're also giant puppets controlled by bacteria too. Bacteria "care" what scientists think because they directly influence our hormones and send chemical signals to our brains to desire certain things.
Care might be the wrong word because it implies a degree of sapience or at least emotion, but some bacteria are all about influencing our thoughts,
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'm assuming a useful gene transfer is very rare and harmful ones are more common. Bad assumption?
In other words, I'm wondering in practice how larger species can benefit in a sustainable way from inter-species gene transfer.
The majority of mutations have no noticeable effect. Mutations ARE more likely to be deleterious than beneficial. We're well balanced and "engineered" meat-machines. If you randomly take out a part from your car in the driveway and put a new part in it's place... chances are you've damaged your car... same with us.
The worst mutations usually don't make it to birth, or even last long enough that the parents know they're pregnant. Every once in a while a Honda Fit gets retro-fitted with a Ferrari F1 engine though.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch