Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers

In honor of the wackos out there telling people that Noah had baby dinosaurs on the Arc…

Genome comparison reveals many similarities — and crucial differences

By Alan Boyle – Science editor – MSNBC

Scientists unleashed a torrent of studies comparing the genetic coding for humans and chimpanzees on Wednesday, reporting that 96 percent of our DNA sequences are identical. Even more intriguingly, the other 4 percent appears to contain clues to how we became different from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, they said.

“We’re really looking at an individual evolutionary event, and this is spectacular,” said University of Washington geneticist Robert Waterston, senior author of a study in the journal Nature presenting the draft of the chimpanzee genome.

The achievement should lead to discoveries with implications for human health, including new approaches to treating age-old diseases, said Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

“As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it’s become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology,” he said in a written statement.

The chimpanzee genetic blueprint is the result of a multimillion-dollar effort involving 67 researchers from the United States, Israel, Italy, Germany and Spain. In addition to that blueprint, more than a dozen other related reports are being published this week in Nature and two other scientific journals, Science and Genome Research.

Among the highlights from the analyses:

Small but crucial differences: The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness.

Six new genetic frontiers: Scientists identified six regions of our DNA that appear to have evolved dramatically over the past 250,000 years — including a “gene desert” that may play a role in nervous system development and also has been linked to obesity. They said a seventh region that showed notable change contains the FOXP2 gene, which already has been linked to speech in humans.

Brain genes key: A comparison of gene expression in various tissues indicated that most of the genetic changes occurring during the evolution of chimps and humans had neither a positive nor a negative effect. However, the testes in the males of both species showed strong evidence of a positive effect. Also, genes active in the brain showed much more accumulated change in humans than in chimps — suggesting that those genes played a special role in human evolution.

Primates’ risky business: Scientists compared the chimp and human genomes with those of mice and rats, and found that both primates carried a greater amount of potentially harmful genetic coding. They speculated that such coding may have made primates more prone to genetic diseases, but also more adaptable to environmental changes.

Clues to diseases: The genomes contained hints that the chimpanzee genetic code has been attacked more frequently than humans by retroviral elements — such as those present in the HIV virus. Scientists also noted key differences between the genomes that may affect susceptibility to viruses, the workings of the immune system and the progression of diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease in humans.

The researchers emphasized that the studies raised more questions than answers, and that it would take years to decipher the meaning behind differences in genetic coding.

For example, although six new regions of rapid evolutionary change have been identified, “we don’t know what natural selection in these regions acted upon,” said Tarjei Mikkelsen, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was the first listed author for the chimp genome study.

But Waterston said the “really big picture” is that geneticists can now focus on the small percentage of DNA coding that is peculiar to humans, and figure out how that coding works.

“We’re probably down to a million or so changes in the human genome that are even candidates for being the changes that have made us human,” he told MSNBC.com. “So it’s fun and exciting to be looking at nature’s lab notebook like this.”

How the job was done
The chimpanzee genome is only the fourth mammalian genetic sequence to be deciphered, following up on humans, mice and rats.

The DNA used to create the sequence came from the blood of a male chimpanzee named Clint at the Yerkes National Primate Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure, at the relatively young age of 24, but two of his cell lines have been preserved for medical research.

Clint’s genetic coding was analyzed using the same type of “whole-genome shotgun” approach that produced drafts of the human genome beginning in 2001. Most of the work of sequencing and assembling the chimp genome was done at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

As expected, only 1 percent of the coding that was common to both the human and the chimp genomes was different, due to single-pair substitutions in the code. Researchers found that an additional 1.5 percent of the human DNA coding was not found in chimps, and 1.5 percent of the chimp coding was missing in humans — bringing the total difference between the two genomes to 4 percent.

In comparison, the genetic codes of two typical humans are only 0.1 percent different. On the other hand, the difference is 10 percent for mice vs. rats, and 60 percent for humans vs. mice.

Darwin’s claim confirmed
Researchers said the chimp/human comparison served as the most dramatic confirmation yet of Charles Darwin’s claim in 1871 that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. Today, scientists believe that the most recent common ancestor lived 6 million years ago.

“I couldn’t imagine Darwin hoping for a stronger confirmation of his ideas than when we see the comparison of the human and chimpanzee genome,” Waterston told reporters during a Washington news conference.

The researchers also used the chimp genome as a new reference point for judging how rapidly various areas of genetic code have changed: Waterston said it appeared that genes linked to the wiring of the nervous system and the perception of sound changed particularly quickly in primates, compared with other mammals.

As for genetic changes that are peculiar to humans, the “most intriguing” one involves transcription factors, the proteins responsible for controlling the expression of other genes, Waterston said. Scientists believe that tweaks in transcription factors may spark rapid evolutionary change, even though the genes they control are relatively unchanged — just as the same classical melody can sound dramatically different when given a jazz interpretation.

How has the brain changed?
A separate study, published by Science, looked at how genes were expressed in the brain, heart, liver, kidney and testes of chimpanzees and humans. That study found that the brain showed the least differences between species, while the liver showed the most.

Those findings may seem to go against the idea that brain development was crucial to the emergence of modern humans, but the senior author behind that study, Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, told MSNBC.com that the results were in line with evolutionary theory. He said the coding for the brain is complex and highly constrained — meaning that too much change would impair brain activity — while the coding for a “simple” organ such as the liver could vary more without having a negative impact.

“However, even given these constraints, we see that something special have gone on with the function of the brain in human ancestors,” Paabo said in an e-mail message, “since if we compare how much change occurred in human ancestors versus in chimp ancestors, more change happened in our ancestors than in the ancestors of the chimps in genes expressed in the brain.”

Paabo is well-known for his study of the FOXP2 gene, the “language gene,” and he said that further analyses of the chimpanzee genome were likely to turn up additional genes that are responsible for characteristics peculiar to humans.

Broader perspectives
For his part, Waterston said the genome analysis brought a broader perspective to the question of what makes us so different from chimpanzees.

“You have to think about it the other way: Are we really as different from chimps as we think? And I think the basic conclusion has to be that we are not,” he told MSNBC.com. “What we see as profound differences are actually somewhat superficial: We walk upright and they don’t. We have less hair and they have more. We have more complicated brains. These are fine tuning. … The challenge will be to figure out what the critical differences are.”

He also said the studies should change the way we look at chimps as well as the way we look at humans.

“Chimps in the wild have to be a concern,” he said. “The environment is being degraded and encroached upon greatly, and chimps are extremely threatened in the wild. To watch this happen to something that’s so similar to us has to be a concern.”

Source

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers

  1. Paul says:

    I refuse to believe that I am related to a chimp – even Bonzo! LOL

  2. karl says:

    I read somewhere that 98% of the chimp population diesd from an aids like virus at some point. Which implies that about 2% of the population was immuned to aids. Somewhere I also read that about 2% of people exposed to HIV do not devolope aids, makes me wonder what other viruses are waiting out there to decimate 98% of the population.

  3. It’s not a matter of what’s out there now rather what will become of the shit that is all around us? If AIDS ever becomes airborne we are done.

  4. Chris Austin says:

    Yea…I read somewhere that using anti-bacterial soap only means the bacteria will find a way to get stronger. Bill Maher and George Carlin are big proponents of the need to drink tap water every once in a while so your body builds up an immunity. With this in mind, I drink a glass everyday. The babies get distilled though.

  5. Chris Austin says:

    Related story:

    In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution
    By NICHOLAS WADE

    Scientists have decoded the chimp genome and compared it with that of humans, a major step toward defining what makes people human and developing a deep insight into the evolution of human sexual behavior.

    The comparison pinpoints the genetic differences that have arisen in the two species since they split from a common ancestor some six million years ago.

    The realization that chimpanzees hold a trove of information about human evolution and nature comes at a time when they and other great apes are under harsh pressures in their native habitat. Their populations are dwindling fast as forests are cut down and people shoot them for meat. They may soon disappear from the wild altogether, primatologists fear, except in the few sanctuaries that have been established.

    Chimpanzees and people possess almost identical sets of genes, so the genes that have changed down the human lineage should hold the key to what makes people human.

    Biologists suspect that only a handful of genes are responsible for the major changes that reshaped the apelike ancestor of both species into a human and that these genes should be identifiable by having evolved at a particularly rapid rate.

    The comparison of the human and chimp genomes, reported in today’s issue of Nature, takes a first step in this direction but has not yet tracked down the critical handful of genes responsible for human evolution.

    One problem is the vast number of differences – some 40 million – in the sequence of DNA units in the chimp and human genomes. Most are caused by a random process known as genetic drift and have little effect. For now, their large numbers make it difficult for scientists to find the changes caused by natural selection.

    But another aspect of the comparison has yielded insights into a different question, the evolution of the human Y chromosome. The new finding implies that humans have led sexually virtuous lives for the last six million years, at least in comparison with the flamboyant promiscuity of chimpanzees.

    Some 300 million years ago, the Y chromosome used to carry the same 1,000 or so genes as its partner, the X chromosome. But because the Y cannot exchange DNA with the X and update its genes, in humans it has lost all but 16 of its X-related genes through mutation or failure to stay relevant to their owner’s survival. However, the Y has gained some genes from other chromosomes because it is a safe haven for genes that benefit only men, since it never enters a woman’s body. These added genes, not surprisingly, all have functions involved in making sperm.

    The scientific world’s leading student of the Y chromosome, David Page of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., has been seeking to understand whether the Y will lose yet more genes and lapse into terminal decay, taking men with it.

    The idea of the Y’s extinction “was so delicious from the perspective of gender politics,” Dr. Page said. “But many of my colleagues became confused with this blending of gender politics with scientific predictions.”

    Two years ago, he discovered a surprising mechanism that protects the sperm-making genes. Those genes exist in pairs, arranged so that when the DNA of the chromosome is folded back on itself, the two copies of the gene are aligned. If one copy of the gene has been hit by a mutation, the cell can repair it by correcting the mismatch in DNA units.

    The 16 X-related genes are present in only single copies. Dr. Page and his colleagues thought the chimpanzee genome might show how they were protected. To their surprise, they report in Nature, the protection was not there.

    The chimp Y chromosome has lost the use of 5 of its 16 X-related genes. The genes are there, but have been inactivated by mutation. The explanation, in his view, lies in the chimpanzee’s high-spirited sexual behavior. Female chimps mate with all males around, so as to make each refrain from killing a child that might be his.

    The alpha male nonetheless scores most of the paternities, according to DNA tests. This must be because of sperm competition, primatologists believe – the alpha male produces more and better sperm, which outcompete those of rival males.

    This mating system puts such intense pressure on the sperm-making genes that any improved version will be favored by natural selection. All the other genes will be dragged along with it, Dr. Page believes, even if an X-related gene has been inactivated.

    If chimps have lost five of their X-related genes in the last six million years because of sperm competition, and humans have lost none, humans presumably had a much less promiscuous mating system. But experts who study fossil human remains believe that the human mating system of long-term bonds between a man and woman evolved only some 1.7 million years ago.

    Males in the human lineage became much smaller at this time, a sign of reduced competition.

    The new result implies that even before that time, during the first four million years after the chimp-human split, the human mating system did not rely on sperm competition.

    Dr. Page said his finding did not reach to the nature of the joint chimp-human ancestor, but that “it’s a reasonable inference” that the ancestor might have been gorillalike rather than chimplike, as supposed by some primatologists.

    The gorilla mating system has no sperm competition because the silverback maintains exclusive access to his harem.

    Frans B. M. de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta said he agreed with fossil experts that the human pair bonding system probably evolved 1.7 million years ago but that the joint ancestor could have resembled a chimp, a bonobo, a gorilla, or something else entirely.

    The scientists who have compared the whole genomes of the two species say they have found 35 million sites on the aligned genomes where there are different DNA units, and another five million where units have been added or deleted. Each genome is about three billion units in length.

    The chimp genome was completed in draft form in December 2003 by the Broad Institute in Cambridge and Washington University in St. Louis.

    Statistical tests for accelerated evolution are not yet powerful enough to identify the major genes that have shaped humans. “We knew that this was only a beginning, but from a general standpoint we have captured the vast majority of the differences between human and chimps,” said Robert H. Waterston of the University of Washington, Seattle, the senior author of the report. The genome of a third primate, the orangutan, is now in progress and will help identify the genes special to human evolution, he said.

    At the level of the whole animal, primatologists have uncovered copious similarities between the social behavior of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans, some of which may eventually be linked to genes. But this rich vein of discovery may be choked off if the great apes can no longer be studied in the wild.

    “The situation is very bad, and our feeling is that by 2040 most of the habitat will be gone, except for those little regions we have set aside,” Dr. de Waal said.

    Source

  6. The babies get distilled though.

    You better check and see if that is ok, distilled water doesn’t have any minerals or salt (I think) so it leaves your body faster. I think you really need to check if this is ok over a long period of time.

  7. Chris Austin says:

    Really? The process strips it of minerals and salt? That’s a kick in the face! Thanks for the heads-up Right…I hope that once mixed w/ the powder, it’s not a problem.

  8. karl says:

    I have seen some research papers that imply that kids that grow up in dirty enviroments have fewer allergys. Especially early in life it is probably good to challenge a kids immune system.

Comments are closed.