Showing posts with label Genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetics. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Weird animal, not-so-weird genome

(After reading PZ Myers's post on the matter, I've decided to stop using "weird" to describe the platypus's genome. However, I still think the animal itself can aptly be described as weird.)

Nature reports today that the platypus genome has been sequenced by a large international team (note: subscription needed for full article). Fittingly, it seems that the genome is just as delightfully weird interesting as the platypus itself - a mixture of mammal genes interspersed with ancestral reptilian and avian sequences, with a bit of novelty thrown in, all of which tells us a great deal about mammalian evolutionary history.

Some highlights:

  • The sequenced genome, with all of its peculiarities details, corroborates the idea that the platypus lineage is the earliest diverging mammalian lineage - diverging from the rest of the mammals over 160 million years ago. Side note: the marsupial-placental split occurred ~150 mya, and all modern placentals orders appeared by ~75 mya.

  • The genes for caseins, the proteins found in milk, align well with the casein gene families found in other mammals. This suggests, as expected, that milk production evolved before mammals evolved live birthing (or nipples - platypus secrete milk through pores in the skin).

  • Speaking of birthing, the platypus genome contains sequences that match mammalian genes for the zona pellucida, but also has copies of zona pellucida genes previously only found in amphibians, birds and fish. There is also a gene for the yolk-stored proteins, vitellogenins, that are also found in amphibians, reptiles, and birds, but that have been lost in non-monotreme mammals.

  • Genes for the proteins found in the platypus' reptilian-like toxins turn out to be novel sequences, independently evolved and are not homologous with reptile toxin genes. Toxin production in reptiles and platypus seems to be a case of convergent evolution. Interestingly though, the same defensin genes were co-opted in each case.

  • (Note: I was going to strike the word weird from this item, but I've decided that this is indeed weird.) Weirdest of all might be the sex chromosomes. Platypus sex chromosomes are known to be strange structures cytologically speaking, but it turns out that none of their X chromosomes match the X chromosomes of other mammals - they're more like the Z chromosome found in birds. A "normal" autosomal chromosome however matches the mouse X chromosome.

  • microRNA sequences are all over the place - platypus have both microRNA sequences that are found in birds, but not mammals, as well as microRNA sequences that are found in mammals, but not birds.

    Further study of the genome will certainly add to the uniqueness of the platypus and will be helpful in understanding early mammal evolution. I think it's rather poetic that such an odd cool creature has such an odd cool genome. Wouldn't it have been disappointing if it didn't?

  • Monday, February 11, 2008

    And on the 8th Day, Todd said "Let there be junk DNA!" Not!

    Stephen Matheson of Quintessence of Dust has a really nice, empirical refutation of the commonly held creationist claim that research on "junk DNA" has been repressed suppressed repressed suppressed by scientists.

    Why do creationist's think "junk DNA" is so important? Well, they claim that "junk DNA" is evidence of Todd's handywork - non-coding yet conserved sequences of nucleotides that they claim scientists claim cannot be accounted for by natural selection. There are many problems with this line of logic, not least of which is the fact that "junk DNA" is an overly simplistic, archaic, and misleading term. As scientists began to realize that stretches of so-called "junk DNA" were functionally important, (even if they don't code for a protein) the idea that they were "junk" went out the window and their existence can readily be explained by natural selection. These stretches have been studied so intently in fact that whole new classes of non-coding DNA have been discovered. As Stephen points out very nicely with a little bit of research is that we are dealing with a problem of semantics - creationists are using the term "junk DNA" in a way that scientists no longer do.

    Friday, February 01, 2008

    I was hoping for something grander

    ORIGIN
    mkrylvledg tiypgtgfga ttatvgelvf ntgmsgyqes itdqsyngei lmftyplign
    yginrddhes ikptckgvvv hevarrasnw rnaqslddyl kqnaipgimd idtravtkhi
    rtkgamkati vdnvlpdtvd rlkvtelnra vvaqsstnna ypnpatgpnv vvvdfglkhs
    ilrelakrqc nltvlpyntt aseimalnpd gvmltngpgd pkdvpgalem irevekhvpl
    fgiclghqlf alangadtfk mkfghrgfnh pvreiatgri dftsqnhgya vdrdslaqtd
    llitheeind gtveglrhrd yaafsvqyhp daapgphdad hifdefidlm aanqatqkgs
    qfna
    //

    What is it? Well, it's the amino acid sequence for the small subunit of carbamoyl phosphate synthase from Lactobacillus plantarum of course. The letters L-E-M-I-R-E correspond to Leucine-Glutamic Acid-Methionine-Isoleucine-Arginine-Glutamic Acid, based on the single-letter amino acid code.

    (yes, I'm wasting time thanks to Carl Zimmer)

    UPDATE: after refining my search techniques a little more, I have indeed come up with something grander - 'lemire' can be found in the humanRUVBL2 gene. Not too shabby.

    Saturday, January 26, 2008

    Synthetic life followup

    I want to return to the topic of synthetic life and the Venter Institute's recent accomplishment of synthesizing a half-million base pair bacterial genome from scratch. Thinking and reading more about it I realized that my first reaction to this was quite simple - "Cool.". Not "Oh my Todd! What have they done now?" or even "Wow, that is absolutely amazing - I can't believe they figured out how to do that!". Just "Cool." Even back when the Venter team succeeded in inserting a whole genome into a DNA-less cell, I wasn't particularly blown away. I mentioned then that this sort of thing seemed like the next logical step in the world of biotech and genetic engineering. We've known for some time how to genetically modify organisms. In fact no one is really phased by this idea any more - at least from a feasible scientific and technological standpoint. Sure, people argue over whether or not genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are good for us or for the environment, but no one blinks an eye at our ability to create GMOs (hell, you can buy a kit and do it yourself).

    So isn't it inevitable that we advance from inserting foreign genes into a cell to inserting whole genomes? Conceptually, it's just a matter of scale, right? So, that's what Venter's team did this past summer - they brought the field of genetic engineering to the next level by upping the scale. Was it easy? Hell no. Technically, the scientists had to overcome numerous barriers. They spent countless hours wracking their collective brains, performing failed experiments, and redesigning procedures. But in the end, it was never really a question of if they could do it, but how.

    Same thing this time around. We've known how to build short stretches of DNA from constituent nucleotides for decades - we know the (bio)chemistry of it. But until now, we could only manage to make relatively small pieces of DNA - the longest synthetic strand of DNA had been approximately 30,000 base pairs long. So, Venter's team took us to the next level once again by upping the scale. And again, it was no small feat. Just an inevitable one. As Carl Zimmer has written, the advances we are seeing in synthetic genetics are largely technical, not conceptual.

    So, no, I wasn't terribly surprised to hear about the synthesis of a 580,000 base pair bacterial genome. Impressed and excited, yes, but not surprised. And I won't be surprised when this genome is used to "boot up" a cell. Nor when the Venter squad whittles this genome down to the bare minimum that will drive a living cell - the so-called "Minimum Genome Project". Nor when GSOs - "genetically synthesized organisms" - replace GMOs in our regular lexicon. There's nothing Copernican here, the conceptual revolution is long past. DNA, nucleotides, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, electrons and protons. At this point it's all just different scales of biochemistry.

    Friday, January 25, 2008

    It's ALIVE...well, not quite yet

    Folks over at the J. Craig Venter Institute have reported today in the journal Science that they have successfully synthesized an entire bacterium genome. An entire 580,000+ base-pair genome. From scratch. This is quite momentous as it brings the Venter team this much closer to their goal of synthesizing life de novo.

    In case you have been living in a cave for the past 10 years, Craig Venter is one of the scientists that successfully sequenced the human genome back in 1999. For the past several years, he and his team of researchers at the JCVI have been working on creating artificial life - or rather synthetically recreating actual life. The first step towards this goal was accomplished just this past summer when Venter et al. successfully inserted the genome of one bacterium into another bacterium, essentially turning one species into another. Basically they showed that it was possible to insert whole genomes into another cell. The latest step just accomplished was to actually synthesize a whole genome. Next will be to try to get this genome inserted into a cell - which seems likely to happen considering their success in step 1. In fact, I would expect such an announcement in the near future.

    This latest effort is quite interesting - they first sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium and then built "small" segments of the DNA (~5,000 - 7,000 bp long) from individual nucleic acids (Phase 1). To ensure that they could identify their genome, the researchers inserted their own "watermark" sequences that differentiated it from the natural M. genitalium genome. They also took some precautions by disabling genes for infectivity. They then assembled these "cassettes" into larger pieces of ~24,000 bp. These 24k pieces were then cloned into E. coli for replication so there was enough DNA to work with for the next phase. Phases 2 and 3 was similar to phase 1 - this time joining the 24k fragments into 72k pieces, which were again cloned into E. coli for amplification and sequencing, and then joining 72k fragments together to form 144k pieces, again cloned and amplified in E. coli. Phase 4 involved joining 144k fragments to create 288k fragments. However, at this point the researchers could not obtain E. coli clones with the 288k half-genome and had to move the operation over to the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Once that was done, Phase 5 was a simple matter (HAH!) of joining the half-genome chunks together through homologous recombination in yeast cells. Final sequencing showed that the team had indeed synthesized the entire M. genitalium.

    What's next? Well, step three again will be to insert this synthesized DNA into a host cells to derive fully functioning M. genitalium. After that? How about creating an entirely novel genome from scratch? Then how about synthesizing self-assembling cell membranes to house these novel genomes? The rate at which the JCVI team is suceeding, I don't think we'll have to wait very long for true synthetic life.

    Tuesday, September 25, 2007

    Attack of the Killer Space Germs (or, Does Evolution Work Differently in Space?)

    CNN.com reports that "germs" sent into space return home to Earth more virulent. I can't find the original PNAS article to which it refers, but this seems like a very interesting finding - a strain of Salmonella sent into orbit more easily infected mice and it took 3-times fewer bacteria to kill a host. (update: here's the PNAS paper)

    The researchers have a hypothesis for this finding though it is not clear how from the CNN article why. They think that the bacteria evolved in response to the low fluid sheer shear that results from the low gravity environment. I am not able to figure out why the low fluid sheer shear would lead to a more virulent bacterium, but for some reason, the researchers have shown that over 150 genes have changed in the space-traveling Salmonella. Obviously, low gravity (and/or low sheer stress) has applied a strong selective pressure on these little critters. It would be interesting to know more about the genes that were affected.

    I have a major issue with the CNN article though (which is one reason I wish I could find the PNAS article). Cheryl Nickerson, a professor at ASU, is quoted as saying:
    These bugs can sense where they are by changes in their environment. The minute they sense a different environment, they change their genetic machinery so they can survive


    Now, I am no microbiologist, but this statement reeks of an oversimplification of the evolutionary mechanisms at work here. It is this kind of carelessness (or bad reporting?) that helps perpetuate a misunderstanding of evolution in the general public. A scientist should be able to communicate basic evolutionary theory, especially when being quoted in a high-profile media outlet.

    BTW, "fluid sheer" is not the same as "fluid shear". My biomechanics professor would be so disappointed (Sorry, Amy!)

    Update: Using the correct terminology I was able to find this much more informative National Geographic article. It explains a little more about the possible mechanisms involved here (and doesn't have the same nocuous Nickerson quote)

    Friday, June 29, 2007

    Craig Venter up to it again

    Craig Venter et al. have apparently taken a big step towards creating synthetic life - they've managed to insert the whole genome of one species of bacteria into another species of bacteria. Some people are making a big deal about it and apparently there's a good editorial in the current Nature (though I wouldn't know since Roger Williams University apparently doesn't think it important to have a subscription)

    There is however a NY Times piece on it. Without knowing the details of how this whole genome insertion is carried out, I must say that this technique doesn't seem particularly mind-blowing - we've been putting genes of one species into the cells of other species for decades (and microbes and viruses have probably been doing it billions of years). I would have thought that this sort of thing was inevitable and the next logical step in genetic engineering. In fact, now that I think about it, this isn't really different than cloning...

    ...I've just sat here for a few minutes thinking about how this new breakthrough is different from the cloning techniques currently being used. They seem fundamentally the same to me. If anyone out there knows otherwise, please tell me what I am missing (like I said, I haven't read up on Venter's method and the obstacles that had to be maneuvered along the way).

    In any case, all we need to do now is to create a synthetic genome. How hard could that be?

    Friday Science: How the kapok tree crossed the Atlantic

    One of the long-standing hypotheses in biogeography is that sub-Sarahan and Neotropical rainforests have similar plant communities because Africa and South America were joined together previous to their separation some 120 million years ago. For most of their geographic history there was no oceanic barrier between these continents so organisms were free to disperse from one to the other as easily as you could walk from Rhode Island to Massachusetts (or from Rhode Island to California if you had the time and the legs). Therefore, the flora and fauna of these two land masses were remarkably similar to one another when plate tectonics began pulling the two apart. Over the past 100 million years or so species in both places continued to evolve independent of one another, but similarities remain because both continents started with a subset of the same organisms.

    Within the angiosperms, Africa and South America share over 100 genera and nearly 100 species. The most common explanation for this pattern is vicariance - the geographic splitting of a population (in this case, the emergence of the Atlantic Ocean as Africa and South America "floated away" from each other) . However, a new study has tested this hypothesis and, for the Kapok tree at least, finds the vicariance model insufficient. Instead, it appears that this species is able to cross the Atlantic ocean.

    [+/-] Show more/less


    First some antural history. The Kapok, Ceiba pentandra, is a canopy-emergent, tropical tree that can grow up to 70m (230ft) with a trunk 3m (10ft) wide. The flowers atttract bat and moth pollinators with copious nectar production. The fruits contain large amounts of cotton-like fibers that are used to disperse the small seeds through the air (similar to milkweed or dandelion dispersal). So even though the distance between Africa and South America is great, C. pentandra at least has a plausible mechanism for cross-Atlantic dispersal. The question then is, is C. pentandra found both in the Amazon and in western Africa because it was already widely spread across both continents before they separated (the vicariance hypothesis) or because it was originally found in only one location and then dispersed across the Atlantic to the other?


    Ceiba pentandra clockwise from left (1) emergent Amazon tree with a person beside the characteristic buttress trunk (photo credit R. Gribel); (2) dehiscing fruit with kapok (photo credit A. Gentry); (3) seed enveloped in kapok (photo credit C. Dick). (from Dick et al. 2007)

    To answer that question, the authors used the molecular clock method. Briefly, the molecular clock method assumes that genetic mutations occur at a relatively constant rate. When two populations become separated, their genomes are free to mutate independently from one another. The longer two populations are separated, the more different we expect their genomes to be (each has acquired their own, different mutations). If the populations are not entirely separated, gene flow, the dispersal of genetic information, will homogenize the gene pool and the two sets of genomes will be relatively similar. If mutation rate is constant (and we know what it is) and we know how different two sets of DNA are, we can make a simple calculation of when the two groups became separated from one another. For example, if we know that one mutation arises every 1,000 years in a particular DNA sequence and two sets of this DNA sequence are different at 50 nucleotide locations, we know that these two groups separated from one another 25,000 years ago (we assume that each group has accrued 1/2 of the total differences - in this case each group has had enough time for 25 mutations to arise). Of course, it is much more complicated than this - sometimes the same mutation can occur independently in both lineages or a particular nucleotide may mutate and then "back-mutate" to its original (in both cases we wouldn't recognize any mutations when in fact there have been two), but the basic concept remains the same.

    For this study, leaf tissue was collected from C. pentandra individuals from Western Africa, Central America, South America, and Puerto Rico. From these samples, stretches of nuclear and chloroplast non-coding DNA were sequenced. The nuclear sequences that were sequenced were for a subset of the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) found between the genes that encode ribosomal subunits. The sequenced chloroplast DNA was from intergenic spacers found between some photosynthesis genes. Basically, these areas are used for two main reasons:

    1. They are highly variable
    They do not encode any functional protein so the sequences are essentially freed from the pressures of natural selection. Since there are no selective pressures on them, mutations that arise in the sequence are not weeded out and over time the number of mutations build up. Thus, two groups of organisms that have been separated will build up different sets of mutations in these regions relatively quickly, making these regions useful, using the molecular clock method described above, when looking at phylogenetic relationships of closely related groups (usually at the species level or, as in this case, at the population level within a species).

    2. They are easily located
    The spacers are found flanking very important genes - those that are responsible for making ribosomes and for carrying out photosynthesis. These important genes are generally less variable as mutations in their sequences tend to be functionally disruptive and are thus naturally selected out. The sequences for these genes are therefore generally stable and are "easy" to locate in genomes. Biologists use these highly-conserved, known sequences as starting and ending points for locating the more variable, unknown sequences of the spacers between them.

    Once the authors sequenced the spacers, they could examine how the sequences differed across the geographic range of the species. By using an amalgam of previously published values of mutation rates, and erring on the conservative side, the authors hypothesis was that if African and Neotropical populations of C. pentandra have been isolated since the breakup of Gondwana the ITS nucleotide sequences should be at least 7% different and the chloroplast spacers should be at least 19% different.

    Those are the expected values under the vicariance hypothesis. When the authors tested this hypothesis, they observed that the ITS sequence divergence was less than 0.4% and that there was essentially no divergence in the chloroplast sequences (the only variation was found in one cluster in western Ecuador). The observed values were significantly lower than the expected values. This means that the African and Neotropical populations have not been isolated for 100 million years - kapok trees did not cross the Atlantic not as passengers on the drifting continents. The low level of genetic divergence between the geographic areas suggests that more recent (and thus long-range) dispersal is responsible for the kapok tree's geographic pattern. The authors suggest that cottony seed fibers could allow the seeds to be transported long distances via wind currents. Alternatively (or contemporaneously) floating kapok seeds may be dispersed via ocean currents.

    But where did the great kapok tree originate? Africa or South America? Most cross-Atlantic dispersals are assumed to have been westerly - from Africa to the New World. However, the authors suggest that C. pentandra did it the other way - though, based solely on the suggestions in this paper, I am not convinced (whatever that is worth!). Regardless of which direction the kapok tree went, it is clear that it crossed the Atlantic relatively recently via seed dispersal, not through an ancient vicariance event.

    Citation: CHRISTOPHER W. DICK, ELDREDGE BERMINGHAM, MARISTERRA R. LEMES, ROGERIO GRIBEL (2007) Extreme long-distance dispersal of the lowland tropical rainforest tree Ceiba pentandra L. (Malvaceae) in Africa and the Neotropics. Molecular Ecology (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03341.x

    Friday, June 01, 2007

    The perfect gift

    How great is this? James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA the structure of DNA, was presented with the genetic sequence of his very own genome.

    It only cost $1 million. Wonder if I should ask for mine for Father's Day...

    (thanks for the link, Linda)

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007

    Marmosets: who's who?

    Now, this is something I had never heard of before that is just too weird/crazy/cool not to blog about. Apparently, female marmosets (small South American primates) normally give birth to fraternal twins. Kind of quirky, but nothing too shocking there. However, it turns out that during early fetal development, the twins swap lots of stem cells. Twin A gives some stem cells to Twin B; Twin B gives some stem cells to Twin A. These stem cells then go on to differentiate into various other types of cells, tissues, and organs. So, a single marmoset is actually a mixture of two different sets of DNA - a phenomenon known as chimerism (named after the mythological creature Chimera - a beast made up of multiple animal parts).

    Scientists have also found that almost half of male marmosets actually carry two lineages of sperm, and in some rare cases, females can carry two lineages of eggs. This means that some of their gametes are genetically NOT THEIR OWN, but instead are genetically their sibling's. If you will allow a somewhat crude elaboration, this means that a male may fertilize an egg with his brother's sperm, thereby siring not his own child, but his niece or nephew. Likewise, it is possible that a female could give birth to her niece or nephew and not her son or daughter. Genetically speaking of course.

    Told you it was wierd/crazy/cool.

    Read more:
    NY Times article

    Tuesday, January 02, 2007

    The Sound of Silence...

    Here's the link to that article I mentioned in class about the not-so-silent mutation. New things everyday...is there anything more facinating than biology? (that's a rhetorical question by the way)

    The Sound of a Silent Mutation



    Friday, December 22, 2006

    (most of) Your Gels

    Not my best photographic work, but here you go. I tweaked them a bit in Photoshop to better bring out the set of second bands. Click on the photos for a larger image.




    Tuesday, December 19, 2006

    Genetically Modified Organisms


    Genetically modified plants and animals are becoming more and more common in our lives. Some are purely designed to help scientists more easily study some aspect of biology while others are important for their medicinal or food value. The image here is a picture of grains of golden rice - the rice strain that has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene presumably to make it more nutritious, though others argue that it is nothing more than a marketing scheme. There are a lot of concerns around Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and like just about anything there are pros and cons that need to be considered when deciding whether we should proceed in a certain direction with GMOs. To help you learn more about GMOs and the science behind them here are a few links:

    WikiPedia article on genetic engineering - a good general article


    New Scientist - this section of this website is dedicated to all things concerning GMOs. Scroll down to see an list of about a billion news articles on GMOs (well, maybe only a million).

    Friday, December 08, 2006

    Solutions to Genetics Problems

    Here are the answers to the handout of genetics problems.:

    Answers



    Tuesday, December 05, 2006

    Virtual Fly Lab


    For those interested in playing around in the virtual world of fruit fly genetics, here's the link:

    Virtual Fly Lab




    I'm also interested in hearing whether or not you found the site and the activities interesting and/or helpful.




    UPDATE: want to order your own Drosophila? Check this out.



    Thursday, November 30, 2006

    Online Genetics Problems

    Just a couple of links to some practice problems with explanations from the Biology Project website:

    Mendelian Genetics

    Human Genetics Problems

    Thursday, November 16, 2006

    Rise of the Neanderthal




    Two groups of scientists have announced that they have just sequenced DNA from a Neanderthal fossil. This is a huge breakthrough as it shows that scientists are making progress in their ability to detect, extract, and work with ancient DNA. Technological improvements are a big part of this advance. This is also huge in that it allows us to now begin looking for genetic answers to some questions that researchers have wondered about - when did modern humans and Neanderthals split from a common ancestor? did they interbreed? do we have traces of Neanderthal DNA in us? If so, what does this DNA do? Note: the idea that Neatnderthals were our ancestor has long been abandoned - it is now understood that humans and Neanderthals coexisted for a short while.

    I am sure this will raise the question of cloning and whether or not we should/could/would "make" a Neanderthal, but for now I think it is exciting that we are pushing the envelope of genetics.

    Neanderthal DNA Comes to Life