Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

>No wonder all the bitches call me a rat.

No wonder I can't remove my rat's ass.

Even for 99%, that isn't much of a comparison. For all we know, there are millions of animals out there, some we haven't identified, and may only have less than 100 codes difference.

I still find it odd we didn't follow up with monkeys instead of rats. My mouse-stricken friends must be thrilled.

Re: Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

Originally posted by peter2002


The mouse is the only mammal, after the human, whose genome has been sequenced. The rodent's genetic sequence was published in this week's edition of Nature Magazine.

Click to expand...

Its going to be very weird when we sequence even more mammals and find out how simillar we really are. Genes are amazing, the amount of information they contain astounding.

Have you ever seen pictures of the different fetuses of different animals? They all look practically the same at the early stages.

D

A view of the human fetus, a wonder to behold. God's handiwork knitted in her womb!


http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/index.html

hmm that is very interesting, but I would really like to know how similar we are to say a jellyfish. what I dont get though is the part where they say our tail gene isnt "switched" on, dont you guys have tails??????

Did you know that at a certain stage, human fetuses have gills and a notocord? (primitive fused spine similar to ancient fishes)

well you know

The defects we see in current humans are nothing, imagine what would happen if things got really messed up, what kind of freakish mutants would be popping out, also I was watching the news and they said the genome is only 90% identical, Who knows either way. And as for the reason we are doing such intense research with mice instead of monkeys is because rats are easier to breed specifically for experimentation, cost effective and they don't take up lots of space. Those animal rights people need to back off the use of the mice, would they rather we test things on them, hey I don't think scientists would mind much if they volunteered to replace lab animals.

Doh! I mean Rats!...

WOW!!! does anybody else know about this???? Now we can stop experimenting on those homeless people!!!

Originally posted by peter2002
When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men. ...
_____________
No wonder all the bitches call me a rat.

Peter

Click to expand...

Wow!!! And Female Dogs can talk now too? Cripes, I though the last tecnical upgrades we made to dogs was to make those little short legged weiner doggee thingees... the dickens you say though... they can talk???

Re: Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

The L.A. Times has a good story on this, but you have to be registered to read it. Hopefully, these PHds (Pin Head Degree) will finally make some real progress in curing and treating the many diseases that afflict so many.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-mouse5dec05.story

Peter [/B][/QUOTE]

[RANT]
What a load of crap! Do you even realize the progress that has been made in curing disease over the course of the last few years (and by this, I mean the last 20 or so)???

I do cancer research every day, and I can tell you there are VERY exciting things coming out every month. We are just now entering an age of "intelligent drug design" where cancer therapeutics will be more about altering the cancerous state, or destroying cancer cells specifically, rather than blasting the body with toxins and relying on the fact that the cancer cells divide faster than all the other cells.

Check out http://www.gleevec.com for one of the first examples of these drugs, which actually WORK on diseases (Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, in this case).

I could sit here all day and give you hundreds of examples of just how much good research is coming out. Inform yourself. Read Nature, or Science, or Cell, or any other major journal, rather than the LA Times. Learn from people who know what they are talking about. Just learn.
[/RANT]

Re: Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

Originally posted by peter2002

"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."

Click to expand...

So what!? I mean, what's the point

Genes are just modules to create something! In my opinion even 99.9% of genes could be same on mice and men, and there still would be a difference.

I see it more technical. Cars, helicopters and planes are made from say 90% same material. There's steel, aluminium, rubber, plastics... you get the point. There are a lot of the same materials, some compnents may even be exactly the same. But the result is always different.

Houses are all made from exactly the same materials, but scyscrapers are a bit different from a terraced house...

And my final one:
Macs are exactly the same like peecees, 99% of their genes are the same. Well, except of the cpu and the OS

Just my thoughts though...

Originally posted by topicolo
Did you know that at a certain stage, human fetuses have gills and a notocord? (primitive fused spine similar to ancient fishes)

Click to expand...

Don't forget the tail!

This genetics stuff as got me thinking...
Based on Darwin's theory of evolution, variations which give an organism a survival advantage allow it to spread its genes more often, thereby increasing the fitness of its species. Any mutation that doesn't help an organism eventually gets wiped out since it can't compete with the better adapted organisms. This is natural selection.

If we as humans are finding cures and/or treatments for genetic diseases which allow the sufferers to survive for a longer period of time, wouldn't we be stopping natural selection and hindering human evolution?
If a person with cystic fibrosis who without any treatment would die before he/she is able to have children survives long enough to have children, the mutated genes he/she carries will be passed down and the disease stays in the gene pool. Because of this, would the human race become so full of harmful mutations that we'll eventually die out in a couple of million years?

BTW, I'm not trying to be heartless or mean-spirited here, I'm just curious about the ramifications of using modern medicine.

so, as humans and chimpansees and monkeys have ONLY 98 % of the genes the same we can coclude that humans and rats are far CLOSER relatives.

Originally posted by topicolo
This genetics stuff as got me thinking...
Based on Darwin's theory of evolution, variations which give an organism a survival advantage allow it to spread its genes more often, thereby increasing the fitness of its species. Any mutation that doesn't help an organism eventually gets wiped out since it can't compete with the better adapted organisms. This is natural selection.

If we as humans are finding cures and/or treatments for genetic diseases which allow the sufferers to survive for a longer period of time, wouldn't we be stopping natural selection and hindering human evolution?
If a person with cystic fibrosis who without any treatment would die before he/she is able to have children survives long enough to have children, the mutated genes he/she carries will be passed down and the disease stays in the gene pool. Because of this, would the human race become so full of harmful mutations that we'll eventually die out in a couple of million years?

BTW, I'm not trying to be heartless or mean-spirited here, I'm just curious about the ramifications of using modern medicine.

Click to expand...

You are right...playing around with our genes does have the possibility of "stopping natural selection". Cystic Fibrosis is an excellent example because it is a 100% genetic "Mendelian" disease (as opposed to something like diabetes, which is a "complex" disease in that there are environmental as well as genetic factors".

But, perhaps the ability to change our genetic destiny is part of evolution. Mankind has evolved to the state at which we can now toy with our own genes. This, in itself, is a survival advantage. An interesting point of view, but one that should be considered.

With specific regards to CF, because CF patients generally do not survive to procreate, their genes are not being passed on anyway. Moreover, most CF patients are infertile. The disease is passed on by carriers (CF is autosomal recessive), not by affected individuals. So even if we extend their lives, the CF genes will not be passed on.

Of course, this leads to the question, if affected people dont pass the genes on, how does the disease gene (actually, the disease allele) continue to propagate? It turns out that people that carry a CF allele (there are many) actually may have a survival ADVANTAGE. That is, being a carrier makes you MORE likely to survive than being a normal, non-carrier. This is true of many diseases, including sickle cell anemia, where carriers are resistant to malaria, giving them a survival advantage in tropical climates. Of course, have two mutant sickle cell anemia alleles (or two CF alleles) is a disadvantage and will be selected out. But even if a specific allele causes a disease, does not mean it will be selected out.

Furthermore, mutations are always occuring and being passed on. That is, new CF alleles can arise in people who are not carriers by birth, but have had a mutation arise in one of their gametes (sperm or egg). The likelihood of this occuring in the sperm that eventually goes on to fertilize an egg is extremely remote, but it can happen.

Anyway, this is a very interesting topic, especially for these boards ;-)

Ay Baylor University the study of rats important in human cardiovascular & psychological research for decades.

http://public.bcm.tmc.edu/pa/rgsc-genome.htm

Originally posted by Edge100


You are right...playing around with our genes does have the possibility of "stopping natural selection". Cystic Fibrosis is an excellent example because it is a 100% genetic "Mendelian" disease (as opposed to something like diabetes, which is a "complex" disease in that there are environmental as well as genetic factors".

But, perhaps the ability to change our genetic destiny is part of evolution. Mankind has evolved to the state at which we can now toy with our own genes. This, in itself, is a survival advantage. An interesting point of view, but one that should be considered.

With specific regards to CF, because CF patients generally do not survive to procreate, their genes are not being passed on anyway. Moreover, most CF patients are infertile. The disease is passed on by carriers (CF is autosomal recessive), not by affected individuals. So even if we extend their lives, the CF genes will not be passed on.

Of course, this leads to the question, if affected people dont pass the genes on, how does the disease gene (actually, the disease allele) continue to propagate? It turns out that people that carry a CF allele (there are many) actually may have a survival ADVANTAGE. That is, being a carrier makes you MORE likely to survive than being a normal, non-carrier. This is true of many diseases, including sickle cell anemia, where carriers are resistant to malaria, giving them a survival advantage in tropical climates. Of course, have two mutant sickle cell anemia alleles (or two CF alleles) is a disadvantage and will be selected out. But even if a specific allele causes a disease, does not mean it will be selected out.

Furthermore, mutations are always occuring and being passed on. That is, new CF alleles can arise in people who are not carriers by birth, but have had a mutation arise in one of their gametes (sperm or egg). The likelihood of this occuring in the sperm that eventually goes on to fertilize an egg is extremely remote, but it can happen.

Anyway, this is a very interesting topic, especially for these boards ;-)

Click to expand...

Heh, I'm actually glad someone bothered to respond to that. The most worrying thing to me about our newfound ability to modify our own genes is the posible decrease in natural genetic variation. If a handful of alleles in the gene pool are superior to any other allele, and if a child's parents are able to choose their children's genes, wouldn't that lead to a greater than normal concentration of those more competitive alleles in the population?
Could this not reduce the probability of possible positive effects of mutations of combinations of less competitive alleles?

Originally posted by topicolo


Heh, I'm actually glad someone bothered to respond to that. The most worrying thing to me about our newfound ability to modify our own genes is the posible decrease in natural genetic variation. If a handful of alleles in the gene pool are superior to any other allele, and if a child's parents are able to choose their children's genes, wouldn't that lead to a greater than normal concentration of those more competitive alleles in the population?
Could this not reduce the probability of possible positive effects of mutations of combinations of less competitive alleles?

Click to expand...

I think you have to look at the big picture. If we are able to manipulate our genes to the extent that you suggest, then we are headed towards to creation of a superhuman which contains all the best alleles and none of the detrimental ones. However, we simply dont know enough about how to do all of this. It is just speculation at this point.

I dont agree with giving parents the option to 'write' the genotype of their children, per se, however I do think that genetic counselling ("what are my chances, given that I am caucasian and of Western European orign, of having a child with CF") is not a bad thing. I think parents deserve the choice to decide whether to have a child based on all the facts. I do not think they should be allowed to design their child. There is a big difference. I think most people would agree.

Originally posted by Edge100


I think you have to look at the big picture. If we are able to manipulate our genes to the extent that you suggest, then we are headed towards to creation of a superhuman which contains all the best alleles and none of the detrimental ones. However, we simply dont know enough about how to do all of this. It is just speculation at this point.

I dont agree with giving parents the option to 'write' the genotype of their children, per se, however I do think that genetic counselling ("what are my chances, given that I am caucasian and of Western European orign, of having a child with CF") is not a bad thing. I think parents deserve the choice to decide whether to have a child based on all the facts. I do not think they should be allowed to design their child. There is a big difference. I think most people would agree.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't correctly word my previous comment, I meant when we are able to modify our genes as we please, it would impact the gene pool dramatically. Still, once that technology becomes easily feasible, it may be hard to control designer babies, even if the processes are outlawed. I also believe that we should let natural selection take its course, however slow it is, and leave DNA technology to more conservative applications

Originally posted by topicolo


I guess I didn't correctly word my previous comment, I meant when we are able to modify our genes as we please, it would impact the gene pool dramatically. Still, once that technology becomes easily feasible, it may be hard to control designer babies, even if the processes are outlawed. I also believe that we should let natural selection take its course, however slow it is, and leave DNA technology to more conservative applications

Click to expand...

Agreed. It will be hard to control. But it will be some time until we can do all of these things.

I have a pet theory that once we learn how to make humans ourselves, the world will implode and that will be that. We will have reached the pinnacle of our knowledge.

Well, that is if we don't gas/nuke/eradicate ourselves with designer microbes first. Aside from those obstacles, I think we'll all do fine.

Along the lines of the previous discussion...

I too believe that the next stage of our evolution will come from intellectual advancements rather than physical ones. From these intellectual advancements will come further understanding of our physical strengths and weaknesses, and improvements in health and longevity.

Our world has so many amazing aspects that we're still learning about, so much wonder and beauty...I only hope that our race manages to keep from killing itself long enough to put war, hunger and suffering behind it.

To start: those videos are nutz! Seeing a five week old human heart the size of 7 point font beating is just strange.

Moving on: The thing about being able to manipulate our genes... Has anyone noticed that when new technology arises it almost always gets used in ways no one would've thought? And sometimes even more quickly than anyone would've thought, either? 15 years ago, even 10, who'd've thougth we be paying bills, renting movies, and/or generally conducting our lives over the net? Remember, 10 years ago we were still on 486's using the Information Super Highway (I still shudder when I hear that term, so I apologize to everyone for using it)

Back to my point: With genetic manipulation, why stop with health or strength enhancements. Why not cosmetic? "I feel like blue eyes today, with bio-luminescent hair, and I wanna go scuba diving, so I'd better take the pill for some gills." I think that would be the pinnacle of knowledge. When we modify ourselves just cause we can, as easily as we change clothes.

thats creepy

thanatoast that is just creepy! bioluminescent hair! gosh that would be a distraction while driving, worse than cellphones! be kinda neat to do the gill thing though. But I dont think it will be any time soon that we see such advancements, the changes would require you to speed up the growth rate to kill old cells and produce new funky ones and shorten lifespans significantly, lets first keep telomeres (nature's death clock) from ticking via genetics or nano technology, and keep dna from getting damaged over the course of ones life! but these genetic manipulations would work with nano tech to speed everything up without speeding up the whole body.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have 99.999999999% of the same DNA patterns.

Originally posted by Thanatoast


Back to my point: With genetic manipulation, why stop with health or strength enhancements. Why not cosmetic? "I feel like blue eyes today, with bio-luminescent hair, and I wanna go scuba diving, so I'd better take the pill for some gills." I think that would be the pinnacle of knowledge. When we modify ourselves just cause we can, as easily as we change clothes.

Click to expand...

too bad that won't happen ever in the foreseeable future (unless you're talking about blue contacts and dying your hair in some bioluminescent dye). The gill thing will never work unless you somehow surgically altered your neck and respiratory system. You can't just expect to change one gene in one cell in an adult human and expect to have massive genetic mutations.

The genetic change would only affect a few cells out of trillions in your body and you'll probably never notice it. THe only way for any type of genetic modification to work is if it was done to the fertilized egg while it's still a single cell.