Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 4, 2002, 07:26 PM   #1
peter2002
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men.

Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.

"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."

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science...c.mousegenome/

_______________________________________________________

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/...se5dec05.story

Peter

Last edited by peter2002; Dec 5, 2002 at 11:39 AM.
peter2002 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2002, 07:37 PM   #2
King Cobra
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Send a message via AIM to King Cobra
>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.
King Cobra is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2002, 08:01 PM   #3
Mr. Anderson
Moderator emeritus
 
Mr. Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: VA
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Anderson
Re: Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

Quote:
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.
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
__________________
"Klaatu varada nikto!"
Mr. Anderson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2002, 08:59 PM   #4
wdlove
macrumors 604
 
wdlove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
A view of the human fetus, a wonder to behold. God's handiwork knitted in her womb!


http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/index.html
__________________
First MacRumors "Contributor"
wdlove is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2002, 09:45 PM   #5
pantagruel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: here and there
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??????
__________________
"Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation."
-Steve Jobs
pantagruel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 12:42 AM   #6
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Did you know that at a certain stage, human fetuses have gills and a notocord? (primitive fused spine similar to ancient fishes)
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 02:16 AM   #7
davidc2182
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sin City
 
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.
__________________
http://www.x10n.com

"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
davidc2182 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 05:49 AM   #8
BenderBot1138
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Doh! I mean Rats!...

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


Quote:
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
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???


Last edited by BenderBot1138; Dec 5, 2002 at 05:57 AM.
BenderBot1138 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 12:24 PM   #9
Edge100
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where am I???
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/...se5dec05.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 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]
__________________
http://mfphotography.ca - Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada.
Edge100 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 12:51 PM   #10
hobie
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: far, far away
Re: Rats & Humans' genome is 99% the same

Quote:
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."

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...
hobie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2002, 08:37 PM   #11
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
Quote:
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)
Don't forget the tail!
bousozoku is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2002, 08:13 PM   #12
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
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.
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 12:54 PM   #13
Giaguara
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
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.
Giaguara is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 01:25 PM   #14
Edge100
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where am I???
Quote:
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.
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 ;-)
__________________
http://mfphotography.ca - Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada.
Edge100 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 03:22 PM   #15
wdlove
macrumors 604
 
wdlove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Ay Baylor University the study of rats important in human cardiovascular & psychological research for decades.

http://public.bcm.tmc.edu/pa/rgsc-genome.htm
__________________
First MacRumors "Contributor"
wdlove is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 09:42 PM   #16
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Quote:
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 ;-)
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?
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 09:57 PM   #17
Edge100
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where am I???
Quote:
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?
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.
__________________
http://mfphotography.ca - Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada.
Edge100 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 10:04 PM   #18
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Quote:
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.
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
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 10:13 PM   #19
Edge100
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where am I???
Quote:
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
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.
__________________
http://mfphotography.ca - Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada.
Edge100 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 11:40 PM   #20
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
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.
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 12:41 AM   #21
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
 
Rower_CPU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
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.
__________________
Join MacRumors.com - Team Folding!
Rower_CPU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 01:01 AM   #22
Thanatoast
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Denver
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.
Thanatoast is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 01:38 AM   #23
davidc2182
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sin City
 
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.
__________________
http://www.x10n.com

"You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same."
davidc2182 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 01:56 AM   #24
FelixDerKater
macrumors 65832
 
FelixDerKater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have 99.999999999% of the same DNA patterns.
FelixDerKater is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 02:17 PM   #25
topicolo
macrumors 68000
 
topicolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Do not disturb. Blood alcohol experiment in progress...
topicolo is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Humans do not come from Earth (aparently) roadbloc Politics, Religion, Social Issues 100 Jan 7, 2014 11:27 PM
[New Free Game] - Zombie Knockdown - Save Humans as Killer Zombies Attack mokoolapps iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Nov 2, 2013 02:58 AM
If you can hunt for sport, are you capable of killing humans? likemyorbs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 107 Oct 4, 2013 10:12 PM
Do all humans have a right to the fruits of Western culture? StephenCampbell Politics, Religion, Social Issues 149 Oct 5, 2012 10:53 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC