Pseudogenes

[juvenissun]

In humans (which share about the same number of genes as mice, lucky break), about 23,000. Obviously we don't usually test them directly in human subjects, although we can use human cells for it.

As for how many have been tested, good luck with that, the number changes every year. Some important ones include the gene for insulin production and various disease causing genes.

Yeah, that is my question.

How many have we tested on animals? How many to go?
It seems a lot lot graduate students could be employed. Are we doing that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, that is my question.

How many have we tested on animals? How many to go?
It seems a lot lot graduate students could be employed. Are we doing that?

Nature does the testing for us. Regions of the genome that are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift have been tested by nature and found to be without function.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nature does the testing for us.

Yes, we know.

That's how we got a generation of Thalidomide babies.

 

[juvenissun]

After removing over 2 million bases of DNA, the mice were indistinguishable from wild type mice in every respect.

it is quite hard to prove that.
I think the mise should be quite sick in someway.

Why don't we test it on human?

 

[Loudmouth]

it is quite hard to prove that.
I think the mise should be quite sick in someway.

The facts win out over what you think. Do you really think that you can say "I think it should be different . . ." and the facts just disappear?

"We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. - PubMed - NCBI

Why don't we test it on human?

Ethical concerns.

 

[sfs]

In a way, we have tested it on humans. Most people are naturally missing some chunks of their genome because of mutations, and sometimes they're missing both copies. It turns out you can be perfectly healthy while missing lots of different pieces -- including some genes that are apparently functional. Which is to say that negative consequences can be subtle enough or rare enough not to be noticed.

 

[juvenissun]

In a way, we have tested it on humans. Most people are naturally missing some chunks of their genome because of mutations, and sometimes they're missing both copies. It turns out you can be perfectly healthy while missing lots of different pieces -- including some genes that are apparently functional. Which is to say that negative consequences can be subtle enough or rare enough not to be noticed.

Would you suspect some chunks of useless gene are missing on a person who has a tendency to be homosexual or to commit suicide? Who do we sent him to? Geneticist or psychologist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

it is quite hard to prove that.
I think the mise should be quite sick in someway.

You can think what you want. Your thoughts and beliefs have no bearing on the actual evidence though.

The mice were just fine.

Why don't we test it on human?

Because it's illegal to do such experiments on humans.
However, so-called "designer babies" are on the rise, which in a way is a bit like this...

Today, rich people already have their embryo manipulated to for example remove certain genes known to cause breast cancer etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

it is quite hard to prove that.
I think the mise should be quite sick in someway.

Why don't we test it on human?

It would be unethical and illegal in most countries capable of funding such tests to do it on humans. And you finding the data hard to believe doesnt make it less likely to be true. I am pretty shocked at the lack of effect myself, honestly.

 

[juvenissun]

You can think what you want. Your thoughts and beliefs have no bearing on the actual evidence though.

The mice were just fine.

Because it's illegal to do such experiments on humans.
However, so-called "designer babies" are on the rise, which in a way is a bit like this...

Today, rich people already have their embryo manipulated to for example remove certain genes known to cause breast cancer etc.

Really? That is what I am talking about.

I don't think it is a good idea. The one gene of breast cancer may be removed, but other problems may show up due to the removal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? That is what I am talking about.

I don't think it is a good idea. The one gene of breast cancer may be removed, but other problems may show up due to the removal.

Only 2% of the genome is made up of genes and regulator elements. What about the other 98%?

 

[sfs]

Would you suspect some chunks of useless gene are missing on a person who has a tendency to be homosexual or to commit suicide?

No more than I would suspect deletions in people who have a tendency to be creationists or to watch reality TV shows.

Who do we sent him to? Geneticist or psychologist?

You can't conclude anything about genetic causes for anything based on one case, so there's not much point in sending someone to a geneticist. Someone who is suicidal I'd send to a psychologist or psychiatrist (actually, to a hospital if they're really suicidal). I wouldn't send someone who's homosexual anywhere (well, unless he needed help getting to the airport or something).

 

[juvenissun]

No more than I would suspect deletions in people who have a tendency to be creationists or to watch reality TV shows.


You can't conclude anything about genetic causes for anything based on one case, so there's not much point in sending someone to a geneticist. Someone who is suicidal I'd send to a psychologist or psychiatrist (actually, to a hospital if they're really suicidal). I wouldn't send someone who's homosexual anywhere (well, unless he needed help getting to the airport or something).

Would it be a good idea to classify personality according to the missing of specific genes? I think it is not that hard to do.

 

[juvenissun]

Only 2% of the genome is made up of genes and regulator elements. What about the other 98%?

I don't know. What are they made of?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know. What are they made of?

DNA, just like genes are.

 

[EternalDragon]

The facts win out over what you think. Do you really think that you can say "I think it should be different . . ." and the facts just disappear?

"We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. - PubMed - NCBI

The implications of this calculation are as follows: Sean B. Carroll constantly says in his book The Making of the Fittest that in biology, the rule is "Use it or Lose it." The converse would seem to also be true: if you haven't lost something, then that implies you're probably still using it, and it has function. So why do so many allegedly non-functional "pseudogenes" persist in mice and humans?

In short, if humans share pseudogenes with mice, then according to the standard Darwinian story, those pseudogenes have been sitting around in the genome doing absolutely nothing for around 125 million years. If these pseudogenes are really doing nothing, then they should no longer exist in the mouse genome, as mutation rates and statistical averages would dictate that a functionless stretch of mouse DNA should have been completely rewritten due to random, neutral mutations over such a long time period.

If the rule is "use it or lose it," then the fact that these "pseudogenes" haven't been lost implies that they may actually be performing some function in the cell. The Washington Post recently reported that "the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks." The argument presented here provides evidence that pseudogenes may not all be simply functionless "junk"-DNA, but like most other types of non-coding-DNA, they too are toiling at some task.

Is There Evidence of Function for Pseudogenes in Mice? - Evolution News & Views

 

[Loudmouth]

The implications of this calculation are as follows: Sean B. Carroll constantly says in his book The Making of the Fittest that in biology, the rule is "Use it or Lose it."

Pseudogenes are lost genes. They are a perfect example of what Carroll is talking about. The functions that these genes once held have been lost due to mutations.

The converse would seem to also be true: if you haven't lost something, then that implies you're probably still using it, and it has function.

That is why the function of genes are conserved as seen by the lower rate of conserved mutations in needed genes compared to pseudogenes.

So why do so many allegedly non-functional "pseudogenes" persist in mice and humans?

Why does junk take up space in the land fill?

In short, if humans share pseudogenes with mice, then according to the standard Darwinian story, those pseudogenes have been sitting around in the genome doing absolutely nothing for around 125 million years. If these pseudogenes are really doing nothing, then they should no longer exist in the mouse genome, as mutation rates and statistical averages would dictate that a functionless stretch of mouse DNA should have been completely rewritten due to random, neutral mutations over such a long time period.

That is false. If they are truly pseudogenes, then they should be accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with loss of function, which is exactly the case. These pseudogenes accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.

If the rule is "use it or lose it," then the fact that these "pseudogenes" haven't been lost . . .

Pseudogenes are genes that have lost function. That's the part you can't seem to understand.

 

[juvenissun]

DNA, just like genes are.

So?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? That is what I am talking about.

I don't think it is a good idea. The one gene of breast cancer may be removed, but other problems may show up due to the removal.

Do you realise that plenty of people are born naturally without that gene?

It sounds like you are just full of fear of the unkown. In itself not an unnatural reaction.

However, lucky for you, ignorance is a condition that is easily cured. All you need to do is educate yourself a bit on genetics and the advances in biology.

Off course, that would also require you to open your mind a little inch so that this knowledge can break through that mega-thick concrete wall of your religious dogmatic beliefs.

 

[EternalDragon]

Do you realise that plenty of people are born naturally without that gene?

It sounds like you are just full of fear of the unkown. In itself not an unnatural reaction.

However, lucky for you, ignorance is a condition that is easily cured. All you need to do is educate yourself a bit on genetics and the advances in biology.

Off course, that would also require you to open your mind a little inch so that this knowledge can break through that mega-thick concrete wall of your religious dogmatic beliefs.

In other words, "Believe the lie."