23 November 2006

The Caterpillar, Our Closest Relative

Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans: Scientists hail genetic discovery that will change human understanding (Steve Connor, Independent, 11/23/06)
Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.

It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.

Until now it was assumed that the human genome, or "book of life", is largely the same for everyone, save for a few spelling differences in some of the words. Instead, the findings suggest that the book contains entire sentences, paragraphs or even whole pages that are repeated any number of times.

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.

The studies published today have found that instead of having just two copies of each gene - one from each parent - people can carry many copies, but just how many can vary between one person and the next.

The studies suggest variations in the number of copies of genes is normal and healthy. But the scientists also believe many diseases may be triggered by an abnormal loss or gain in the copies of some key genes.

Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.

The findings, published simultaneously in three leading science journals by scientists from 13 different research centres in Britain and America, were described as ground-breaking by leading scientists.

"I believe this research will change for ever the field of human genetics," said Professor James Lupski, a world authority on medical genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Professor Lupski said the findings superseded the basic principles of human genetics that have been built up since the days of Gregor Mendel, the 19th century "father" of Mendelian genetics, and of Jim Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the DNA double helix in 1953.

"One can no longer consider human traits as resulting primarily from [simple DNA] changes... With all respect to Watson and Crick, many Mendelian and complex traits, as well as sporadic diseases, may indeed result from structural variation of the genome," Professor Lupski said.

Deciphering the three billion letters in the sequence of the human genome was once likened to landing on the Moon. Having now arrived, scientists have found the "lunar landscape" of the genome is very different from what they expected.

Matthew Hurles, one of the project's leaders at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, said the findings show each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of entire sections of our DNA.

"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12 per cent of the genome - that has never been shown before," Dr Hurles said.

Scientists have detected variation in the "copy number" of genes in some individuals before but the sheer scale of the variation now being discovered is dramatic.

"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected," Dr Hurles said.

"We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals," he said.

The studies involved a detailed and sophisticated analysis of the genomes of 270 people with Asian, African or European ancestry. It was important to include as wide a sample of the human gene pool as possible.

They found that 2,900 genes could vary in the number of copies possessed by the individuals. The genes involved multiple copies of stretches of DNA up to a million letters of the genetic code long.

"We used to think that if you had big changes like this, then they must be involved in disease. But we are showing that we can all have these changes," said Stephen Scherer of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

But it is also becoming apparent that many diseases appear to be influenced by the number of copies of certain key genes, said Charles Lee, another of the project's leaders at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Many examples of diseases resulting from changes in copy number are emerging. A recent review lists 17 conditions of the nervous system alone, including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's, that can result from such copy number changes," Professor Lee said.

"Indeed, medical research will benefit enormously from this map, which provides new ways for identifying genes involved in common diseases," he said.

Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, the medical charity that funded much of the research, said: "This important work will help to identify genetic causes of many diseases."

The key questions answered

What have scientists discovered today?

They have found that each of us is more different genetically than we previously believed. Instead of being 99.9 per cent identical, it may turn out to be more like 99 per cent identical - enough of a difference to explain many variations in human traits. Instead of having just two copies of every gene - one from each parent - we have some genes that are multiplied several times. Furthermore these "multiple copy numbers" differ from one person to another, which could explain human physical and even mental variation.

Why does this matter?

One practical benefit is that it could lead to a new understanding of some of the most difficult, incurable diseases. Although it adds an extra layer of complexity to our understanding of the human genome, the discovery could lead eventually to new insights and medical treatments of conditions ranging from childhood disorders to senile dementia. Scientists are predicting for instance that the knowledge could lead to new diagnostic tests for such diseases as cancer.

How was this discovery made?

Scientists have developed sophisticated methods of analysing large segments of DNA over recent years. "In some ways the methods we have used are 'molecular microscopes', which have transformed the techniques used since the foundation of clinical genetics where researchers used microscopes to look for visible deletions and rearrangements in chromosomes," explained Nigel Carter of the Sanger Institute in Cambridge.

What genes are copied many times and why?

There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.

Who made the discovery and where can we read more about it?

Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research.

Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.

It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.

Until now it was assumed that the human genome, or "book of life", is largely the same for everyone, save for a few spelling differences in some of the words. Instead, the findings suggest that the book contains entire sentences, paragraphs or even whole pages that are repeated any number of times.

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.
It has long been the position of this blog that genetic copying errors, and particularly multiple copies of certain genetic sequences at points that, for reasons still to be discovered, are prone to duplication, play an important unacknowledged role in evolution. Natural selection, not so much.

33 comments:

Brit said...

Genetic copying errors (mutation) and variation within a species are of course essential in evolution, but in the big picture I can't see how you can make sense of that without seeing them as grist for the selection mill.

Stasis is one reason - if internal factors are as important or more important than external ones, there is no good way of explaining why some creatures have stayed the same so much longer than others.

But there is an even more glaring reason. I just watched an episode of 'Planet Earth' about jungles - which house 80% of the world's insects. There are millions of different creepy-crawlies in the Amazon, and revoltingly, each one seems to have a parasite fungus which can grow inside the ant or whatever's head, kill it, then burst out like in a sci-fi horror, before spouting its spores at the other insects. And each of these fungi can only perform this trick on one kind of insect. (It would have made a good episode of 'Isn't Nature Disgusting?')

But anyway, the point is, without external selection, how can you account for the extraordinary specialism of life - the niche-filling?

I can understand your insistence on the importance of genetic mutation, but I can't see your reasons for downplaying the importance of the external environment in determining which of those genetic mutations happen to survive or flourish.

David said...

No, that's the point. All the mutations survive (well, most of 'em, anyway). Natural selection is not a sieve, it's a ... something that's not a sieve and lets most everything through.

Hey Skipper said...

David:

All the mutations survive (well, most of 'em, anyway).

On what do you base the conclusion that most survive, without knowing how many there are?

Natural selection is not a sieve, it's a ... something that's not a sieve and lets most everything through.

The difference between most and all is just as important the manner of mutations.

Indeed, IMHO, whether most mutations result in an organism with the potential to reproduce, or most do not, is a relatively unimportant distinction.

Like Brit, I don't understand your emphasis on mutation at the expense of selection. It is very much like extolling the cart while ignoring the horse.

However, in at least one regard [Caution, contains unapologetic French bashing] I will grant your point. Extinction, in at least some cases, could be all about mutation, and have nothing to do with selection.

Hey Skipper said...

P.S.

Matt Ridley, in the book Red Queen seems eerily prescient.

Brit said...

You're right at one level: selection will not seive out any genetic mutation which does not affect the phenotype's chances of reproduction.

But that's not a very important level when it comes to explaining evolution.

Selection pressure applies to the individual phenotype in the environment. Otherwise, how do you make sense of the natural world?

The reason Creationism is so tempting, and was the default position before Darwin, is that it explains the glaring fact that everything appears so well adapted to its particular environmental niche.

Why do zebras have stripes? Why do crocs have big rows of teeth? Why do hummingbirds have long beaks? Why are those fungi just right for munching on the brains of those and only those insects that happen to live right next door?(Why do birds suddenly appear, everytime, you are near?). It can't be random.

Creationism provides an answer: because God made them to fit the environment. Darwin provided a better answer: random mutation, non-random selection.

But your genetic randomness explanation doesn't seem to have much going for it in the explanation stakes. Why do zebras have stripes?

David said...

Because stripes are consistent with survival.

I'm not saying that natural selection (assuming always that by "natural selection" we mean something that's not tautological) doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it is a weak force.

Let's start here: In the absence of sudden, cataclysmic environmental change, natural selection is never the explanation for the extinction of the second (or later) generation to carry a particular genotype.

David said...

Skipper: You ask On what do you base the conclusion that most survive, without knowing how many there are?.

How can you say anything about the power of natural selection without knowing how many mutations there are?

In fact, we know that viable mutations are very rare. Therefore, the observed diversity in phenotypes is (relatively weak) evidence against natural selection.

Brit said...

Have you heard of archer fish?

The diversity - and particularly, the ludicrous, mind-boggling specialisation of creatures is strong evidence for the importance of environmental selection pressures.

Aardvarks are genetically unrelated to anteaters and pangolins. Without reference to environmental selection pressures, this makes little sense.

Beneficial mutations are very rare. But we've got a lot of time to play with.

"Let's start here. In the absence of sudden, cataclysmic environmental change, natural selection is never the explanation for the extinction of the second (or later) generation to carry a particular genotype."

I can't see any reason to start there. Sudden cataclysmic events play a role: they can shake up the environment: splitting reproductively isolated populations into smaller isolated populations under different selection pressures, which forces specialisation and creates diversity.

But you don't need a sudden cataclysmic event to explain, for example, the striking diversity of the males in the different species of birds-of-paradise. Female sexual selection - or pickiness, should we say - will do it nicely.

And you've still got the stasis problem.

Brit said...

Oh yes, and why are zebra's stripes consistent with survival?

Would a bright pink coat be equally consistent with survival?

Brit said...

I'm not sure about a lifeline, but this certainly is an intra-darwinism debate, not the usual darwinism v ID debate.

I think David has seized on an absolutely correct fact: environmental natural selection has no purchase on, cannot 'seive out', genetic mutations that do not affect the phenotype's chances of reproduction. That's an awful lot of mutations, since most will have no significant effect on the phenotype one way or the other. So the 'sieve' does indeed let most mutations through.

But that fact in itself doesn't affect the big question much: the big question that evolutionary biology seeks to address is why we have the flora and fauna that we do. How and why has evolution taken this path?

You can only ask this question by looking at the phenotypes we have. And in this question it is precisely those rare beneficial mutations that are interesting. Without the environment, it's hard - I would say, impossible - to make any sense of evolution's path.


(Re testing links: try right-clicking them in the preview screen and opening the link in a new window)

David said...

[T]he big question that evolutionary biology seeks to address is why we have the flora and fauna that we do. How and why has evolution taken this path?

So evolutionary biology is trying to figure out why a random process took a particular path? Isn't that like flipping a coin one hundred times and then trying to figure out why it went HHTHTHTTTH... rather than HTHTTHHTHT...?

Yes, of course I think that a pink zebra is viable. How can being pink be more of a evolutionary burden than being an Emperor Penguin. I think that you're being overly sophisticated: the obvious conclusion to draw from a random change generator and lots of diversity is that there isn't much of a seive on the changes.

As for stasis, I don't see that I have much of a stasis problem. After all, viable mutations are exceeding rare, so I don't really have a problem explaining a long time without a significant change. Remember, too, that "stasis" is conclusion and depends upon what we accept as sufficient change to demark a new species.

Finally, the point about catastrophic events is that I was giving you those as an example of strong natural selection. I do, however, think that, first, this is a special case with limited general application (i.e., just because a massive meteor strike causes significant change in the genosphere doesn't mean that natural selection is, day to day, a strong force); and, second, that it is of limited use in explaining the evolution of human beings and human society.

Brit said...

It's not a random process.

How long would a bright pink zebra last among the big cats?

Here are some more questions for you:

1) You say the seive let's nearly all genetic mutations through. Let's assume that's the case (as most mutations are neutral in terms of affecting the phenotype's prospects for reproduction.) It doesn't let them ALL through though. Why not?

2) The seive will obviously let through very beneficial mutations. In a sexually competitive population, what effect will a phenotype with a very beneficial mutation have on the seive?

David said...

Of course "it" is random, unless you want to posit some sort of supernatural being who directs mutation, and that's just crazy talk.

Yes, it is implicit in my theory that mutations with a materially beneficial impact are few and far between. Remember, though, that I'm not saying that natural selection is nonexistent. I'm saying that it is a weak force that, alone, does not explain the world we observe and, in particular, is not as powerful an explanation of observed diversity as random mutation that, if they are at all viable, survive and reproduce.

Brit said...

Mutation is random. Selection is not.

"natural selection... is not as powerful an explanation of observed diversity as random mutation that, if they are at all viable, survive and reproduce."

But the activity of being viable or not IS selection, yes?

I've now lost sight of any distinction between our positions, other than in how we apply the term 'selection'.

David said...

But the activity of being viable or not IS selection, yes?

Yes and no. You'd say yes and I'd say no.

The difference between our positions is that you think that natural selection is a powerful force primarily responsible for shaping natural history, and I think that it isn't.

Brit said...

But those are your words above: "if they are at all viable".

David said...

Yes, those are my words, but viability or inviability is not a question of natural selection, except tautologically.

Bret said...

The multiple copies of gene's thing is quite interesting to me.

When using genetic algorithms for solving optimization problems, some of the genetic algorithm engines allow for "tree" genotypes that allow different size genotypes. One way I've used these is to duplicate various subtrees multiple times to define the strength of some phenotype. An example of an appropriate phenotype might be something like "height". The more copies of the subtree, the "taller" the phenotype would be. I'm interested to see if any of our genes work that way or if they're all just associated with disease states.

Hey Skipper said...

David:

Let's start here: In the absence of sudden, cataclysmic environmental change, natural selection is never the explanation for the extinction of the second (or later) generation to carry a particular genotype.

Never, huh?

The Panama Isthmus separated separated the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans over a period of roughly 35 million years.

As a consequence, the sea creatures, particularly on the Caribbean side, changed dramatically.

Since, ostensibly, mutations were nothing more than ongoing background noise completely independent of geolical processes, then to what do you ascribe the dramatic divergence?

Unless, of course, your use of "cataclysmic" is the same as OJ's.

David said...

Jeff: Yes, clearly I am saying that evolution of the genotype is different from extinction. One of the things I am trying to correct for is the introduction of subjectivity by human examination of the fossil record.

Hey Skipper said...

David:

clearly I am saying that evolution of the genotype is different from extinction.

That is a very astute observation. Not very many people make the distinction between an evolutionary species, and a chronospecies

At a remove, it certainly isn't always easy to tell the difference. In the case of the emerging Panama Isthmus, many of the "new" species were, in fact, chronospecies. (Like modern English is practically a chronospecies of Shakesperean English, while Welsh is likely to become well and truly extinct.)

However, I'm not sure what difference this makes. If a changing environment results in different organisms against a background of truly random mutation, then the experiment has been well and truly run: selection matters.

David said...

Skipper: Actually, I was coming back to this because I think your example crystallizes a nice point. A single species is separated through a geographic accident that has nothing to do with fitness as a probabilistic characteristic of the genotype. Thereafter, we see the two new populations diverge. This is a nice example of evolution through mutation unconnected to natural selection.

Hey Skipper said...

David:

This is a nice example of evolution through mutation unconnected to natural selection.

Except its not. The resulting Caribbean is a significantly different environment than the Pacific.

The geographic accident, just like continental drift, imposed a new environment.

IIRC (I'm not at home, so I can't check), the environmental change on the east side of the isthmus was more substantial, and the consequent changes greater.

Brit said...

David:

What Skipper said. Why would they diverge, if not because of different external pressures?

It seems that we're all pointing at exactly the same theory of evolution but we're calling it 'natural selection', and you have an aversion to the term.

Also, 'simple and obvious' is not the same as 'tautological'. There's nothing tautological about saying that the pressures of natural selection determine which mutations survive.

David said...

Why would they diverge, if not because of different external pressures?

Because mutation is random and natural selection is not a fine sieve. We agree, I think, that mutation is a black box. Natural selection does not promote mutation, nor does the type of pressure being imposed call an answering mutation. In other words, a population of bacteria under attack by an antibiotic don't then mutate drug resistence in response to the antibiotic. Rather, through happenstance, some individuals in the population already carry a genetic code for drug resistence and those individuals, in the right circumstances, will reproduce while those individuals without the now necessary genetic will not reproduce. As a result of natural selection, drug resistence will spread through the population which will (by definition) evolve, but the antibiotic neither caused the mutation nor called an answering drug resistent mutation.

We even agree that, as you put it, "environmental natural selection has no purchase on, cannot 'seive out', genetic mutations that do not affect the phenotype's chances of reproduction."

And yet, when you see two populations that have been seperate for millions of years, you point to their differences and say, "Eureka, natural selection." I, on the other hand, say, possibly, but maybe just genetic drift. Natural selection is not your conclusion, it's your assumption.

Brit said...

Hmm - if I didn't know you better, I'd be tempted to accuse you of Stephen Wood-like glenties.

I've not denied anywhere that genetic drift has played a part in evolution - with some organisms, perhaps a massive part.

But I have argued against your claim that natural selection is unimportant in evolution generally compared to mutation alone.

Furthermore, I would argue that genetic drift is only a significant factor in the absence of external selective pressure.

But to downplay the importance of the organism's environment in general is just to ignore everything about the natural world. You don't get these things through genetic drift alone.

David said...

Brit: What a great word. It fills a real need. I can't even say that I haven't committed glenties in the past. But I'm not guilty this time.

I predicted when we started down this road that you would note that my theory looks an awful lot like modern synthesis. And it does, largely because the modern synthesis posits less of a role for natural selection than did the pre-modern thesis. I think it still doesn't go far enough.

As for stick insects, I take your point. Considered in isolation, they seem to support your belief that natural selection carefully hones each successive generation for ever greater fitness. That's because of our shared genetic heritage: we are compulsive connection manufacturies. But when we step back and try to take a more holistic approach, we see that your stick insects coexist side-by-side with insects that, literally, carry a little lamp around on their back to flash out "HERE I AM, HERE I AM" at dusk.

Brit said...

I don't have the theory that natural selection hones each successive generation to ever greater fitness.

If I thought that, I wouldn't undertand what 'fitness' means, nor what natural selection does, nor would I be able to explain stasis myself.

Fireflies have evolved under different environmental pressures to stick insects.

Brit said...

PS. 'Glenties' comes from the superb Douglas Adams book "The Meaning of Liff", which is chock-full of incredibly useful words that should exist, but don't. (The words are all the names of British villages and towns.)

Hey Skipper said...

David:

Because mutation is random and natural selection is not a fine sieve.

Then you are unable to explain why, despite continental drift, there is any terrestrial life at all.

Yes, mutation is, near as we can tell, completely random(1). In contrast, many things about the environment are not.

Day-to-day weather is reasonably random, but season to season is not.

The diurnal cycle is not random.

Taken over its entirety, continental drift is random. But over shorter periods, and for specific land masses, it is not.

Which means climate changes, but not randomly.

Which means all life, which is notoriously climate specific, must adapt or die.

Have you ever seen a tarantula? If you have never journeyed to the Southwest US, the answer to that would be "no".

That is a pretty big regional difference between spiders. How did it get there, if not for natural selection?

David said...

Skipper: I have never seen a Tarantula except in a zoo, although they do show up in bags of grapes in the supermarket on a fairly regular basis.

I have, however, seen South American parrots leaving in the wild in Chicago during the winter.

David said...

living in the wild, although I'm sure they'd like to leave, too.

Hey Skipper said...

David:

I lived in the southwest for awhile. The drive from Taos, NM (a beautiful place) to Clovis, NM (so far from heaven, so close to Texas), involves a fair stretch of ruler-straight and comopletely level road.

That particular day (it may have been tarantula migrating season -- although any advantage of one locale to another within tarantula range was invisible to this observer), there happened to be a lot of tarantulas crossing the road.

First thing I noticed right off is that they are big; I could see them from at least a quarter mile off on the pavement.

Second, on stopping for closer inspection, they are fast. I nudged one with my shoe; it was instantly, as in the complete absence of elapsed time, 8 feet away.