Genome successfully mapped

kamobe

Scientists have completed the finished sequence of the human genome, which holds the keys to transforming medicine, two years ahead of schedule.

It certainly is refreshing to see headlines like this amidst 'Americans shoot another random group of people'....

Hopefully this information can be used to aid humanity rather then line the pockets of large pharmaceutical companies.

Article here.

Gordon

I thought they did this a year ago or even a year and a half ago. It was even on a cd on some magazines.

Anyone got the code to the DNA by the way?

kamobe

published its first draft in June 2000, which covered 90pc of the gene-containing part - at an error rate of one in 1,000 "letters" - with more than 150,000 gaps.

The "finished" sequence contains fewer than 400 gaps and 99pc of it has an accuracy rate of less than one error every 10,000 letters.

They did release a 'draft' as the quote (from unsion as opposed to UTV) there says there about a year and a half ago. They really have been making excellent progress . Three years ahead of schedule and €0.6bn less expensive then predicted.

Gordon

Ah right - didnt know that. Amazing though isn't it - 4 chemicals determine an amoeba from a human being.

Sarky

Nice, but it won't actually mean much until they figure out how the whole thing works. As I understand it, it's a bloody complex business, when some genes can cause other genes to do something else, and in doing so cause other genes to function differently, and so on, I wouldn't hold my breath for any major breakthroughs in the near future...

Still and all, when they DO come along, they'll be two years earlier!

GuanYin

The unfortunate curse of popular journalism have given people a hugely erroneous view of the genome.

Most people think of it as some sort of blueprint for making an organism. This analogy is wrong in just about every way.

The genome will describe the organism but proteomics (the proteins that expressed genes make, that in turn make organisms up) is proving to be more complex than genomics and they reckon glycomics (the orientation of the sugars on these proteins that dictate how they behave) is an order of magnitude more complex again, it will be a long time before anyone can claim to have it pinned down.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Gordon
Ah right - didnt know that. Amazing though isn't it - 4 chemicals determine an amoeba from a human being.

To be fair you're oversimplifying things, but if you look at it from a certain point of view, you can argue that an amoeba is much more highly evolved than a human.

woolymammoth

from the telegraph.co.uk,

their article on the first draft..

the Human Genome Project.

and everything that goes with it.

Stark

All this reverse engineering, if God was really as good as people say he is, he would have released the blueprint under the GPL

Ryo Hazuki

Is it true we have a VERY limited knowledge of the aging process?.

I lecturer once told me that the DNA for the cloned sheep dolly was from a 6 year old sheep, and then dolly died at the age of 6.

He said scientists are still baffelled. Its something we havent discovered yet.

Is this true?

Stark

I'd say the "6" is coincidence. However it's likely that dolly died 6 years prematurely (not sure how long sheep normally live for, is it around the 12 year mark or what). This is due to the way cells age. When they divide by mitosis(normal cell division) and protective coating on the DNA gets worn away, eventually the DNA gets damaged leading to complications like cancer/cell death. When they divide by meoisis (the process of creating sperm/ovum cells) the coating gets renewed. Because dolly was produced from a cell created during normal cell division she never got renewed DNA, so suffered from premature aging.

Tails

Originally posted by sykeirl
To be fair you're oversimplifying things, but if you look at it from a certain point of view, you can argue that an amoeba is much more highly evolved than a human.

Please tell us how, that would be quite interesting!

GuanYin

Originally posted by Tails
Please tell us how, that would be quite interesting!

I was slightly tongue in cheek, but since you ask....

All natural selection is, is the process by which an organism changes to suit the opportunities provided by its environment and other organisms it encounters.

You can argue the amoeba is more highly evolved, at least genetically, given that it has a shorter generation time than humans and has had more time to "perfect" its genes.

The point I am alluding to is, that there is no such thing as evolutionary progress or an evolutionary scale, organisms are genetically, directly related to their environement and to compare against each other is the same as comparing a printer ink cartridge and a keyboard. They are both designed to do different jobs, and both very good at what they do. An amoeba needs to react to chemical stimuli, in its environment it does it far better than a human would. Conversely an amoeba is ill designed to drive a 46a bus.