Home   |   Sci News   |   Discussion Forum   |   Books, Books, Books   |   Curiosity Shop
Discussion Forum
Science Talk
Discuss scientific conundrums with our band of bamboozled boffins.
Search
Custom Search
Sponsored Links
Science Shopping
Sci Shop
Peculiar and bizarre scientific stuff that you didn't even know existed and you don't need.
News And Research

Animal Kingdom

Biology

Climate Change

Environment

Evolution

Genetics

Humans

Mind & Brain

Prehistory

Health & Diet

Health Threats

Health & Environment

Health: From The Lab

Mental Health

Reproductive Health

Energy Alternatives

Chemistry

Computing & Electronics

Nanotechnology

Pimping Nature

Robotics & AI

Physics

Space


Science Books
Book Reviews
Rusty Rockets lists his all-time favorite science titles.
Archives
2009 2008 2007
2006 2005 2004
2003 2002 2001
2000 1999 1998
Discussion Archive
Feature Archive


9 April 2008
Evolution Leaves "Fingerprint" Across Human Genome
by Kate Melville

As revealed by the Human Genome Project, only a small fraction of the 3 billion "letter" DNA code actually instructs cells to manufacture proteins, the workhorses of most life processes. This has raised the question of what the remaining part of the human genome does.

Now, scientists from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) and the University of Chicago report that one of the steps in turning genetic information into proteins leaves genetic "fingerprints", even on regions of the DNA that are not involved in coding for the final protein. They estimate that such fingerprints affect at least a third of the genome, suggesting that while most DNA does not code for proteins, much of it is nonetheless biologically important - important enough, that is, to persist during evolution.

To gauge how critical a particular stretch of DNA is, biologists often look at the detailed sequence of "letters" it consists of, and compare it with a corresponding stretch in related creatures like mice. If the stretch serves no purpose, then, logically, the two sequences will differ because of numerous mutations since the two species last shared an ancestor. In contrast, it's believed that the sequences of important genes will be similar, or "conserved," in different species, because animals with mutations in these genes did not survive. Biologists therefore regard conserved sequences as a sign of biological importance.

To test for conservation, researchers need to find matching stretches in the two species. This is relatively easy for stretches that "code" for proteins, where scientists long ago learned the meaning of the sequence. For "noncoding" regions, however, the comparison is often ambiguous. Even within a gene, stretches of DNA that code for pieces of the target protein are usually interspersed with much larger noncoding stretches, called introns, that are removed from the RNA working copy of the DNA before the protein is made.

Previously, researchers assumed that mutations in the middle of introns do not affect the final protein, so they simply accumulate. In the new study, however, the researchers found signs that evolution rejects some types of mutations even in these regions of the genome. Although the selection is weak, "introns are not neutral," in their effect on survival, says CSHL's Michael Zhang, who headed the research team.

To look for selection, co-researcher Chaolin Zhang looked in the human genome for a subtle statistical imbalance in how often various "letters" appear. The researchers attribute this imbalance to special short stretches of DNA that mark regions to be removed. Unless these signal sequences are sprinkled throughout an intron, the data suggest, it may not be properly spliced out, with potentially fatal consequences. Other sequences must likewise be preserved in the regions to be retained.

The scientists found a preference for some "letters" across intron regions, and the opposite preference in coding regions. Together, these regions make up at least a third of the genome, which is thus under selective pressure during evolution. The result supports other recent studies that suggest that, although most DNA does not code for proteins, much of it is nonetheless biologically important. In addition to demonstrating how splicing affects genetic evolution, the statistical analysis identified possible signaling sequences, some that were already known and others that are new.

Related:
Genome Analysis Left Wanting
Horizontal Gene Transfer Vastly Underestimated, Suggests New Study
Human Genome "Far More Complex Than Anyone Imagined," Laments Prof
Junk RNA Begins To Yield Its Secrets

Source: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory


Home         All The News      Science Forum         Books, Books, Books         Curiosity Shop         About

The terms and conditions governing your use of this website.
Copyright © 1997 - 2009 Science a Go Go and its licensors. All rights reserved.