Posted on 06/02/2002 5:01:26 PM PDT by scripter
Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.
The new work suggests that neither genome has changed much since we shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago. "The differences are going to be few rather than many," says Richard Mural of Celera Genomics, the Maryland company that compared the mouse chromosome with human DNA.
"Perhaps 100 million years separating the two genomes is not long enough for wholesale rearrangement," says Mural, or conservation may be necessary to preserve essential functions.
However, Tim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, is sceptical about the significance of the 2.5 per cent difference. He thinks that the genes might in fact all be identical and that differences between species might arise solely through divergence in the "regulatory regions" which switch other genes on and off.
Nonetheless, scientists are hopeful that the close match will enable researchers to unpick much more rapidly the genetic roots of human disease. By "knocking out" genes in mice using genetic engineering, they can learn the gene's function.
Doppelganger genes
Mural and his colleagues found chunk after chunk of matching DNA in mice and humans. Of the 731 genes they located on the mouse chromosome, only 14 did not have a doppelganger in humans. Likewise, there were only 21 genes in the corresponding regions of human DNA that did not turn up in the mouse.
Unlike its human genome sequence, Celera is publishing the mouse chromosome 16 data openly on the internet. But the remaining mouse data will require subscribers to pay to see it. "We've no real plans to publish anything more," says Mural.
A version of the mouse genome is already available free of charge on the internet, assembled by researchers at publicly-funded institutes around the world. The Sanger Institute is one of the participating institutes and Hubbard claims that the Celera data is inferior.
"We have fewer gaps, and overall our fragments are larger," he says. He dismisses the Celera paper as little more than a puff for the company: "It's a taster for what they are selling."
Journal reference: Science (vol 296, p 1661)
If that's the best argument anybody can make for evolution these days, then desparation has really set it.
Some seem to take this sentiment to heart. As if it'san excuse to throw our hands in the air and shake our heads and cry, "It's too hard; we'll never know! Now hand me that bag of corn chips and pass the remote. I can't be bothered to learn any more."
Here’s a dusty old topic from 2002.
Note: this topic is from 06/02/2002. Thanks scripter.
Seems like quite a bit has changed in the last 14 years.
Again, results depend on exactly what & how you measure.
This site from 2009 says:
Of mice and men . . .
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
If this is truly a family site, we might as well get rid of most of the Bill Clinton threads, too.
I was thinking... when did I post this article and then I saw the year. There are a few old names in this thread. Thanks for the memories!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.