Skip to comments.Scientists Analyze Chromosomes 2 and 4: Discover Largest "Gene Deserts"
Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes, researchers supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reported today.
In a study published in the April 7 issue of the journal Nature, a multi-institution team, led by [load of names deleted, but available in the original article].
"This analysis is an impressive achievement that will deepen our understanding of the human genome and speed the discovery of genes related to human health and disease. In addition, these findings provide exciting new insights into the structure and evolution of mammalian genomes," said Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of NHGRI, which led the U.S. component of the Human Genome Project along with the DOE.
Chromosome 4 has long been of interest to the medical community because it holds the gene for Huntington's disease, polycystic kidney disease, a form of muscular dystrophy and a variety of other inherited disorders. Chromosome 2 is noteworthy for being the second largest human chromosome, trailing only chromosome 1 in size. It is also home to the gene with the longest known, protein-coding sequence - a 280,000 base pair gene that codes for a muscle protein, called titin, which is 33,000 amino acids long.
One of the central goals of the effort to analyze the human genome is the identification of all genes, which are generally defined as stretches of DNA that code for particular proteins. The new analysis confirmed the existence of 1,346 protein-coding genes on chromosome 2 and 796 protein-coding genes on chromosome 4.
As part of their examination of chromosome 4, the researchers found what are believed to be the largest "gene deserts" yet discovered in the human genome sequence. These regions of the genome are called gene deserts because they are devoid of any protein-coding genes. However, researchers suspect such regions are important to human biology because they have been conserved throughout the evolution of mammals and birds, and work is now underway to figure out their exact functions.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002.
In the latest analysis, researchers searched the chromosome's DNA sequence for the relics of the center (centromere) of the ape chromosome that was inactivated upon fusion with the other ape chromosome. They subsequently identified a 36,000 base pair stretch of DNA sequence that likely marks the precise location of the inactived centromere. That tract is characterized by a type of DNA duplication, known as alpha satellite repeats, that is a hallmark of centromeres. In addition, the tract is flanked by an unusual abundance of another type of DNA duplication, called a segmental duplication.
"These data raise the possibility of a new tool for studying genome evolution. We may be able to find other chromosomes that have disappeared over the course of time by searching other mammals' DNA for similar patterns of duplication," said Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., director of the Washington University School of Medicine's Genome Sequencing Center and senior author of the study.
In another intriguing finding, the researchers identified a messenger RNA (mRNA) transcript from a gene on chromosome 2 that possibly may produce a protein unique to humans and chimps. Scientists have tentative evidence that the gene may be used to make a protein in the brain and the testes. The team also identified "hypervariable" regions in which genes contain variations that may lead to the production of altered proteins unique to humans. The functions of the altered proteins are not known, and researchers emphasized that their findings still require "cautious evaluation."
In October 2004, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium published its scientific description of the finished human genome sequence in Nature. Detailed annotations and analyses have already been published for chromosomes 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, X and Y. Publications describing the remaining chromosomes are forthcoming.
The sequence of chromosomes 2 and 4, as well as the rest of the human genome sequence, can be accessed through the following public databases: GenBank (www.ncbi.nih.gov/Genbank) at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI); the UCSC Genome Browser (www.genome.ucsc.edu) at the University of California at Santa Cruz; the Ensembl Genome Browser (www.ensembl.org) at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute; the DNA Data Bank of Japan (www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp); and EMBL-Bank (www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/index.html) at EMBL's Nucleotide Sequence Database. [Links in original article.]
NHGRI is one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NHGRI Division of Extramural Research supports grants for research and for training and career development at sites nationwide. Additional information about NHGRI can be found at www.genome.gov.
Honor killing was not invented by the Muslims.
Nice strawman, although you admit rebelliousness is not a minor offense. You are having great difficulty reading words.
Have a nice day then.
If you think I said that then your comprehension is down on a level with your ability to make your own position clear. Avoid my "strawman" if you see it as that by clearly explaining your own position in this matter.
Because that is the word used in the Bible.
My position is clear, "No" to your loaded question. You've already been shown to change words expressed in the Bible. I told you, that if you had further questions that they would be answered on the religion forum. Now clearly understand this, I avoid your strawman by pointing it out. Normal people understand the word "son", "glutton", and "drunkard". They know that children, in the sense that you obviously intended, are not drunkards. Now, your fishing for some answer with which you can further attempt to build strawmen will recieve my previous answer, I don't do dances. Go to the religion forum for your answers.
Actually it makes perfect sense if you look at DNA and the genome like a computer program. Programmers reuse code all the time. No need to write code that draws a window everytime you write a new program, you just link to a library that already has that code, or you copy and paste code from one program to another.
Why wouldn't God reuse his own code?
And McVeigh was rightly executed for rebelliousness, not mass murder. My mistake.
Strawman. McVeigh was rebellious, demonstrating that rebellion is not a minor offense.
You have an extremely strange idea of what constitutes a strawman argument. I am unclear on your position though. Do you genuinely advocate executing every adult who is rebellious?
No, I see the strawman you build. First, I did not use the word "girl". Second, I did not say anything about the execution of McVeigh, you did(in the construction of your strawman). Third, you are trying to fish and I told you I will not cooperate with you. Now understand clearly my position on your fishing expedition, "NO".
Dear oh dear.
I didn't introduce McVeigh into discussion of those Leviticus verses, you did, in a dishonest attempt to slide the issue into whether mass murder is deserving of capital punishment as opposed to rebellion referred to by Leviticus. McVeigh is completely irrelevant in this context as there is are separate Biblical injunctions against murder. And you know it.
You implied some important difference between the word "son" and the word "children" in this context. The only construction I can place on that is that you don't think that those Leviticus verses apply to female children. If you mean that there is some other important distinction then I am afraid that you'll have to explain it more clearly. At no stage did I indicate that I thought the verses were referring to little kids, so your statements in that regard were attacking a straw man.
I am not sure what you mean by "you are trying to fish". I am trying to understand your attitude to those Leviticus verses. Do you believe that parents who have a stubborn and rebellious son, one who gets drunk and has been warned about his conduct (chastened) should be helped in stoning him to death? Would you help your neighbours do this? Would you expect them to help you if your sons were stubborn and rebellious and got drunk repeatedly? If not why not? What would your justification be for ignoring the clear Biblical instructions; the inspired Words of God?
Your attempt at mind reading is as bad as your argumentation. I told you what the purpose of McVeigh was. I did not mention murder you did. I mentioned rebellious. McVeigh was rebellious. You cannot deny that. And you still cannot understand that "son" is "son". By your argumentation you further prove that your intent was little children. And you keep trying to fish by expanding the universe of the subjects. Your last question was idiotic, "Do you genuinely advocate executing every adult who is rebellious?". Every adult was not the topic. And I told you to go ask your questions on the religious forum. They will be adequately answered there. You seek no answer to a burning question of morality. You seek some advantage with which you can build another strawman to attack. I will not participate. Go pound sand.
You brought the irrelevant McVeigh into it. He committed serious crimes. He was not executed for being stubborn and rebellious. Examining an online biography I find no evidence that he was stubborn and rebellious in the manner described in those Leviticus verses.
By your argumentation you further prove that your intent was little children.
You are just making that up. Why? I guess it gives you a good excuse for dodging the question.
And I told you to go ask your questions on the religious forum. They will be adequately answered there. You seek no answer to a burning question of morality. You seek some advantage with which you can build another strawman to attack. I will not participate. Go pound sand.
Rant noted. You really don't want to think about what those Leviticus verses instruct you to do, do you?
I'm not a mind reader, but I don't believe you. However, you can believe this. Go pound sand.
Failure to confront the meaning of those Leviticus verses noted.
Failure to understand English on the part of Thatcherite, adequately proved.
Theory, theory, theory.
Your privilege, I guess. I'll continue to ponder how someone who views the Bible as the inspired word of God should handle those verses. You butted into a discussion that was about these issues, and now you are telling *me* to take the discussion elsewhere! Hilarious.