Neanderthal Genes Decoded

debaser
debaser's picture
Joined: 2006-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Neanderthal Genes Decoded

i thought you guys might find this interesting and find something to discuss in it:

[b]Scientists decode Neanderthal genes[/b]
[i]Material from 38,000-year-old bone fragment being analyzed[/i]

Humans and their close Neanderthal relatives began diverging from a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago, and the two groups split permanently some 300,000 years later, according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date.

Using different techniques, two teams of scientists separately sequenced large chunks of DNA extracted from the femur of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal specimen found in a cave 26 years ago in Croatia. One team sequenced more than 1 million base pairs of the 3.3-billion-pair genome, and the other analyzed 65,000 pairs.

The achievements could help shed light on the evolution of our own species, and it paves the way for building a complete library of the Neanderthal genome within a few years, the scientists say.

[b]No evidence of interbreeding[/b]
In popular imagination, Neanderthals are often portrayed as prehistoric brutes who became outsmarted by a more advanced species, humans, emerging from Africa. But excavations and anatomical studies have shown that Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelry, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led one of the research teams.

For comparison, the genomes of chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, differ from humans by about 30 million to 50 million base pairs.

The findings also appear to argue against speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. "We see no evidence of mixing 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe," Rubin said. "We don't exclude it, but from the data that we have, we have no evidence that pages were ripped from one genome and put in the other."

[b]Ruling out contamination[/b]
One of the biggest challenges in sequencing Neanderthal DNA is finding a bone sample that hasn't been too contaminated by human handling. Fortunately, the femur fragment used in the studies was relatively small and uninteresting, causing it to be largely overlooked.

The femur "was thrown in a big box of uninformative bones and not handled very much," said Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, leader of the other sequencing project. "Whereas more interesting bones — where you can study the muscle attachment and the morphology of Neanderthals — had been extensively cleaned and handled and thus tend to be much more contaminated."

The researchers also relied on other clues, such as chemical damage unique to ancient DNA, to help verify that the genetic material was indeed Neanderthal. "One of the crucial things is that we feel confident that the DNA we have, which we're calling Neanderthal, is truly Neanderthal," Rubin said.

[b]New advances[/b]
The successes of the two teams' sequencing projects were made possible by recent advances in DNA sequencing technology, which now allow scientists to sequence DNA more than 100 times faster than in the past.

Paabo's team recovered more than a million Neanderthal base pairs using a new automated technique called "pyrosequencing." In this process, DNA fragments are attached to tiny artificial beads, sequenced, and then matched to similar sections on human chromosomes.

Rubin's team employed "metagenomics," which involves integrating short fragments of extracted Neanderthal DNA into the genomes of bacteria. The Neanderthal DNA gets amplified as the bacteria divide, and then scientists pluck out human-matching bases using "probes" made with snippets of human DNA.

The researchers say their achievements mark the "dawn of Neanderthal genomics," and they estimate that further advances in DNA sequencing technology could allow the completion of a very rough draft of the entire Neanderthal genome within two years.

"There's no question that we're going to have a Neanderthal genome, and likely, we're going to have several Neanderthal genomes," Rubin said. The team hopes to extract and sequence DNA from the bones of other individuals and to complete several drafts of the Neanderthal genome.

[b]Clues to our past[/b]
A complete Neanderthal genome would help scientists identify the genetic changes in our own genome that set us apart from other hominids.

The comparison between recently sequenced chimpanzee genomes and ours is already shedding light on the evolutionary changes our ancestors went through to make them less ape-like. But because chimps and humans began diverging some 6.5 million years ago, examination of their genome cannot reveal what happened in the final stretches of our own evolution.

"Humans went through several stages of evolution in the last 400,000 years," said study co-author Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago. "If we can compare humans’ and Neanderthals’ genomes, then we can possibly identify what the key genetic changes were during that final stage of human evolution."

A completed genome will also reveal new insights about Neanderthals, who disappeared mysteriously about 30,000 years ago.

"In having the Neanderthal genome sequence ...we're going to learn about the biology, learn about things that we could never learn from the bones and the artifacts that we have," Rubin said.

The results of Rubin's team are detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature; Paabo's team's results are detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
One problem: gene removal is

One problem: gene removal is not supposed to yeild actual results after about 5,000 years because of nucleotide degeneration. It was tried on Egyptian mummies (which are incredibly well preserved) and nothing was recovered.


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Egann wrote:One problem:

[quote=Egann]One problem: gene removal is not supposed to yeild actual results after about 5,000 years because of nucleotide degeneration. It was tried on Egyptian mummies (which are incredibly well preserved) and nothing was recovered.[/quote]

can I see a source on that? All the information I've seen suggests that genes can be looked at, especially in fossils.


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Sure, Wikipedia page on

Sure, Wikipedia page on Ancient DNA

[quote]Furthermore, due to degradation of the DNA molecules, a process which correlates loosely with factors such as time, temperature and presence of free water, upper limits exist beyond which no DNA is deemed likely to survive. Current estimates suggest that in optimal environments, i.e environments which are very cold, such as permafrost or ice, an upper limit of max 1 Million years exists.[/quote]

The author was being deliberately very gentle to aDNA research. 1 million years is the largest number that was ever suggested, at the beginning of aDNA research.

To take this point further, remember that no viral DNA could be recovered from the victims of the 1918 flu from the ones Kirsty Baker exumed. Only the ones that had been stored in an army warehouse in wax and frozen in permafrost yeilded results, and the virus was only [i]80 years old.[/i]

Gina Kolada, [i]Flu[/i]

Point 2: Attempts have been made to isolate Triceratops DNA, then comparing it to modern bird DNA. The results were astonishing: the DNA 100% matched modern turkey DNA. Last I heard the lead scientist was still looking into the possibility that the sample was interfered with by a turkey sandwich.


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Wikipedia isn't exactly the

Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source, btw.


HeliosOfTheSun
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wikipedia page on

[quote]Wikipedia page on Ancient DNA[/quote]

In highschool my friends and I used to go to Wiki and edited "Fat Man" ,which was the nuke used in WWII, and said it was made by peguins.


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
...ergo I did not just use

...ergo I did not just use wikipedia, I also looked up the external sources the author listed and used my prior knowledge about the attempts at recovering the 1918 flu genome.

I inclueded the Flu reference for a reason. To refute me you will have to do [i]far[/i] more than just tell me that my source is pathetic. You will also have to contend with explaining how DNA could vanish in all but carefully preserved situations in 80 years when DNA is supposedly being extracted from unpreserved fossils from [i]millions[/i] of years ago. Fossilization destroys all the tissue of a bone, turning it into rock with replacement reactions of the minerals in the environment and the bone itself. All soft tissues are turned into impressions if there is anything else left to be left to begin with.

You get my drift? You aren't isolating DNA from bones, but isolating fragments of modern genetic material (like the turkey DNA mentioned previoulsy, probably deliberately seeded) from rock that once upon a time was bone, but now is a bone-shaped rock.


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
If you want to debate

If you want to debate biology, I recommend you go over to the [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com]RRS forums[/url] and argue with the biologists there.


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I was not debating, merely

I was not debating, merely making a point and citing references when I was asked to.

I personally don't like the RRS forum as much as freethinkingteens as that RRS is far more of an atheistic ranting on the stupidity of theists.


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm not into biology

Well, I'm not into biology but since you're a creationist I'm sure your points were bull, especially after that debate you had with deludedgod.

You do know that they have a Kill 'Em With Kindness forum at RRS, where no ranting or insulting is allowed?


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, I'm not into

[quote] Well, I'm not into biology but since you're a creationist I'm sure your points were bull, especially after that debate you had with deludedgod.[/quote]

Where I am from, that is called one of three things, depending on the context:

1. [i]ad hominem[/i]
2. Appeal to emotion
3. Trolling

Note: 1 and 2 are both logical fallacies. Saying that I am wrong just because I am a theist undermines the whole premise of debate, which in turn would undermine reason. This is generically called a presupposition, or a belief someone holds without any proof whatsoever and cannot be challenged. Wasn't it you who called reason a self-attesting axiomatic system? What ever happened to that?!

[quote]You do know that they have a Kill 'Em With Kindness forum at RRS, where no ranting or insulting is allowed?[/quote]

Apparently you were not aware that I was specifically refering to the Biblical Errancy section, which really does come across as a rant.


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Egann wrote:Quote: Well, I'm

[quote=Egann][quote] Well, I'm not into biology but since you're a creationist I'm sure your points were bull, especially after that debate you had with deludedgod.[/quote]

Where I am from, that is called one of three things, depending on the context:

1. [i]ad hominem[/i]
2. Appeal to emotion
3. Trolling

Note: 1 and 2 are both logical fallacies. Saying that I am wrong just because I am a [b]theist[/b] undermines the whole premise of debate, which in turn would undermine reason. This is generically called a presupposition, or a belief someone holds without any proof whatsoever and cannot be challenged. Wasn't it you who called reason a self-attesting axiomatic system? What ever happened to that?!/[/quote]

I never said you were wrong because you were a theist, I said [i]creationist[/i]. Not theist!

It doesn't qualify as ad hominem.

Ad hominem takes this form:

Egann claims X.
Egann is a bad person because of a totally irrelevant Y.
Therefore, X is wrong.

My claim took this form:

Egann claims X about science.
Egann is a creationist.
Creationism is [b]not[/b] actual science. (Even the courts have ruled it out as science.)
Therefore, Egann can't be trusted when it comes to science.

And how the fuck am I trolling?

[quote][quote]You do know that they have a Kill 'Em With Kindness forum at RRS, where no ranting or insulting is allowed?[/quote]

Apparently you were not aware that I was specifically refering to the Biblical Errancy section, which really does come across as a rant.[/quote][/quote]

Where the hell did you mention the Biblical Errancy forums? I don't think there are any real rants there anyway.

Since I mentioned biologists, I was referring to the Evolution of Life forums, where a few biologists frequent.


Egann
Egann's picture
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Let's get this straight.

Let's get this straight. Formally, you are right about how to define ad hominem, but informally it is defined as an attack on credibility of the person to demean the argument by implication. In other words, you deflected the issues.

...and that was a formal ad hominem, but as that it constituted such a weak refutation, I will let it stand.


Guruite
Guruite's picture
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
I still sorta want to know

I still sorta want to know the whole aDNA thing... I personally trust wiki... sorta

I use it in general... and this seems to be a general fact... it could be wrong but dont bash wiki.. :) hehe

As for DNA, how in the world would john hammond (i cant remember his name... hammond right?) be able to create dinosaurs from insects in amber if it diddn't survive a long time?

Huh? figure that one out :)


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Egann wrote:I inclueded the

[quote=Egann]I inclueded the Flu reference for a reason. To refute me you will have to do [i]far[/i] more than just tell me that my source is pathetic.[/quote]Actually, all I have to do is point out that your single example does not necessarily reflect on all DNA preservations.

There can be many, many different circumstances than the flu epidemic.

For example, being frozen in solid ice. There are many accounts where this has preserved the body of people or animals extremely well.

For example, [url=http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news157.htm]this Mammoth[/url] discovered in Siberia, from 23,000 years ago.

Also see:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/dn7988
http://www.ibdna.com/articles/DNATestingOnFossils.htm
[quote]Ice-Age

The ideal conditions to find fossils is if they are frozen in ice, which helps preserve DNA intact, making it ideal for DNA testing - 400,000 year old plants were discovered in the ice in Siberia, and a 40,000 year-old cave bear’s DNA has been decoded by evolutionary anthropology scientists.[/quote]
Your argument would only be valid if all conditions were exactly equal everywhere on the planet.