Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents?

quote:

---

Mitochondria may not be inherited solely through the maternal line, according to new research that promises to overturn accepted biological wisdom.

​

If confirmed by other researchers, the findings could have huge implications for evolutionary biology and biochemistry.

​

Robert Sanders Williams, from Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina, says the findings are "remarkable and unanticipated. This is more than a mere curiosity. It asserts the principle that it can occur in humans. It could have significant implications for the study of human evolution and the migrations of populations," he says.

​

For decades biologists have assumed that mitochondria - the cells' power stations - are inherited solely through the maternal line.

​

Mitochondria in the sperm from the father were presumed to be destroyed immediately after conception, leaving behind only those from the mother. But Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing from the University Hospital Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, have discovered that one of their patients inherited the majority of his mitochondria from his father.

​

"Even with very sensitive methods, paternal mitochondrial DNA has never been detected in man before," Schwartz told Reuters. "There are many examples of family pedigrees that follow mitochondrial diseases through the maternal line."

---

--New Scientist

Nice find blitz77,
There were some experiments with mice in the early 90's that did not show paternal transmission. But there is some controversy about recombination in mtDNA in humans (which would require paternal contribution or at least non-clonality of mtDNA). Certain species of mussels also have paternal transmission of mtDNA. It will be really interesting to see if this study holds up since it has not been published. I for one would be happy if more phylogenetics would switch to nuclear DNA...after all there are 3 billion bp in the nucleus versus around 16 K in mtDNA yet nuclear DNA has long been ignored.Ciao,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Mitochondria may not be inherited solely through the maternal line, according to new research that promises to overturn accepted biological wisdom.

​

If confirmed by other researchers, the findings could have huge implications for evolutionary biology and biochemistry.

​

Robert Sanders Williams, from Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina, says the findings are "remarkable and unanticipated. This is more than a mere curiosity. It asserts the principle that it can occur in humans. It could have significant implications for the study of human evolution and the migrations of populations," he says.

​

For decades biologists have assumed that mitochondria - the cells' power stations - are inherited solely through the maternal line.

​

Mitochondria in the sperm from the father were presumed to be destroyed immediately after conception, leaving behind only those from the mother. But Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing from the University Hospital Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, have discovered that one of their patients inherited the majority of his mitochondria from his father.

​

"Even with very sensitive methods, paternal mitochondrial DNA has never been detected in man before," Schwartz told Reuters. "There are many examples of family pedigrees that follow mitochondrial diseases through the maternal line."

---

​

--New Scientist

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I for one would be happy if more phylogenetics would switch to nuclear DNA...after all there are 3 billion bp in the nucleus versus around 16 K in mtDNA yet nuclear DNA has long been ignored.
[/B][/QUOTE]There have been some studies w.r.t. male chromosomes w.r.t. phylogenetics due to the more linear transmission as compared to non-sex linked chromosomes and relative lack of crossover. There were a few pieces published in the last couple of years in the journals Science and Nature w.r.t. human migration patters and possible links between H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neandertalis.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

There are both Y chromosome and autosomal phylogenetic studies starting to pop up. What will eventually be very interesting will be whole genome phylogenetic comparisons. Though there are both technical and statistical problems (the phase problem) with non-sex linked loci, the nucleus does provide a much larger set of loci evolving at different rates so that one can address both deep evolutionary branches as well as more recent speciation events. That is why I am against sole reliance on mtDNA...that and the fact that one can get totally thrown off by nuclear integrations of mtDNA which appear mtDNA like but are actually nuclear encoded pseudogenes. This can throw off phylogenetics when not recognized. A great example of this was the mid-90's claim that dinosaur DNA had been retrieved. It turned out to be a human mtDNA pseudogene of modern origin...as Homer Simpson would say..Doh!!! Cheers,
Mammuthus [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I for one would be happy if more phylogenetics would switch to nuclear DNA...after all there are 3 billion bp in the nucleus versus around 16 K in mtDNA yet nuclear DNA has long been ignored.
[/B][/QUOTE]There have been some studies w.r.t. male chromosomes w.r.t. phylogenetics due to the more linear transmission as compared to non-sex linked chromosomes and relative lack of crossover. There were a few pieces published in the last couple of years in the journals Science and Nature w.r.t. human migration patters and possible links between H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neandertalis.[/B][/QUOTE]

sorry its not a reply I just couldnt figure out how to post a message (which by the way do you know?)but my real question is does anyone know how much a mitochondria needs to be magnified to see it?

A mitochondrion (the plural ends -dria) is down at the small end of what can be seen in a light microscope - I'm guessing that 1000x magnification would certainly let you see that one was there. An electron microscope is surely needed, though, to see any details.

thanx but i guess i dont need that info anymore since 1000x microscope is waaaay out of my school budget :-) thanks anyways though