|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The origin of new alleles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:Saccharomyces cerevisiae can harbour plasmids and Escherichia coli can even conjugate with it. quote:It actually appears as if T. cruzi DNA can insert in the host DNA. But Hoot Mon's claim that WE carry around tsetse-fly genes seems of the mark. Edited by AdminAsgara, : quotes are not needed for dBCode URL links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:I fail to see why that would be a difference. Although the horizontal fluidity of genes makes it difficult to define exactly where a gene comes from, I think it would be fair to say that if a gene has been transferred from organism x to organism y, then organism y now carries a gene from organism x. The problem, of course, is that the gene might originally have come from organism a, b, c... etc. and spread independently to both x and y. But in the end both x and y carry the same gene, so I'm not sure why your objection would matter. quote:Bacteria can reproduce inside eukaryotic cells and bacterial DNA can migrate into the nucleus. I don't find it too implausible that a gene from a fly was transferred to an invasive bacterium that later invaded a human cell that subsequently took up some bacterial DNA, especially if the gene/s were on a horizontally mobile element (again, the DNA might have originated in another organism and then spread independently to both tse-tse's and humans). Of course, for this to be heritable in a sexually reproducing organism, this would have to occur in either a gamete or in the cells that produce the gametes. So, Hoot Mon's link and claim that DNA has been transferred between humans and tse-tse's doesn't seem all too farfetched. Now I just have to try to figure out why this is actually important for this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:You claimed earlier :"Moreover - the fact that some endogenous retrotransposon jumped from tsetse flies to humans (or vice-versa) is not the same as saying "humans carry around tsetse fly genes.". So it was a given that a piece of DNA got from a fly into humans. Whether or not this DNA was crucial to the fly is irrelevant. The non-specificity of the genes to humans and flies might, as I also pointed out in an earlier post, be relevant. BUT it was already a given that the DNA had transferred from a fly into a human - and so, in this instance, it is irrelevant.
quote:Mariner elements do contain genes. These were at least (well probably anyway) functional at the time of transposition. quote:I very much doubt that it would be a common occurrence. But there are no absolute barriers against it either. As I already stated, DNA can migrate into the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Free DNA can be longlived inside a human - mothers can carry around their childrens DNA in themselves for years after birth (it probably crossed the placenta). Bacteria and viruses can aid in the transport of DNA into/out of eukaryotic cells. Transposons such as the mariner elements mentioned are "likely" to integrate into a genome (in that they contain the gene to do it and that the gene is not dependent on host-factors), should the find themselves in the right spot. I suppose that lack of direct observation might be called hand-waving but there are mechanisms that can do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
I wrote the following off-line and I just noticed that Wounded Kind and Hoot Mon has discussed parts of what I've already written. I did not change this post because of this, so parts of it might be a bit redundant.
quote:Er, YOU stated: "Moreover - the fact that some endogenous retrotransposon jumped from tsetse flies to humans (or vice-versa) is not the same as saying "humans carry around tsetse fly genes". While I agree that it is debatable whether or not there has been horizontal gene transfer between flies and humans (as I've already stated), that is not what I have an issue with in this instance. The issue is that GIVEN that it HAS happened, should we consider that "humans carry around tsetse fly genes"? My answer is yes. Your answer is that there has been no transfer in the first place - i.e. you're avoiding the question. quote:Transposons are very good at cutting themselves out of and into other DNA sequences. We could argue that some other mechanism brought them to the place where they currently reside, but that is not very parsimonious. quote:Bacteria can get to all sorts of places where they "shouldn't" be. Inside our epithelial cells, across the blood-brain barrier, and yes, inside out gonads After all, people do get gonadal infections. Bacterial infections can occur all along the way from the point of sperm production through to the point where fertilization takes place. Moreover, naked DNA can reside in blood (for long amounts of time) without being enclosed in any membranes, so a bacterium isn't even an absolute requirement. quote:If you are looking for a system in eukaryotes that actively promotes this, then I doubt that there is any. If you are looking for biochemical mechanisms for how it could happen, then I would say that you are demanding too much detail. Given that DNA can be inserted into human DNA by microorganisms and given that microorganisms can be found in the vicinity of gametes (not to mention that there is an absolute requirement for them in the first place) and given that transposons are good at jumping from one piece of DNA to another, you can easily create a hypothetical scenario where genes could jump from flies to humans. The probability that it will happen at any one instance will be low but there will be loads of opportunities for it to occur whenever there are interactions between the two species over long periods of time. I'm sure either of us could comb through the literature and find specific mechanisms for how each step takes place, but why bother. Each step is plausible in that it in no doubt has happened/happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:Well, not necessarily. It depends on what you would define the "home" of a gene. We could easily imagine how some gene/s originated in organism a, transferred to b, then c and... y and z. Would we say that z was carrying a y gene? Probably not. If we only know of the transfer from y to z (and we only knew of the gene in those two organisms) we could reasonably say that z now carries a y gene. But does it really? I realise that this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. To add to the confusion: It is very difficult to say where ANY horizontally mobile element comes from. I would like my resounding yes answer from before to be complemented to include the alternative "No. It is a horizontally mobile element. It does not come from any specific orgamism". quote:I've been suspecting that we have just been talking past eachother. I understand what you are saying and moreover I agree with you. quote:First of all, it would not have to target a "sperm". Precursors for these exist and even females produce gametes. I also think you are being a bit too teleological here. You could ask the same question when any of our 10^13 cells are being examined for evidence of HGT. Merely claiming that it was too unlikely for THAT cell to be affected as opposed to the others isn't a very good argument (but yes, I realize that it IS less likely for a gamete to be affected than, say a skin cell.). In the end, does it even matter how the bacterium/DNA got there? People do get infections in their gonads, so it's obviously possible (and no, these people do not always become infertile).
quote:Agreed. quote:Speaking of hand-waving...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:That's a reasonable enough position. Talking about any one instance of a potential example of heritable HGT in eukaryotes (e.g. the fly-to-man example discussed here), I would probably take the same position. Saying that, I'm probably closer to the convinced side that is has happened/does happen - at least sometimes. I would certainly expect it to be more common in certain organisms (e.g. worms and fungi) than others. quote:That's a movie I would like to see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote:Dawkins seems to be very deterministic when it comes to the phenotypic effects of a particular (expressed) DNA sequence - and because of this he is also wrong (I don't have the book available, so I'm just going with what is written here). Try to insert a eukaryotic gene containing introns into a prokaryote and you will quickly realise that the meaning of the DNA sequence will now most likely have changed. However, I will agree with the statement that as far as DNA ability to transmit it's own information goes (i.e. it's ability to act as a template for copying purposes), it is for all intents and purposes digital.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawks Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
quote: Just like the discrete signal found on a CD, nucleotides form a similarly discrete signal. And since when do digital signals have to represent analogue ones? You ask the question if something analogue can be copied? Yes, of course. But that is not interesting, as the signal being copied is not discrete. (as a side note: given that our DNA sequencing methods are "crude", our ability to detect said sequence relies on the use of millions of DNA copies - this helps reduce the noise inherent in the signal. The signal WE receive is effectively analogue for each and every nucleotide). So when I claim that "DNA's ability to act as a template for copying purposes, is for all intents and purposes digital." I think that I am right, since it is a discrete signal that is being copied. Pretty good analogy, I would say.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024