Humans, chimps almost a match

[codeorama]

Humans, chimps almost a match

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

Humans and chimpanzees share an almost identical genetic inheritance, scientists report Thursday in a landmark comparison that they call an "elegant confirmation" of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Clint the chimpanzee, whose genome sequence appears in 'Nature,' helped show there's little difference between man and ape.

Yerkes National Primate Research Center, AFP/Getty Images

Although scientists have long believed that humans and chimps are related, this comprehensive analysis of their separate genomes offers the best proof of their shared genetic past.

The 3 billion genetic letters in the two genetic blueprints are 96% identical with just 40 million differences, the researchers report in the journal Nature.

By delving more deeply into those differences, researchers hope to explain why humans are susceptible to certain diseases; why our evolutionary paths diverged from ancestral chimps 6 million years ago; and, on an even more basic level, what makes us human.

"We can peek into evolution's lab notebook and see what went on there," says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

The analysis offers clues to the cause of diseases such as Alzheimer's and to why chimps and humans are susceptible to different diseases.

"Evolutionary analysis is a handmaiden to human medicine," says Eric Lander of the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

For example, in a discovery that could offer insights into Alzheimer's, researchers found mutations that turn off the human caspase-12 gene, which causes damaged cells to self-destruct. Those mutations weren't found in chimps, which aren't as susceptible to Alzheimer's. Knocking out caspase-12 in mice makes their brain cells more likely to survive with Alzheimer's-like damage.

Researchers also identified mutations in humans that were important for survival, including a gene associated with speech and a gene that ramps up response to sugar, an advantage in lean times but a potential ticket to diabetes today.

"Reading these two genomes side by side, it's amazing to see the evolutionary changes that are occurring," says Robert Waterston of the University of Washington. "I couldn't imagine Darwin looking for stronger confirmation of his theories."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2005-08-31-chimp-genes_x.htm

[China]

I thought we already knew this?

Edit: I thought so:

However, with the advent of molecular techniques to compare similarities in our DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts have come to accept the fact that humans and chimps are most closely related. Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.

from here

[Epistopheles]

Yeah, right. Next you're going to tell me the earth is ROUND... bah.

[Johnny Punani2]

Chimps sh*t in their own hand and then throw it at each other.

I see the connection...

[SkinInsite]

Humans loot hospitals during a natural disaster, if i were a chimp i'd be pissed with the comparison.

[Predicto]

Chimps sh*t in their own hand and then throw it at each other.

I see the connection...

Heh, don't we all?

What? :paranoid:

[rebornempowered]

Why does it not talk about the other stuff that we are closely related to based upon our DNA?

The banana as one example.

[chomerics]

Why does it not talk about the other stuff that we are closely related to based upon our DNA?

The banana as one example.

How much of our DNA is in a bananas? I am curious because it comes from the plant kingdom, and since you put it out there, I figured you'd have the answer.

[Johnny Punani2]

How much of our DNA is in a bananas? I am curious because it comes from the plant kingdom, and since you put it out there, I figured you'd have the answer.

I once watched a stripper share her DNA with a banana. After that show, a chimp rode around the stage on a bicycle. I see a link!!!!

[Ancalagon the Black]

Why does it not talk about the other stuff that we are closely related to based upon our DNA?

The banana as one example.

Apparently there is an urban legend that has been going around religious groups for a couple of decades now. The claim is that a banana shares 80% of its DNA sequencing with humans.

That's simply untrue, and I know we've discussed it before on this board.

[rebornempowered]

I was not quoting the urban myth. I was simply making the point that we share DNA in common with many things yet we only talk about the monkeys. Sorry, I brought up the banana.

I did find out that we share greater than 50% of our DNA with bananas though just to make you all happy.

[Trippster]

scientists always present this message in its best possible packaging. Ooooh, so we're 95% alike. So what! 5% can make a huge difference. A watermelon and a cloud are both 95% water. Does this mean that they are in some way related?

[NoCalMike]

scientists always present this message in its best possible packaging. Ooooh, so we're 95% alike. So what! 5% can make a huge difference. A watermelon and a cloud are both 95% water. Does this mean that they are in some way related?

Yeah because water and DNA are on equal playing fields

[Ancalagon the Black]

I was not quoting the urban myth. I was simply making the point that we share DNA in common with many things yet we only talk about the monkeys. Sorry, I brought up the banana.

I did find out that we share greater than 50% of our DNA with bananas though just to make you all happy.

We share DNA in common with EVERYTHING alive. We talk about chimps because we share the most in common with them.

scientists always present this message in its best possible packaging. Ooooh, so we're 95% alike. So what! 5% can make a huge difference. A watermelon and a cloud are both 95% water. Does this mean that they are in some way related?

:laugh: :laugh: Do you realize what nonsense this is? I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Raub]

One step closer to human immortality. You should all be very afraid.

[BlueTalon]

A watermelon and a cloud are both 95% water. Does this mean that they are in some way related?

Do you realize what nonsense this is? I hope you're being sarcastic.

It may be nonsense, but there's a point to be made with it. The nonsense part is reading too much significance into the stat. So what if X-percentage of DNA is similar between humans and fill-in-the-blank.

Note: I'm all for genetic research. I think it's an integral part of knowing more about us, diseases, and thereby cures. I don't think comparing our DNA to monkeys is terribly useful, unless we're trying to cure monkey diseases.

[Ancalagon the Black]

*ahem*

The analysis offers clues to the cause of diseases such as Alzheimer's and to why chimps and humans are susceptible to different diseases.

"Evolutionary analysis is a handmaiden to human medicine," says Eric Lander of the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

For example, in a discovery that could offer insights into Alzheimer's, researchers found mutations that turn off the human caspase-12 gene, which causes damaged cells to self-destruct. Those mutations weren't found in chimps, which aren't as susceptible to Alzheimer's. Knocking out caspase-12 in mice makes their brain cells more likely to survive with Alzheimer's-like damage.

[BlueTalon]

*ahem* yourself. You could remove the second sentence from the bit you quoted and it would actually have a more direct train of thought, and therefore make more sense.

And there's nothing in the quote that demands or implies that they wouldn't have found the "mutations that turn off the human caspase-12 gene, which causes damaged cells to self-destruct", had we forgone the other animal genetic research.

However... Perhaps I misspoke earlier, allow me to clarify. I'm not against genetic research. I'm for it. I'm for it in animals or humans. And if in fact they wouldn't or couldn't have found the "mutations that turn off the human caspase-12 gene, which causes damaged cells to self-destruct" without finding the same things in animals first, or concurrently, then more power to them.

The thing I find objectionable is insisting that because there are similarities, then we must be related.

[PokerPacker]

It may be nonsense, but there's a point to be made with it. The nonsense part is reading too much significance into the stat. So what if X-percentage of DNA is similar between humans and fill-in-the-blank.

Note: I'm all for genetic research. I think it's an integral part of knowing more about us, diseases, and thereby cures. I don't think comparing our DNA to monkeys is terribly useful, unless we're trying to cure monkey diseases.

ever hear of the Ebola viruses? transmit from monkey to man. aids? monkey to man (and i don't want to know how.)

[Ancalagon the Black]

*ahem* yourself. You could remove the second sentence from the bit you quoted and it would actually have a more direct train of thought, and therefore make more sense.

I didn't write the article. Choosing the order of the sentences wasn't up to me.

And there's nothing in the quote that demands or implies that they wouldn't have found the "mutations that turn off the human caspase-12 gene, which causes damaged cells to self-destruct", had we forgone the other animal genetic research.

Actually, there is. Had they not compared the two strings, they wouldn't have been able to point out the specific mutations. By viewing the (presumably) unmutated section, they could determine what exactly the mutation was.

[BlueTalon]

Actually, there is. Had they not compared the two strings, they wouldn't have been able to point out the specific mutations. By viewing the (presumably) unmutated section, they could determine what exactly the mutation was.

What you're saying may be true, but that's an interpretation of the quote. It's not what the quote actually said.