Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Gene mutation linked to cognition is found only in humans

by PhysOrg.com

Thanks to Anthony Q. Rowles for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news97825267.html

The human and chimpanzee genomes vary by just 1.2 percent, yet there is a considerable difference in the mental and linguistic capabilities between the two species. A new study showed that a certain form of neuropsin, a protein that plays a role in learning and memory, is expressed only in the central nervous systems of humans and that it originated less than 5 million years ago. The study, which also demonstrated the molecular mechanism that creates this novel protein, will be published online in Human Mutation, the official journal of the Human Genome Variation Society.

Led by Dr. Bing Su of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Kunming, China, researchers analyzed the DNA of humans and several species of apes and monkeys. Their previous work had shown that type II neuropsin, a longer form of the protein, is not expressed in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) of lesser apes and Old World monkeys. In the current study, they tested the expression of type II in the PFC of two great ape species, chimpanzees and orangutans, and found that it was not present. Since these two species diverged most recently from human ancestors (about 5 and 14 million years ago respectively), this finding demonstrates that type II is a human-specific form that originated relatively recently, less than 5 million years ago.

Gene sequencing revealed a mutation specific to humans that triggers a change in the splicing pattern of the neuropsin gene, creating a new splicing site and a longer protein. Introducing this mutation into chimpanzee DNA resulted in the creation of type II neuropsin. "Hence, the human-specific mutation is not only necessary but also sufficient in creating the novel splice form," the authors state.

The results also showed a weakening effect of a different, type I-specific splicing site and a significant reduction in type I neuropsin expression in human and chimpanzee when compared with the rhesus macaque, an Old World monkey. This pattern suggests that before the emergence of the type II splice form in human, the weakening of the type I splicing site already existed in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, implying a multi-step process that led to the dramatic change of splicing pattern in humans, the authors note. They identified a region of the chimpanzee sequence that has a weakening effect on the splicing site that also probably applies to humans. "It is likely that both the creation of novel splice form and the weakening of the constitutive splicing contribute to the splicing pattern changes during primate evolution, suggesting a multi-step process eventually leading to the origin of the type II form in human," the authors state.

They note that further studies should probe the biological function of type II neuropsin in humans, as the extra 45 amino acids in this form may cause protein structural and functional changes. They note that in order to understand the genetic basis that underlies the traits that set humans apart from nonhuman primates, recent studies have focused on identifying genes that have been positively selected during human evolution. They conclude, "The present results underscore the potential importance of the creation of novel splicing forms in the central nervous system in the emergence of human cognition."

Source: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #38985 by Aaron SF on May 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm

 avatarMore More give me more! Onward to HUMAN MUTATION.

Now if they could just show that this trait is lacking in shrubs we might be better off here in the US.

Other Comments by Aaron SF

2. Comment #38992 by LeeLeeOne on May 9, 2007 at 5:39 pm

 avatarAaron SF: actually the shrub you are talking about is called "busheytheocytist myassizmymindicum". They proved this particular shrub to have mutant genes, they had started a couple of thousands of years ago when the bibliocannotthinkformyself virus spread, but some ill-informed, uneducated "volunteers" (republicunda grossmisinformidus) voted to reconstitute the shrub's DNA in their laboratory (blatantlyfixedorus registrationis votefraudist).

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

3. Comment #38996 by fatduck on May 9, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Did someone say Planet of the Apes?

Other Comments by fatduck

4. Comment #39012 by BAEOZ on May 9, 2007 at 6:20 pm

 avatarAnother nail in the coffin for man as the height of creation? Probably not, literalist will just ignore it. But I love this kind of science. Rock on!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

5. Comment #39019 by savagemickey on May 9, 2007 at 6:49 pm

What do creationists think when they read something like this? They must think that scientists are going to a whole lot of trouble to keep up their evilution hoax.

Other Comments by savagemickey

6. Comment #39087 by chadvader123 on May 10, 2007 at 12:45 am

I am a creationist, and this is what I think. I think your time on this earth will pass long before any scientist "proves" the Theory of Evolution to be the definitive answer to life's greatest mystery. And I truly hope and pray that all of you find God before that time comes to pass.

These are not the words of a man who once believed that some invisible man in the sky is watching our every move. These are the words of a man who, in the midst of great depression, discovered that the completely and utterly preposterous idea of God was true. Then again, maybe I'm just crazy like Pascal, Newton, Collins,
C.S Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, St. Augustine, and the scores of others who became believers.

Other Comments by chadvader123

7. Comment #39093 by NJS on May 10, 2007 at 1:25 am

"I am a creationist, and this is what I think"

Obviously not - respond to the actual article.

Other Comments by NJS

8. Comment #39112 by Logicel on May 10, 2007 at 2:49 am

 avatarchadvader123, wrote: Then again, maybe I'm just crazy like Pascal, Newton, Collins,
C.S Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, St. Augustine, and the scores of others who became believers.

_______

Yes, the God Delusion is a very potent but BORINGLY COMMON DELUSION. And I do hope your delusion does not go even further, encouraging the regarding of yourself in such a blinding light that since you and these luminaries share the God Delusion that you also share their talent, scientific expertise, and creativity. But having already elevated, arbitrarily--without any evidence--your human origins to something unsubstantially divinely connected, your ability to run wildly and unconstrained with your particular brand of make-believe will permit any ludicrous conclusion to be reached.

As you pray for us, we will think for you.

Other Comments by Logicel

9. Comment #39133 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 4:18 am

 avatarChadvader - how incredibly interesting!!!!

By the way, Pascal's wager - what a laugh! Applies to all faiths and is unbiblical. CS Lewis - Muppet! St Augustine - promoted and justified slavery through the "will of God" think he also said unbaptised babies went to hell.
Why dont you do some brain excercises and become an atheist. You afterall have no evidence - uncritical slack jawed admiration of the universe doesn't count as evidence by the way.

Other Comments by BillySands

10. Comment #39150 by Logicel on May 10, 2007 at 5:09 am

 avatarThe 'weak', supposedly 'scientific' theory of Evolution is just getting hammered each and every day. Sigh.

These discoveries will continue. Great article.

Other Comments by Logicel

11. Comment #39152 by Logicel on May 10, 2007 at 5:18 am

 avatarchadvader123 wrote, These are the words of a man who, in the midst of great depression,...
______

Well, then that is proof that God exists. Is that why Religion works so hard to depress people, so they can believe?

Other Comments by Logicel

12. Comment #39153 by BaronOchs on May 10, 2007 at 5:19 am

 avatarchadvader123 are you going to give us a bit more to go on?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

13. Comment #39161 by rokort on May 10, 2007 at 5:36 am

 avatarThough interesting, it's tough to prove that this actually means something. To take this beyond the descriptive, one has to find persons that don't mind swapping their version of type II neuropsin with the one from old-world monkeys, something which is rather challenging technically (to put it mildly) - besides the ethics surrounding such experiment. Phenotypic differences between men and old world monkeys are obvious, but to directly link this to a suspected genetic counterpart (or vice versa) is tough.

That i better trust in God (see chadvader123) over science to get answers in this lifetime is of course the best proof religious folks want to keep everybody stupid. If you can't kill or otherwise shut up reason you can always argue it's a waste of time and energy. Yeah, right! If everybody would have listened to such arguments we would still be living in caves.

On that note: if believing in God beats science why don't religous people all go live like we did when we were monkeys then - before science gave them the comfort, ease and freedom they role around in every day. Must be because belief correlates extremely thight with hypocrisy. Perhaps a hypocrisy-gene or slice variant thereof is more abundant in religious populations? Wouldn't surprise me.

Other Comments by rokort

14. Comment #39378 by chadvader123 on May 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm

First of all I want to apologize for not responding to the article. It's interesting but it doesn't prove anything more than human uniqueness.

Secondly, if you honestly want to further the atheist movement, you might want to start by being informative without being condescending.
And yes, I am well aware that religion is guilty of this as well. However, I do not follow "christians". I follow Jesus Christ.

Thirdly. Explaining my conversion experience in detail (which by the way, took place while I was home alone) will not convince any of you that it was genuine. If I said an angel came to me in a vision, you would say I was high or delusional. If I said a voice from heaven spoke to me, you would say I was high or delusional. And if I said my clinically diagnosed depression was instantly healed, you would say "prove that it was God who healed you!"

I have no intention of convincing any of you that God is real. My hope and prayer is that this might help at least one of you to open your heart to the possibilty. I hate to break it to you, but the scientific method, as wonderful as it is, will not help you find God.

"Seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

Other Comments by chadvader123

15. Comment #39429 by The Buxter on May 10, 2007 at 3:23 pm

chadvader123 wrote:
...the scientific method, as wonderful as it is, will not help you find God


You got that right - and that's kind of our point. God being omnipotent and everything, does really seem to be quite the elusive type, don't you think?
If he really wanted us to believe in him, he could at least make it a bit easier, than this 'hide-and-go-seek-(but you will only find me if you reject your rationality)' game you suggest he is playing.

Many of us (including myself) onced believed firmly in God and Jesus, until we realised there was absolutely no reason to do so. We hope you might do the same...

Other Comments by The Buxter

16. Comment #39435 by phil rimmer on May 10, 2007 at 4:00 pm

 avatarchadvader123

"..my conversion experience...an angel came to me in a vision....a voice from heaven spoke to me.."

So you've got it straight from the horses mouth so to speak. So tell us, which christian faith is the correct one? Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism. RC pre- Gallileo. Surely not pappy Unitarianism!?

You got some more information than (a) God exists, right? You know, for instance, that though, "..[the] scientific method [is] as wonderful as it is..." you know enough to be "...a creationist.." You know that actually a huge chunk of science is a load of bunk.

So tell us, which christians are going to hell?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #39482 by neander on May 10, 2007 at 8:49 pm

 avatarIsn't depression a MENTAL illness .... just like the religion it lead to. It is no accident that ALL mental patients in asylums are believers.

Other Comments by neander
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE