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)
Friday, September 5, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Trichoplax Genome Sequenced: 'Rosetta Stone' For Understanding Evolution

by Science Daily

Thanks to Brian Burgess for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903172419.htm

Trichoplax Genome Sequenced: 'Rosetta Stone' For Understanding Evolution

ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2008) — Yale molecular and evolutionary biologists in collaboration with Department of Energy scientists produced the full genome sequence of Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, providing a new insight into the evolution of all higher animals.

The findings reported in the August 21 online edition of the journal Nature show that while Trichoplax has one of the smallest nuclear genomes found in a multi-cellular creature, it contains signature sequences for gene regulation found in more complex animals and humans. Further, it defines Trichoplax as a branching point of animal evolution.

"Trichoplax placozoans are animals that have only four body cell types and no structured organs. They represent descendents of the oldest multi-celled animal, perhaps older even than sponges," said author Stephen Dellaporta, professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale.

This study shows that compared with the nuclear genome of humans that contains 3 billion base pairs, Trichoplax has only 98 million. Earlier sequencing work showed that the mitochondrial genome of Trichoplax is over twice the size of those found in most animals with genes, introns and spacer sequences like the most primitive organisms.

However, size is not all that matters. DNA sequences that organisms share in common represents what was in their genomes at the time of their divergence. Unlike other model systems for studying evolution, including fruit flies and worms, even the arrangement of genes is conserved between the Trichoplax and human genomes.

"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans," said Dellaporta. "We are exited to find that Trichoplax contains shared pathways and defined regulatory sequences that link these most primitive ancestors to higher animal species. The Trichoplax genome will serve as a type of "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the origins of animal-specific pathways."

Trichoplax is from an ancient lineage and brings significant insights to understanding how animal life evolved from the common ancestor 600 million years ago. The consortium believes that the Trichoplax genome establishes a new standard basal group for the comparative analysis of animal genomes, genes, and biological processes.

The genome portal for Trichoplax is http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Triad1/Triad1.home.html.

Study co-authors include Mansi Srivastava, Emina Begovic, Jarrod Chapman, Uffe Hellsten, Takeshi Kawashima, Alan Kuo, Therese Mitros, Asaf Salamov, Meredith Carpenter, Ana Signorovitch, Maria Moreno, Kai Kamm, Jane Grimwood, Jeremy Schmutz, Harris Shapiro, Igor Grigoriev, Leo Buss, Bernd Schierwater, Stephen Dellaporta and Daniel Rokhsar. Funding for this work was from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the German Science Foundation and the Human Frontiers Science Program.

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #243154 by Godfree Gordon on September 5, 2008 at 8:10 am

 avatarKapow

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

2. Comment #243198 by NewEnglandBob on September 5, 2008 at 9:25 am

 avatarA. Take the trailing period off the link, some browsers do not like:

http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Triad1/Triad1.home.html

B.
...said Dellaporta. "We are exited to find that Trichoplax contains shared pathways and defined regulatory sequences that ...


maybe "We are excited..."???

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

3. Comment #243244 by BeyondBelief on September 5, 2008 at 10:17 am

 avatarYes, NewEnglandBob!!! You have captured the essence of the article!!

Thank you for the analytical insights!

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

4. Comment #243282 by Lucas on September 5, 2008 at 11:07 am

 avatar
"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"


Ta da!!

This is extremely cool. Ever onward, ever onward!

Other Comments by Lucas

5. Comment #243344 by Stafford Gordon on September 5, 2008 at 1:37 pm

It's got lots of long words and I don't have to believe it if I don't want to.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

6. Comment #243346 by Cartomancer on September 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm

 avatarI found this information rather stimulating. In terms of evidence for common ancestry with all animals, this must rank as one of the most revealing individual items of all. Even someone with no understanding of molecular biology at all can get it. Tell your average creationist (okay, maybe not your average creationist, one who is willing to listen to the evidence but honestly hasn't been presented with it yet) that we have a complex chemical code in every cell of our body, and most of this is shared by something like an ape or a dog or a kangaroo, and they might not be all that impressed. Well of course we do, our above-average theistic friend might reply, we've all got four legs and a face and eat and sleep and breathe don't we? Obviously there's quite a lot in common there. But tell him that these tiny, tiny, tiny little things called Trichoplax (which I'm guessing look like microscopic bits of jelly, live in water and spend their entire short lives wobbling about absorbing things) have that VERY SAME CODE in them all the way through, and he would almost certainly sit up and take notice.

I would try it out on one, but apart from the fact I'm now in darkest Somerset and there aren't any people for miles, I have an instinctive reflex when confronted with creationists to bash their faces in with a fire extinguisher...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

7. Comment #243396 by Hellene on September 5, 2008 at 4:34 pm

 avatar6. Comment #243346 by Cartomancer

" I have an instinctive reflex when confronted with creationists to bash their faces in with a fire extinguisher..."


Over here you'd get fined for tampering with a fire extinguisher.

Interestingly enough when I was younger I went through an aquarium/terrarium phase. I had about twenty or so in my room. One of my salt water jobs had these tiny little blobs eating the algae that grew on the glass. I wonder if it was these fellows?

And thank you to the DOE, Yale, and Professor Dellaporta. I regret not getting a degree in Biology.

Other Comments by Hellene

8. Comment #243415 by Don_Quix on September 5, 2008 at 7:09 pm

 avatarCartomancer: I have a fire extinguisher under my sink that I would be happy to donate towards your cause.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

9. Comment #243424 by neander on September 5, 2008 at 8:18 pm

 avatarHellene, the things on your fishtank were probably planarian worms. They share the genes as well I assume.
I also have a spare fire extinguisher.

Other Comments by neander

10. Comment #243434 by robotaholic on September 5, 2008 at 9:14 pm

 avatarFire safety is very important!

Other Comments by robotaholic

11. Comment #243443 by MikedubB on September 5, 2008 at 9:46 pm

 avatarHow is the DoE involved in this experiment? Is the trichoplax involved in the discovery of oil and if so, then why would the DoE need to know it's genetic sequence? Just askin'.

Other Comments by MikedubB

12. Comment #243452 by Roy_H on September 5, 2008 at 10:20 pm

 avatar" I have an instinctive reflex when confronted with creationists to bash their faces in with a fire extinguisher..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
these are excellent, 25 short videos that debunk creationism

Other Comments by Roy_H

13. Comment #243483 by bachfiend on September 5, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Yes, but how likely would it be that a hurricane going through a garbage tip would assemble a trichoplax. Intelligent Design proved! (I don't really believe this, but I'm trying to think what a Creationist would say).

Other Comments by bachfiend

14. Comment #243502 by Angels On a Pin Head on September 6, 2008 at 3:43 am

Unfortunately, I think the 80% statistic might be misleading.

From Wikipedia (not always reliable, but it gives a figure to plug into the calculation) 11,514 genes have been identified in Trichoplax adhaerens. The human genome includes an estimated 20,000-25,000 protein-encoding genes (plus RNA genes, number not given). So humans have roughly twice as many genes as trichoplax. So if we have 80% if its genes, it has "only" 40% of our genes.

40% is still a big chunk, but that will include genes that control cell formation, growth and regulation etc, and a creationist could say that these genes are bound to be shared since the same functions are required by the cells of all organisms.

Clarification: no, I'm not a creationist, nor do I play one on TV, I'm just viewing the article with a sceptical eye. You can put the fire extinguisher down.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

15. Comment #243558 by chuckgoecke on September 6, 2008 at 7:45 am

 avatarComment 14:
I like the constructive criticism, 40% or 80%, still a big chunk. Of course creationists will always spin any info their way, but this sort of work just keeps piling on higher and higher, that evolution is the only unifying idea that works in ALL situations. I've said it before, and I'll elaborate a bit more here, that part of the reason the young earth/creation idea works for so many people is that they can not wrap their (small) brains around the idea of extreme age of the earth and the time scales over which all this must happen. A freshman college course in physical geology would do many of them a world of good at getting this idea across. Physical geology(sedimentology actually) provides an independent way to show that the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old, and physics helps with radioactive dating of rocks, to get further back into time. Plate tectonics was the earthshaking(sorry) theory of geology that really upgraded the reliance of age/time data, and explained why ages of most rocks are fairly young(100's of millions of years, versus billions for the earth as a whole) in the earth's crust. Just as uplift and erosion have destroyed most of the sedimentary rocks that would contain the continuous change in the fossil lines, plate tectonics has destroyed(or recycled) most of the earth's crust. Very old rocks, just like fossils, are thus rarer and rarer the further one looks back in time. These geological concepts are what folks need to have in order to cure them of the disease of weak minded personal incredulity.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

16. Comment #243576 by F_A_F on September 6, 2008 at 9:15 am

@Comment: 15

Which is exactly why it's so hard to open a mind when the mind is set up to be so closed.

Hard to think about: anything being really, really old without it having dust or cobwebs on it. Conceiving of something which your peers disagree with.

Easy to think about: the stuff in the 'good book' which you can hold in your own hands. Plus everything that everyone in your immediate circle tells you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing bu the truth.

The biggest hope I have for the planet surviving with us still intact is education and the internet. Once people start to realise that thinking for themselves is the best way forward then there's a chance. I can't remember who said it, but "education is what remains when what was learned has been forgotten". Once our race can learn for itself, it will think for itself and release itself from it's shackles.

Other Comments by F_A_F

17. Comment #243655 by Gunnar on September 6, 2008 at 4:04 pm

 avatarI understood from the article that 80% of Trichoplax' genes are also found in humans. This does not imply that the human and the Trichoplax genome are 80% alike; the mathemathics are given quite correctly above by Angels on a Pin Head.

According to Brusca & Brusca's zoology textbook Invertebrates; Trichoplax adhaerens are basically 0,5-3 mm wide lumps of a few thousand cells. They spend their time crawling around using their cilia (like amoeba and some flatworms); grazing on algae for the most part in sandy marine areas all over the tropical world. Their inner "organs" are merely amoeboid cells (cellular multi-taskers) in a liquid-filled mesenchyme medium.

They are interesting because they represent a basal line in the evolution of multicellular animals; as far as I know it is not clear whether they are closer to the eumetazoa than the sponges. Their genome surely will throw some light over the overall evolution of multicellular animals.

I hope a sponge genome will be sequenced soon!

Other Comments by Gunnar

18. Comment #243687 by Darwin's Teapot on September 6, 2008 at 9:39 pm

 avatarChuckgoeke-

Can I completely plagiarize your very concise statement in critiquing creationism for my new site? Thought it was very neatly stated.

Best,
www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

19. Comment #243697 by helenlibra on September 7, 2008 at 12:55 am

Strange how the young earth brigade find it hard to accept the fact that the earth is so old, yet seem to have no problem believing that their god always was, is and always will be.

Other Comments by helenlibra

20. Comment #243699 by crabsallover on September 7, 2008 at 1:17 am

 avatarthe 21st August Nature article here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7207/full/nature07191.html

I'm considering a Distance Learning Bioinformatics MSc at University of Exeter: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/postgraduate/degrees/biosciences/bioinfodlmsc.shtml

After a first degree in Biochemistry I've become interested in Bioinformatics partly because of the articles you post here. Thanks Josh / Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by crabsallover

21. Comment #243721 by rod-the-farmer on September 7, 2008 at 5:43 am

 avatarSide post re fire extinguishers.....an interesting use for the carbon dioxide versions ( the ones with the black cone at the exhaust end) is that if partially discharged, they do not leak the remaining contents, the way a dry chemical version does. So, you can give a short blast to something, and the rest won't leak away. What, you ask, would I want to give a short blast to ? (pardon the split) Why, a standing bottle of your favourite beer, with the black cone held over it, on the ground. Instant chilling effect. This is of course only useful in countries where they like their beer cold.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

22. Comment #243726 by Richard Morgan on September 7, 2008 at 5:55 am

 avatar WARNING - Attention-seeking post!

I would like to invite you to listen to a song I have composed, kindly interpreted by a friend of a lovely person I met here.


HEALING


http://www.myspace.com/morgansoriginals

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

23. Comment #243727 by AllanW on September 7, 2008 at 6:09 am

 avatarComment #243726 by Richard Morgan on September 7, 2008 at 5:55 am

Thanks for the warning at the head of the post; it meant I was able to ignore the contents safe in the knowledge that I had missed nothing.

Why do you feel compelled to make juvenile attention-seeking posts on the site of people whose world-view you now despise and who you now think will be burning in hell for all eternity?

Back on topic ...

This article and the work it sumarises could well be looked back upon in years to come as a milestone. Terrific achievement for multi-national, multi-disciplinary co-ooperation IMO.

Other Comments by AllanW

24. Comment #243729 by decius on September 7, 2008 at 6:13 am

 avatarQuit spamming all threads, Morgan. We don't give a shit in any case.

Other Comments by decius

25. Comment #243904 by chuckgoecke on September 7, 2008 at 6:43 pm

 avatarComment #243687 by Darwin's Teapot:

Yes feel free to steal away(in freshmen english, I think the prof used the term "paraphrase"). Actually, I was just trying to point out that us geologist types have lots to contribute to the origins of the earth and life debate, which ya'll knew anyway, right?

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

26. Comment #243929 by nogodsever on September 8, 2008 at 12:59 am

 avatarOkay, sorry for the mini-re-derail, but I went to Dick Morgan's blog and read his sad testimony. Poor fella couldn't find friends here, so he went to Jesus. I can't imagine the real-world emptiness that would make an educated atheist embrace god. I really pity him.

Other Comments by nogodsever

27. Comment #243936 by Quetzalcoatl on September 8, 2008 at 1:19 am

 avatarOh, I see RM has appeared on more than one thread. I wasn't going to mention this, but since he has duplicated his comments in his usual fashion:

You still owe me a response to questions I put to you on FCOS, Richard. I won't forget.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #243939 by Laurie Fraser on September 8, 2008 at 1:29 am

 avatarAnd, his music is repulsive.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

29. Comment #244694 by blaine on September 9, 2008 at 10:21 am

Re: 14. Comment #243502 by Angels On a Pin Head

Because you misunderstand what is written doesn't mean it's misleading. To restate Gunnar's point more succinctly IMHO, the article says:


"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"...


Couldn't state it more correctly, and to restate it with more words would just leave more opportunities for misunderstanding. If he said "Trichoplax and humans share over 80 percent of their genes" or "humans share over 80 percent...", that would be misleading.

Other Comments by blaine
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: