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)
Saturday, September 6, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Yale Researchers Find 'Junk DNA' May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot

by Science Daily

Thanks to Brian Burgess for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145056.htm

Yale Researchers Find 'Junk DNA' May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot

ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2008) — Out of the 3 billion genetic letters that spell out the human genome, Yale scientists have found a handful that may have contributed to the evolutionary changes in human limbs that enabled us to manipulate tools and walk upright.

Results from a comparative analysis of the human, chimpanzee, rhesus macaque and other genomes reported in the journal Science suggest our evolution may have been driven not only by sequence changes in genes, but by changes in areas of the genome once thought of as "junk DNA."

Those changes activated genes in primordial thumb and big toe in a developing mouse embryo, the researchers found.

"Our study identifies a potential genetic contributor to fundamental morphological differences between humans and apes," said James Noonan, Assistant Professor of Genetics in the Yale University School of Medicine and the senior author of the study.

Researchers have long suspected changes in gene expression contributed to human evolution, but this had been difficult to study until recently because most of the sequences that control genes had not been identified. In the last several years, scientists have discovered that non-coding regions of the genome, far from being junk, contain thousands of regulatory elements that act as genetic "switches" to turn genes on or off.

A rapidly evolving sequence from the human genome drives gene activity in the developing thumb, wrist and ankle of mouse embryos, suggesting the sequence may have contributed to key evolutionary changes in the human limbs that allowed us to walk upright and use tools.

An indication of their biological importance, many of these non-coding sequences have remained similar, or "conserved," even across distantly related vertebrate species such as chickens and humans. Recent functional studies suggest some of these "conserved non-coding sequences" control the genes that direct human development.

In collaboration with scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, the Genome Institute of Singapore, and the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom, Noonan searched the vast non-coding regions of the human genome to identify gene regulatory sequences whose function may have changed during the evolution of humans from our ape-like ancestors.

Noonan and his colleagues looked for sequences with more base pairs in humans than in other primates. The most rapidly evolving sequence they identified, termed HACNS1, is highly conserved among vertebrate species but has accumulated variations in 16 base pairs since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees some 6 million years ago. This was especially surprising, as the human and chimpanzee genomes are extremely similar overall, Noonan said.

Using mouse embryos, Noonan and his collaborators examined how HACNS1 and its related sequences in chimpanzee and rhesus monkey regulated gene expression during development. The human sequence activated genes in the developing mouse limbs, in contrast to the chimpanzee and rhesus sequences. Most intriguing for human evolution, the human sequence drove expression at the base of the primordial thumb in the forelimb and the great toe in the hind limb. The results provided tantalizing, but researchers say preliminary, evidence that the functional changes in HACNS1 may have contributed to adaptations in the human ankle, foot, thumb and wrist-- critical advantages that underlie the evolutionary success of our species.

However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse.

"The long-term goal is to find many sequences like this and use the mouse to model their effects on the evolution of human development," Noonan said.

National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy funded the work.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #243598 by crusader234 on September 6, 2008 at 10:51 am

 avatara big thumbs up to genome scientists

Other Comments by crusader234

2. Comment #243619 by atkinson on September 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

 avatarJames Noonan, Assistant Professor of Genetics in the Yale University School of Medicine and the senior author of the study, apparently believes humans are not apes. I wonder if he's looking for a sinecure at the Disco Very Institute.

Other Comments by atkinson

3. Comment #243620 by NewEnglandBob on September 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm

 avatar1. Comment #243598 by crusader234:

a big thumbs up to genome scientists


Maybe the mice will also be giving thumbs up!

Lets make sure the HACNS1 human sequence does not get into the rat's genome. I don't want to see upright rats using tools.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

4. Comment #243621 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm

 avatarNewEnglandBob-

Lets make sure the HACNS1 human sequence does not get into the rat's genome. I don't want to see upright rats using tools.


In that case you should stay away from the second floor of my accountancy firm.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

5. Comment #243629 by Stafford Gordon on September 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

And so it keeps coming! But how much and how long will it take to do the trick?

Actually, I don't think I really care. I'll just relax and enjoy.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

6. Comment #243630 by SomeDanGuy on September 6, 2008 at 1:36 pm

What exactly do they mean by "non-coding regions" here? Does that mean that sequence analysis does not show an ORF? Or are they talking about non-coding RNA? (that is, RNA that is transcribed but translated). Or does the regulation somehow work through methylation or what? Often when I hear "junk DNA" I think of LINES and SINES, but I don't think that's what they're talking about here either. Do they just mean "it turns out that areas we thought weren't interesting are actually enhancers/suppressors"?

I'm very unclear on what the mechanism is, or what they did experimentally in mice. I guess I should read the original paper, but I'd prefer those basic details are included in a science news write-up. :-/

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

7. Comment #243638 by articulett on September 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm

 avatarI give this article two opposable thumbs up!

Other Comments by articulett

8. Comment #243639 by mordacious1 on September 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

 avatarG E N O M E
R E S E A R C H

(sounds of rapid heart beating over internet)

[too bad more of you don't get this joke] heh heh

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #243641 by robotaholic on September 6, 2008 at 3:12 pm

 avatarIn the back of my mind I always thought that 'junk dna' might not actually be 'junk' but it might serve some purpose of which we are not yet aware.
A rapidly evolving sequence from the human genome drives gene activity in the developing thumb, wrist and ankle of mouse embryos, suggesting the sequence may have contributed to key evolutionary changes in the human limbs that allowed us to walk upright and use tools.


-That sounds to me like there is a direct corespondance between rapidly evolving regions of dna and rapidly evolving features of humans like the opposable thumb. (I think that is phenotype but I'm not very good with biology/genetics)

And so I mean I don't have 'junk' body parts- (I guess that's arguable lol) I don't have unnecessary parts- except mabye a few like the appendix or mabye a few other exceptions.

According to Wikipedia:
About 95% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.


How can there be so much so called junk? I just don't get it. Don't you think we'll later find out that much of it is not junk? In fact, mabye our calling it that will turn out to show how little we actually know about genetics?

Anybody know any good 'beginner' books about genetics? I want to learn more but it gets so complex so fast!

Other Comments by robotaholic

10. Comment #243643 by Diacanu on September 6, 2008 at 3:19 pm

 avatarrobotaholic-


How can there be so much so called junk?


Because early DNA didn't have coherent multicellular lifeforms in mind, and further back, the early chemical precursors to DNA didn't have DNA in mind.

Junk DNA is exactly what you'd expect from trial and error un-designed lifeforms.

Other Comments by Diacanu

11. Comment #243659 by Apeseed on September 6, 2008 at 4:19 pm

 avatarStill though, it might be better to say it seems to be junk DNA rather than saying it is. All knowledge being provisional and all that.

Other Comments by Apeseed

12. Comment #243664 by Beachbum on September 6, 2008 at 4:56 pm

 avatarLets say I build a motor that has to repair itself, replicate itself and most important control itself. One of you come along four billion years later and want to know how it works, for example; How it relates to you now? Finding all this interesting "stuff" that actually has a correlation to features observed in the operation of this motor I built, pretty soon, the sequences that you don't understand get filed under "don't know" and then "junk", but then you notice relationships as your understanding of my motor grows. Then like 95% of the "stuff" in my garage you realize it is not junk, just misunderstood and add that to the fact that my name is DNA strand and you can figure that there is a bunch of interesting junk in my garage. Especially, when one finds out the best trick is that I didn't have anything at all in mind when I started, really.

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" comes to mind with rats drinking tea with the appropriate digit extended.

Other Comments by Beachbum

14. Comment #243671 by gruebait on September 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm

 avatarI recommend having a look at an article regarding this 'news' by Carl Zimmer over at the Loom.

http://tinyurl.com/5hr328

Other Comments by gruebait

15. Comment #243683 by DeepFritz on September 6, 2008 at 8:36 pm

 avatar"Our study identifies a potential genetic contributor to fundamental morphological differences between humans and apes," said James Noonan, Assistant Professor of Genetics in the Yale University School of Medicine and the senior author of the study.

The line should actually say - the difference between humans and other apes. Humans are still apes...
There is less difference between us and orangutans than there is between a horse and a donkey.

Other Comments by DeepFritz

16. Comment #243691 by robotaholic on September 6, 2008 at 10:24 pm

 avataryep 14, this is not 'news' & i fell for the “Wow! Junk DNA is not junk after all” news hook."

-I feel so embarrassed.

Other Comments by robotaholic

17. Comment #243696 by SteveN on September 7, 2008 at 12:24 am

 avatarDeepFritz wrote:
The line should actually say - the difference between humans and other apes. Humans are still apes...
There is less difference between us and orangutans than there is between a horse and a donkey.

Even more telling in this context, I think, is the fact that we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to orangutans. Or, as chimps and humans diverged after the split from orangutan ancestors, humans and chimps (and bonobos) have exactly the same degree of relationship to orangutans, gibbons and gorillas.

SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

18. Comment #243709 by King of NH on September 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

 avatarThe 'junk' metaphore was another one of those badly used metaphores. Dawkins is right, scientists need to hire some poets and artists to help with these awfully misgiven attempts to make science more easily understood.

If there is 'junk' DNA, then there is 'purposeful' DNA, it would seem by simple comparison. But as we know (I hope) there is no purpose driving the assembly of DNA, just the laws of physics. The junk refers to DNA segments that either did, but no longer, work with RNA to make proteins, ot to DNA that might, but does not yet. The junk in the DNA is like the junk in Beachbum's garage. It was once, and might be again, useful. For now, it sort of collects and sits there.

It seems to follow that as junk DNA enters and leaves the DNA strand of a species it will urge evolution: "When has a species added genes?"

Anybody know any good 'beginner' books about genetics? I want to learn more but it gets so complex so fast!


DNA for Dummies:
http://www.dnafordummies.nl/index_en.php
It's such a beautifully simple way of making such a chaotic confusion.

Other Comments by King of NH

19. Comment #243772 by Andrew Stich on September 7, 2008 at 10:02 am

Atkinson,

I know! That mistake ("humans and apes" etc.) really grates on my nerves every time I come across it.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

20. Comment #243817 by William Kaiser on September 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm

 avatarOne hundred years ago the Milky Way galaxy was filled with thousands of "nebulae." Along came Edwin Hubble, and others, with new theories and new technology and found out that these "nebulae" were in fact distant galaxies far, far outside the Milky Way. The Universe suddenly, became a much larger and more complicated place.

Maybe the knowledge of "junk" DNA is analagous to what was known about "nebulae" pre-Hubble?

WK

Other Comments by William Kaiser

21. Comment #243873 by OhioLen on September 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm

 avatarHow about instead of the dismissive "junk DNA," we think of it instead as "legacy code?"

Other Comments by OhioLen

22. Comment #244611 by John Desclin on September 9, 2008 at 8:49 am

Might the label "junk" not merely reflect our present ignorance about the actual function of this "junk" DNA? This reminds me of those people who, not so long ago,believed that "we use only a rather low percentage of our available neurones" and still spout such nonsense today, because they don't understand that neuroscientits actually said "we don't know the function of these neurones" ?

Other Comments by John Desclin

23. Comment #244798 by Stafford Gordon on September 9, 2008 at 1:09 pm

It's too difficult; there are too many long words; I prefer my imaginary friend.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

24. Comment #245154 by Degsy on September 10, 2008 at 9:59 am

Robotaholic-

Try 'Instant notes in Genetics' by Winter, Hickey and Fletcher. It has a short but informative chapter on the human genome and its composition.

Other Comments by Degsy

25. Comment #245572 by Jim Pivonka on September 11, 2008 at 6:06 am

edit: First, emphatically, I recommend reading the Carl Zimmer article cited by gruebait, Comment 14: (http://tinyurl.com/5hr328) That source is more precise and less speculative than my note here. /edit

As things stood when the concept of the genome was originated the old concept of a gene had evolved from being a "basic unit" of heredity of unknown mechanism to one conceptualized as sequences of base pairs on the double helix of DNA which controlled protein synthesis, and through this the (ontogenetic) development of the organism.

The genome was thus conceptualized as the full complement of DNA units (combinations of base pairs of nucleotides) which could be identified as mediating protein synthesis, i.e. they "coded for" the synthesis of proteins. Thus, the follow on concept of the "proteome" which is so important in today's research into the engineering applications of genetics.

Anything outside this (as it turns out, rudimentary) conception was termed "junk" DNA; since it was not involved in protein synthesis it was "non coding". In some formulations it was seen as possible remnants or vestigial and disused "code" - this is the "legacy DNA" idea - in others it was simply "junk".

The problem of what actually regulates the activity of the "genome's" protein synthesis is only beginning to be addressed; current findings seem to indicate that the "non coding" DNA as well as epigenetic activity are both involved, and possibly interact in that regulation.

Individual (ontogenetic) development is also influenced by changes in the nucleotides which make up genes; these single-nucleotide polymorphisms are a major factor in the uniqueness of indivdual organisms, and are medically significant because of their impact on disease and on drug activity in organisms.

Other Comments by Jim Pivonka

26. Comment #245593 by symo on September 11, 2008 at 6:49 am

What worries me is that I can see the "aeroplane in the junkyard" being trotted out again. Being an engineer and not a biologist I assume that this is good news. Perhaps this may explain our susceptibility to certain illnesses??

Other Comments by symo

27. Comment #245602 by Jim Pivonka on September 11, 2008 at 7:11 am

symo, if you are referring to SNP's, yes; the sense of things among many researchers seems to be that single nucleotide polymorphisms account for genetic variation in susceptibility or resistance to disease, as well as for individual variation in response to drugs - and lots of other stuff, presumably.

My sense is that research is driving toward the concusion that the full complement of DNA has a much broader range of activity than the protein synthesis mediated by the sequenced genome -- that the junk is not junk at all but may be analogous to a workshop, containing blueprints, tools, and the control routines which can apply those to management of the activity of the "coding genome" in synthesizing proteins and building the ontogenetic organism.

Some of those control routines may also regulate the extent to which epigenetic mediated changes to gene expression are incorporated in the permanent genome, and blueprint and tool repository, but that's getting way ahead of the science today.

Other Comments by Jim Pivonka
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: