Subscription Center
Aug 27, 2009 12:25 PM | 10
Humans seem to have accelerated the pace of just about everything from communication to climate change, but the rate of our genetic mutation remains slow and steady.
New research, published online today in Current Biology, compared the same Y chromosome DNA sequence of about 10 million nucleotides in two men separated by 13 generations. The two men had a common ancestor that lived in the early 1800s. After analyzing the men's selected genetic sequences, the researchers found only four true genetic mutations. From that, they were able to calculate a steady rate of mutation for most people.
"These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate—one in 30 million nucleotides each generation—that we had expected," Chris Tyler-Smith, of the U.K.'s Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and a co-author on the study, said in a prepared statement. These numbers amount to an average of 100 to 200 genetic mutations per person.
"New mutations are responsible for an array of genetic diseases," Tyler-Smith noted. Getting to the bottom of these mutation rates will help researchers pinpoint the when certain diseases emerged—and possibly test ways to prevent them.
The needle-in-the-haystack hunt for the infrequent mutations was aided by next-generation sequencing technology. The study's lead author, Yali Xue, also of the Wellcome Trust, noted in a prepared statement, "The amount of data we generated would have been unimaginable just a few years ago."
The researchers hope to continue the hunt for mutation rates. "The ability to reliably measure rates of DNA mutation means we can begin to ask how mutation rates vary between different regions of the genome and perhaps also between different individuals," Tyler-Smith said.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Archaeogenetics
Tags:
genetic mutations
More News Blog:
Next: "Green" propellant could give rockets--and the environment--a boost
Previous: Death of the directory: When was the last time you opened a phone book?
See what we're tweeting about
jmtsn Fast and the Furious 6. Six!!! I bet Vin Diesel and Paul Walker sit around and argue over which of them is the luckiest man alive.
FlyingTrilobite Smudgy Clouds & Art Conventions | The Flying Trilobite http://t.co/c7uivqjHWW #painting
DrJudyStone Agree. RT @stevesilberman: @AliciaHendley It's not a binary situation. One can find the DSM/psych itself useful and still critique them both
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
10 Comments
Add CommentThe link: "next-generation sequencing technology" doesn't work
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA so called genetic disease can be good for something even though it is also a disease. It might protect an individual from an even worse disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is we need to preserve genetic diversity. In order to have a robust species that can resist new diseases well.
There was another article recently that told how some genes are apparently "tagged" so as to always have one parent's copy expressed and not the other. It mentioned that when the tagging fails and the copies from both parents are expressed it causes some diseases. Presumably the tagging evolved as a way to take better advantage of mutations that afforded an advantage when inherited from one parent but a disadvantage when inherited from both. If the tagging mechanism can be sufficiently understood, perhaps we could add tagging for such double-edged-sword mutations that arise in the future, or for mutations that are at least harmless if they come from just one parent. This would allow us to protect ourselves from the ill effects of those mutations, while keeping them in reserve against a day when they may become useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust gedankin'. :)
sapbucket, sure and you are what sort of expert on the subject :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe meant the link in the article ROFL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists need to be careful here. Mutations are kind of how we became homo sapiens. Eliminating them may well prevent us from achieving the next evolutionary step change needed for survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting how you can often pick up on the wrong key words when quickly skimming material. I also read sapbucket's comment the same way taerog did. As far as this subject goes, my username says it all: nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder... do mutation rates differ in respect to races, or people of mixed racial background? Or more specifically... Current global society has probably had the most proliferation of reproduction between historically once geographically isolated populations. One previous article on SCIAM stated that there seemed to be more genetic diversity within one's own "independent" population, making it more beneficial for a person to reproduce with someone from his or her immediate area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the supposition that more expedient genetic mutation is desired in a species in order to more quickly evolve in order to survive, is it possible that certain populations have a predisposition to quicker genetic mutations, or that by reproducing with a person of a previously isolated population gives rise to quicker genetic mutations for that family line?
so the new idea would be that... yes more genetic diversity might exist within one's own population, but overall genetic mutation could be facilitated by reproduction with a population predisposed to quicker genetic mutation, or reproduction with a slightly less overall diverse person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisobviously this is just a supposition... trying to explore the utilization of these studies in respect to giving birth to more equipped, or hardy future generations
The study had t oconsist of more than two individuals, correct? If only two people were tested how could you arrive at " an exact mutation rate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this