tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3403032269024706381..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Facts and Myths Concerning the Historical Estimates of the Number of Genes in the Human GenomeLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7736860328553435902008-03-01T11:42:00.000-05:002008-03-01T11:42:00.000-05:00The review I wrote in 2004 at least turned out to ...The review I wrote in 2004 at least turned out to be the right side of wrong! (25,000, low but not low enough, "Has the Yo-yo stopped? a human gene number update" (2004) Proteomics 6 1712-26. PMID: 15174140Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31612990618123296842007-03-22T11:23:00.000-04:002007-03-22T11:23:00.000-04:00It appears that we're now down to 18,000, by the w...It appears that we're now down to 18,000, by the way. More <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/03/19/you_dont_miss_those_8000_genes.php" REL="nofollow">here.</A>Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829168960578664919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11241916367648769892007-03-21T15:38:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:38:00.000-04:00anonymous asks,Do you have a comment on this paper...anonymous asks,<BR/><BR/><I>Do you have a comment on this paper?</I><BR/><BR/>My first impression is that it's mostly garbage and should never have been published.<BR/><BR/>They're saying that 75% of non-coding DNA in <I>Drosophila melanogaster</I> has a function. I'm going to need a lot more evidence before I believe that.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62289174258462754722007-03-21T14:32:00.000-04:002007-03-21T14:32:00.000-04:00Do you have a comment on this paper?Do you have a comment on <A HREF="http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/16/7/875" REL="nofollow">this paper</A>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24777485112760415492007-03-20T10:19:00.000-04:002007-03-20T10:19:00.000-04:00Martin says,In his 1972 Junk DNA paper Ohno gives ...Martin says,<BR/><BR/><I>In his 1972 Junk DNA paper Ohno gives a number of 30000 genes that other authors calculated from the mutation rate.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks, I forgot that the estimate of total gene number was a key part of the original conclusion about junk DNA.<BR/><BR/>Here's what Ohno said,<BR/><BR/><I>In fact, there seems to be a strict upper limit for the number of genes which we can afford to keep in our genome. Consequently, only a fraction of our DNA appears to function as genes. The observations on a number of structural gene loci of man, mice, and other organisms revealed that each locus has a [1/100,000] per generation probability of sustaining a deleterious mutation. It then follows that the moment we acquire [100,000] gene loci, the overall deleterious mutation rate per generation becomes 1.0 which appears to represent an unbearably heavy genetic load. Taking into consideration the fact that deleterious mutations can be dominant or recessive, the total number of gene loci of man has been estimated to be about [30,000] (Muller, 1967; Crow and Kimura, 1970).</I><BR/><BR/>My point, as I'm sure you know, is that there were many people who predicted fewer than 40,000 genes in the human genome. Many of us believed in those predictions and we weren't surprised by the number of genes when the sequence of the human genome was published.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, an urban legend has grown up claiming that "scientists" were expecting 100,000 genes and they were surprised at the low number. My goal here is to debunk that legend before it gets elevated to the level of fact.<BR/><BR/>There's a method to my madness. As we'll see, some recent papers purport to "explain" this "anomaly" by resorting to bizarre just-so stories about alternative splicing, non-coding RNAs, and huge regulatory sequences. One of the problems with these stories is that they are "solving" a problem that never existed in the first place.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6244277938518666972007-03-20T00:02:00.000-04:002007-03-20T00:02:00.000-04:00In his 1972 Junk DNA paper Ohno gives a number of ...In his 1972 Junk DNA paper Ohno gives a number of 30000 genes that other authors calculated from the mutation rate.SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39195305985438635372007-03-19T20:49:00.000-04:002007-03-19T20:49:00.000-04:00Very interesting! A friend and I argued about the ...Very interesting! A friend and I argued about the whole superior complexity of humans issue, so I can't wait to see what you think about that. (I said we're no more complex than many other organisms)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2368481600093754142007-03-19T19:03:00.000-04:002007-03-19T19:03:00.000-04:00I recently read Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden (...I recently read Carl Sagan's <I>The Dragons of Eden</I> (1977) wherein he argued that genome size is directly correlated with 'bits of information within the brain' (assuming, of course, that most of the genome was functional). It should be noted that he also estimated the human genome to be somewhere in the range of ~115 gigabases. It's nice to know that people were making rational estimates about total gene number far before that. This history lesson was very enlightening to a relative newcomer like myself, thank you.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153076425887492166noreply@blogger.com