Lizard-like tuatara carry two distinct mitochondrial genomes

    

    

In this Science News article it states that researchers have discovered two distinct mitochondrial genomes in the Tuatara, these extra set of genes may be the reason why the Tuatara are tolerant to the cold which is very unique for a reptile. In Tuatara scientist discovered evidence of two distinct copies of genetic instruction manual for making mitochondria in a vertebrate. Mitochondria is important for building the structures and to keep them going. Finding this discovery could not only help other reptiles but humans as well when deal with different kinds of diseases. In 2012 the Tuatara Genome Project was created to decode the Tuatara's genetic makeup which was led by Neil Gemmell. The team was provided a sample of the reptiles blood and what they found was that the Tuatara's genome is 50 percent larger than the human genome.

    Further investigation of decipher the DNA which they compared by chopping it into small pieces with the overall structure they found differences in the mitochondrial DNA which appeared to have striking differences in their gene sequences. This created many of the people working on the project to be stunned because usually mitochondrial DNA is inherited by the mother's egg resulting in a single copy of mitochondrial genome not two copies. They conclude that the genomes were different by 10.4 percent so when comparing it to humans and chimpanzee mitochondrial genomes differ 8.9 percent. 

    I think this discover is very important because if we could find the genetic basis of what causes them to have two distinct mitochondrial genomes we can help find treatments for human metabolic diseases. The picture use above is from Neil Gemmell own experiment article where you can also find a little bit more about the Tuatara. 

People With Dementia are likely to get Coronavirus

This article from New York Times explains the recent study that has shown that people with dementia are more prone to get infected with COVID-19 because of their old age, living in nursing homes, and people with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc; which are all known risk factors pertaining to COVID-19. As the study suggested, people who are around the elderly need to be more aware of their surroundings and be responsible to make certain that they are wearing masks and keeping a safe distance. 

The data collected for the study was based hospital records was based on 61.9 million electronic health records from demographics of 18 and older within the United States. According to Deccan Herald, the researchers who obtained these medical records had to adjust their data to count for the risk factors being old age, living in the nursing home, obesity, etc before they were able to determine that Americans with dementia were more likely to contract the virus than people without. When the study was concluded, it showed that Black people with dementia had a higher risk of getting COVID-19 than White people. The vulnerability that is causing this might include physiological and cognitive factors. 

I think that it is even more critical now to follow all the guidelines that have been recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in order to maintain and reduce the widespread of COVID-19 because it is affecting the elderly.  

New Genetic Blueprint Found in Parasitic Plants

Newfound research on the genetic instruction book of the Sapria genus reveals the lengths to which it has gone to become a specialized parasite. The new discovery illustrates the level of commitment S. Himalayana and its relatives have given to evolving a parasitic lifestyle and provides a comparison to other extreme plant parasites. 

Based on the findings published by Current Biology, most of the Sapria genus have lost half more than half of their genetic material. Not only that but plants like the Sapria Himalayana and their genomes were used for research. Findings showed they had completely removed the need for stems, roots, and even any photosynthetic tissue—and based on further research, even chloroplast genome have vanished

Charles Davis, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University states that these genetic variations from such parasitic plants have left biologists confused by the sudden change. Such obvious plants recognize by their “rotting flesh” smell, are no longer producing flowers. He notes, “these plants have lost half of their genes, yet they still survive.” 

However, further investigation into this interesting genetic modification will allow researchers to determine some of biology’s limits, which I think will benefit us greatly. 

Links:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/reeking-parasitic-sapria-plant-lost-body-much-genetic-code

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31897-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982220318972%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

The Unethicality of Human Cloning

    A multitude of possible technological and biological advancements arise from human cloning: ridding infertility, understanding and combatting disease, eliminating liver and kidney failure, reversing the aging process, saving endangered/extinct species, etc. The reproductive cloning of humans will grant researchers a better understanding of the human genome, therefore allowing them to successfully pursue the aforementioned possibilities. Even with the numerous beneficial aspects, human cloning (on an individual scale, not with tissues) has been called for a United Nations ban by more than 60 of the world's leading science academies. Why would these science academies push for the ban of human cloning knowing the endless opportunities it may provide?

    Psychological, social, and physiological risks associated with the reproductive cloning of humans are condemned universally. These risks introduce an increased likelihood of the the loss of life. The cloned embryo requires thorough investigation to prove its fitness and viability; even after implanting the successful cloned embryo into the womb, the pregnancy itself may fail. The loss of one life is constitutes as too much. In 2007, an experiment suffered through 100 failed attempts before successfully cloning a macaque.

    Additionally, human reproductive cloning endangers individuality. Human identity would be compromised and diversification would decrease. Monozygotic twins, colloquially known as identical twins or natural clones, often report lacking a sense of individuality. The birth rate of identical twins is 0.4% (1 in 250, or 4 in 1000). Logically, the increase in "clones" ensues an increase in those reports.




https://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5323/195.full

https://www.britannica.com/science/cloning/Ethical-controversy

Climate Change Drove Woolly Rhinoceros to Extinction: DNA Study

 

Researchers have analyzed a complete nuclear genome and mitochondrial genomes from Coelodonta antiquitatis otherwise known as the extinct woolly rhinoceros. Their findings concluded that the population of the woolly rhinoceros remained stable until temperatures began to rise too high for the cold adapted species. This species first appeared 350,000 years ago and became extinct 14,000 years ago. Initially it was thought that humans were the cause of the woolly rhinoceros disappearance because data showed that humans first appeared in Siberia right around the time the population went extinct. Recently several discoveries showed much older human occupation sites. So the decline of woolly rhinoceros doesn't coincide with humans appearance. Professor Dalen and his colleagues wanted to investigate the woolly rhinoceros demographic history so they studied DNA from 14 individuals. 

By looking at the genetic diversity of the genomes, they were able to estimate the woolly rhino populations before their extinction. The population began to increase at the start of a cold period 29,000 years ago and remained constant. The population remained constant long after humans began living in Siberia and didn't start to decline until 4,500 years before their extinction. Researchers also found a genetic mutation in the DNA that helped the animals adapt to the cold weather. They believe the adaption may have declined due to a brief warming period known as the Bolling- Allerod which happened during their extinction. I do believe that climate change and global warming may have had a hand in the extinction of the woolly rhinoceros and that humans may not 100% at fault. I hope that more research is done on this subject.

Links:

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/climate-change-woolly-rhinoceros-extinction-08745.html

https://dnascience.plos.org/2020/09/03/extinction-of-the-woolly-rhino-ancient-genomes-point-to-climate-change-not-overhunting/

When will "Designer Babies" be ready?

 

CRISPR technology has been the newest technology in the science world that will continue to move forward. But it is still not ready to create “designer babies” yet. Although it was recently used to create the COVID vaccine, CRISPR-Cas9 more specifically is reportedly still not ready for use, also from an ethical standpoint as well. One reason is still due to the unknown long-term effects it can have. Studies have shown that there have been still some unwanted changes occurring, even with how accurate the technology is. 

Still remembering back to the illegal experiments performed by Chinese biophysicist in 2018, He Jiankui, carried out when editing and allowing the birth of twin girls for resistance to HIV infection. HIV would enter through a protein, and Jiankui disabled this protein by editing & disabling CCR5. Many scientists disagreed with this approach and one main reason is due to the fact that is not the only way HIV can enter a cell. CRISPR-Cas9 still has a lot to prove in terms of precisely editing without causing other adverse effects as well as ethically being allowed by nations. But I also believe it will be the future of technology and hopefully help eradicate the genetic variations & diseases that cause distress to so many families. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02538-4

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07545-0

Tracing the Evolution of Penguins

    The genealogy of penguins originates near the Australian coast during the Miocene epoch, roughly 22 million years ago. Not at Antarctica as was theorized before. Then the ancestors for the two largest penguins, the emperor and king penguins separated from the Australian proto penguins to colonize Antarctica. Then about 10 million years later, other penguin families began to move away from Australia and left for other places such as Southern Africa, South America and even up north as the Galapagos Islands.While other penguin families remained on Australia, the new penguins found unexploited niches that  .From there on, new adaptations such as heat tolerance, more efficient oxygen use, and maintaining osmosis due to higher salinity in seawater.

    The penguin population really started to expanded only about 70,000 to 40,000 years ago, just after the end of major glaciation. Penguins do favor the colder temperatures and sea ice cover for breeding opportunites. Worringly, with the continuing threat of climate change, several penguin species such as Galapagos and the Gentoo are currently experiencing population decline. It took millions of years for them to adapt to the cold, now they are barely catching up with gradual warming of the oceans. 

Links: 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/2230
3

 http://www.sci-news.com/biology/evolutionary-history-penguins-08755.html

Reaction Range Theory

    The Reaction Range Theory states that genetics determine the range of possible heights, weights, IQs, etc. a person can exhibit (known as the reaction range), while environmental factors such as nutrition and disease determine the height, weight, IQ, etc. within the range. The scope of environmental factors that impact certain traits are dependent on the traits themselves; there is very little environmental influence on eye color, but there is a vast number of environmental factors that influence abstract reasoning.

    The Nature v. Nurture argument is unproductive in this case. One does not dominate the other. Both serve important roles in determining a person's phenotype.

    Person A's genetic IQ limits are 90 and 120. If person A grew up in a high quality, nurturing environment, he will reach closer to the top of his genetic potential (120). Person B's genetic IQ limits are 120 and 150. If person B grew up in a low quality environment, he will reach closer to the bottom of his genetic potential (120).

    The obvious counterexample to this theory is obesity. We are not genetically predisposed to weigh over 400 pounds. This theory supports most, but not all traits.




Links:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341646/

https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/about/research/docs/FOED%20Papers/Issue%206/ACE_Paper_9_Issue_6.doc