Good grief! Entire genome of one organism found inside another's!

[King Biscuit Time]

It doesn't actually create the bacteria - that still lives on as a seperate parasite, but the host's code now has a whole load more information in it that one day might be useful in a mutation.

This is the key part. The parasitic genome is not present in the host genome to allow for propagation of the parasite (like with retroviruses). The parasite has dumped a load of functional coding DNA inside the host that may eventually find some kind of functionality as the background rate of mutations and translocations optimise its activity and allow it to become properly regulated.


The actual integration of a bacterial DNA into a host's genome must happen with absolutley mind boggling infrequency, but it only needs to happen once, and its there in all the progeny. I wouldn't think this has any application as an exploitable method of gene-transfer or transfection though.

 

[Aldebaran]

The mechanism is slightly different. The mitochondria is a symbiotic thing.

As I understand it the symbiosis theory proposes that the proto-mytochondria was in fact a bacteria (= once a seperate entity) able to profit from the steadily growing relase of oxugen in the athmosphere and somehow got into an eukaryote.
If it "implanted" itself in the eukaryote originally leaves you with a somewhat similar scenario than what is witnessed here.
Theorizing (is that written with s or z, I never know) on that one can assume that such scenarios happen randomly and it only takes time for a symbiosis to appear, if such would be beneficial for the host, for the intruder, or for both.

salaam.

 

[stdPikachu]

I didn't know the mitochondra has non-human origin.

Mitochondria appear in almost all complex (eukaryotic) cells. Mitochondria are thought to be modified prokaryotic (non complex, without a nucleus) cells.

As Crispy says, the implications of this are staggering. We've known for a long time that genetic variation, mutations and viruses can all alter host DNA. We've suspected that bacteria can be symbiotically combined, but they contain their own genome information rather than relying on the host cell, as per mitochondria.

With this advance, we're actually witnessing an entire bacteria incorporating itself into another organism, hence proving that genetic modification by bacteria is not only possible, but probable. The fact that the new DNA sequence doesn't code for anything yet doesn't mean it won't play a part in the future. Consider it as living proof that this organism is leaving backup copies of itself, probably benignly, inside other organisms genetic code (hence my Dawkins/selfish gene reference above).

Does anyone know of any studies that have analysed animalian genome sequences for parts of bacterial genome sequences before? I imagine it's quite likely that significant chunks of our "unused" DNA come from bacterial origin.

 

[Crispy]

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Once again - it's all systems. You can't handily cut things down to 'organisms' 'environments' and 'genes'

 

[kyser_soze]

Possibly the coolest thing I've read so far today. If slightly 'brrrrrr' IYKWIM.

Consider it as living proof that this organism is leaving backup copies of itself, probably benignly, inside other organisms genetic code (hence my Dawkins/selfish gene reference above).

No doubt the philosophers quorum will have something to say about how this actually disproves Dawkins...

 

[stdPikachu]

No doubt the philosophers quorum will have something to say about how this actually disproves Dawkins...

But of course - nothing as seemingly simple as a bacterium could be intelligent enough to manipulate DNA without a divine influence, surely?!

 

[Demosthenes]

tbh, I don't see that this is an especially astonishing finding, nor how it has any metaphysical or philosophical significance.

as you seemed to be asking.

 

[Aldebaran]

But of course - nothing as seemingly simple as a bacterium could be intelligent enough to manipulate DNA without a divine influence, surely?!

The day you can prove to me that you can create a really, true vacuum to begin with and next give me proof that you can create life in it, I shall probably be inclined to take atheists without adding a ton of salt to their usual rethoric.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

With this advance, we're actually witnessing an entire bacteria incorporating itself into another organism, hence proving that genetic modification by bacteria is not only possible, but probable.

Which is what I said in post 32. It was teh same with the proto-mytochondria if that was a bacteria. Hence it isn't as unusual as it is (probably) uncommon, but still happening.

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

tbh, I don't see that this is an especially astonishing finding

Why not? Until now, the only known major mechanisms for the addition of new genetic material to an organism were a) Sexual reproduction and b)Mutation. This discovery opens up an entirely new avenue for evolutionary theory. Some evolutionary changes seem too large or complex to have happened in a single 'step' - this new mechanism might explain how multiple traits can suddenly reveal themselves, or how a species might suddenly find itself with many more opportunities for benficial mutation. This is a big deal.

 

[ymu]

Evolutionary timescales are all very well, but hurry up and find one we can use in medicine Crispy!

 

[Crispy]

My intestinal juices will make you look younger. FACT. £100 for a 15ml bottle.

 

[stdPikachu]

The day you can prove to me that you can create a really, true vacuum to begin with and next give me proof that you can create life in it, I shall probably be inclined to take atheists without adding a ton of salt to their usual rethoric.

Eh? What do "vacuums" (how is it possible to create matter out of nothing anyway, going by the reasonable assumption that all life has matter?) and creation of life have to do with DNA?

Oh whoops, sorry, this looks like theist goalpost moving in action again, please ignore previous paragraph

Hence it isn't as unusual as it is (probably) uncommon, but still happening.

But witnessing it is unusual.

 

[Crispy]

The day you prove to me that it's impossible for life to have happened spontaneously, is the day I start believing.

Neither of us is going to get anywhere with that sort of logic.

 

[Aldebaran]

But witnessing it is unusual.

Yes, which is the whole point. It is fascinating to discover it happening.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

The day you prove to me that it's impossible for life to have happened spontaneously, is the day I start believing.

To date I saw no proof it is possible for life to pop up spontaneously.

Neither of us is going to get anywhere with that sort of logic.

It is about belief. You believe it possible and yet the atheïst claims that I am a fool (or some sort of) to believe in God without having proof. No logic anywhere near it.

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

Accurate semantics there Good, I like.

 

[Crispy]

That sounded sarcastic. It wasn;t

 

[dash_two]

Thought it had been postulated for some time that the human genome would contain fragments of viral DNA, but it is exciting to learn of an entire genome found embedded in another.

Another interesting idea is that of the metagenome, sort of a mini ecological system comprised of the genomes of various organisms in symbiosis. In our case, the metagenome would include human DNA and that of the various kinds of gut flora which inhabit us, the actions of which have an important effect on our well-being. Good blog article summary on this by John Hawks:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/index.html?find=metagenome&plugin=find&path=

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't know a single atheist who thinks life appeared either spontaneously or in a vacuum - rather it was a collection of elements that came together to form what we call life - I think it's called chemistry.

So while I am happy to believe that life was a chance occurence, to suggest that it popped out of nowhere, that there was no prime cause is to misrepresent what many of us think - indeed, that's exactly what theists such as yourself think, that some entity created the whole kit and caboodle.

Or are you referring to the begining of the universe, which is a very different matter to the beginings of life...

 

[stdPikachu]

to suggest that it popped out of nowhere, that there was no prime cause is to misrepresent what many of us think

It's called a false dichotomy, and is one of the oldest trolls in the book talkorigins probably has every false dichotomy ever made

Aldebaran, you do often make some good points but when it's buried between (for want of a better word) creationist dogma, I find it hard to take you seriously.

 

[Aldebaran]

Accurate semantics there Good, I like.

Still, I once proved that God exists in the abstract On a US forum. In a thread (not mine) called : Logical proof of God's existance"

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran, you do often make some good points but when it's buried between (for want of a better word) creationist dogma, I find it hard to take you seriously.

Please, do not compare me with US Made nutcases. If you want to discuss with me on my belief in God, show some courtesy and inform yourself a bit. Previously

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

Let's not do it here, anyway - genetics are in the here and now. the origin of life was way back when, so the details are a little hazy.

 

[ymu]

Well, I think God is the laws of nature and yer all right. So there!

 

[Aldebaran]

I think it's called chemistry.

Question remains how chemistry came about (as in: action-reaction)

So while I am happy to believe that life was a chance occurence, to suggest that it popped out of nowhere, that there was no prime cause is to misrepresent what many of us think

The suggestion was not made by me, I'm afraid.

- indeed, that's exactly what theists such as yourself think, that some entity created the whole kit and caboodle.

Maybe the more simple minded take that easy way out.

Or are you referring to the begining of the universe, which is a very different matter to the beginings of life...

If there was no beginning of the universe, there hardly could ever have been a beginning of life on this globe (or anywhere).

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Let's not do it here, anyway - genetics are in the here and now. the origin of life was way back when, so the details are a little hazy.

No less fascinating though.

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

absolutely not, but all we can do is speculate.

 

[Aldebaran]

absolutely not, but all we can do is speculate.

Yes. Frustrating it is. I like to imagine that I shall come to discover and know everything when I'm dead.

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

That would be nice. I like to imagine doing it while I'm still alive, though.