Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ocean bug has 'smallest genome'
BBC ^ | 8/19/05 | Roland Pease

Posted on 08/19/2005 9:44:18 AM PDT by LibWhacker

Small but perfectly formed, Pelagibacter ubique is a lean machine stripped down to the bare essentials for life.

Humans have around 30,000 genes that determine everything from our eye colour to our sex but Pelagibacter has just 1,354, US biologists report in the journal Science.

What is more, Pelagibacter has none of the genetic clutter that most genomes have accumulated over time.

There are no duplicate gene copies, no viral genes, and no junk DNA.

'Chicken soup'

The spareness of its genome is related to its frugal lifestyle. The shorter the length of DNA that needs to be copied each generation, the less work there is to do.

Pelagibacter has even gone one step further. It has chosen where possible to use genetic letters - or base pairs - which use less nitrogen in their construction: nitrogen is a difficult nutrient for living things to obtain.

The result is one of the most successful organisms on the planet. Pelagibacter feeds off dead organic matter that is dissolved in ocean water - lead researcher Stephen Giovannoni of Oregon State University likens it to a very thin chicken soup.

The dissolved carbon is always there, so there is no need to build in special metabolic circuits to adjust between periods of feast and famine. Indeed, in laboratory studies, the Oregon biologists have found that adding nutrients to the broth has no effect on the microbe's vigour.

Self-sufficient

The sheer abundance of Pelagibacter - there are an estimated 20 billion billion billion Pelagibacter microbes scattered throughout the world's oceans - is probably what has allowed the organism to streamline its genes.

With so many copies in the ocean, there are plenty of opportunities for random mutations to try out more thrifty combinations.

There are organisms with smaller genomes - Mycoplasma genitalium has about 400 genes. But these are all obligate parasites or symbionts, relying on other organisms to do the jobs they have abandoned. Pelagibacter is entirely self-sufficient.

There is a great deal of interest in finding out how few genes a living organism can get away with. Bio-entrepreneur Craig Venter is trying to create an artificial version of a bacterium, aiming for as few as 300 genes.

Stephen Giovannoni says the synthetic one will barely function. But Pelagibacter on the other hand, accounting for a quarter of all organisms in the ocean, is a shining example of Darwin's principle, the survival of the fittest.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bug; crevolist; dna; genes; genetic; genome; microbe; nitrogen; ocean; pelagibacter; smallest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: Moral Hazard
It's a shame that biologists don't bow to religious orthodoxy apparently

Perhaps so. But perhaps a bigger shame that so many biologists cling so tenaciously to a theory based on Darwin's 19th century understanding of cellular biology...which he himself admitted would completely break down in the event of discovery of irreducible complexity. Thank God medical science didn't stop in 1859.
21 posted on 08/19/2005 10:53:28 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
What is more, Pelagibacter has none of the genetic clutter that most genomes have accumulated over time.

There are no duplicate gene copies, no viral genes, and no junk DNA.

If every creature was this elegantly put together, there might, might, be a case for Inteligent Design.

As things are, there isn't.

So9

22 posted on 08/19/2005 10:56:43 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Those Poor Poor Rubber Cows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Thank you. Fascinating organism, and I hadn't heard about it.
23 posted on 08/19/2005 10:59:55 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - John Marburger, science advisor to George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
"But perhaps a bigger shame that so many biologists cling so tenaciously to a theory based on Darwin's 19th century understanding of cellular biology..."

So they're stupid and you know better than they do?
24 posted on 08/19/2005 11:02:47 AM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
entrepreneur Craig Venter is trying to create an artificial version of a bacterium, aiming for as few as 300 genes.

Cue the Dr. Frankenstein voice saying "It's alive!"
25 posted on 08/19/2005 11:09:24 AM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt
It's not the size of the genome but how you transcribe it.

Could you translate that for me?

26 posted on 08/19/2005 11:19:39 AM PDT by Rokurota (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

"Could you translate that for me?"

If I did I would be banned, it's bad genome sex humor.


27 posted on 08/19/2005 11:22:13 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Am I the only one that ever wonders WHY we need this information?


28 posted on 08/19/2005 11:23:10 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (If you think you're having a bad day, try crucifixtion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
Am I the only one that ever wonders WHY we need this information?

Because it is one step closer to creating a race of pig-men.

29 posted on 08/19/2005 11:26:11 AM PDT by Rokurota (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota
The government has been experimenting with Pig Men for years!
30 posted on 08/19/2005 11:27:48 AM PDT by Clemenza (Pirro is Hillary with an (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Physicist; PatrickHenry; tortoise; Ichneumon; jennyp; AndrewC; Chameleon
"There are no duplicate gene copies, no viral genes, and no junk DNA."

All this time...and no viral genes are in its DNA!

My goodness...

31 posted on 08/19/2005 11:31:19 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
If every creature was this elegantly put together, there might, might, be a case for Inteligent Design. As things are, there isn't.

Perhaps. But given the "it's thriftiest" explanation provided for this "very clean" genome, I think it raises a number of very significant questions with regard to why other genomes have accumulated so much apparently random stuff, if there is some genetic advantage to be gained from this streamlining.

The thing that comes to my mind is: maybe that "random stuff" isn't really random after all, but simply serves some purpose we haven't discovered yet.

32 posted on 08/19/2005 11:37:18 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sinner6
You should try reverse transcription. WOW!

You're sick! Sick! ;^)

33 posted on 08/19/2005 11:51:58 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I am a little familiar with this bug and I knew they were sequencing it. I am not surprised at its size. It has paid the price of not being able to respond to local environmental excesses by adapting to a very thin soup.

BTW, open ocean is P limited not N, but combined N is still difficult to find. I rather doubt the 25% number. All in all a good find and thanks for the link too!


34 posted on 08/19/2005 11:57:11 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
But given the "it's thriftiest" explanation provided for this "very clean" genome, I think it raises a number of very significant questions with regard to why other genomes have accumulated so much apparently random stuff, if there is some genetic advantage to be gained from this streamlining.

The thing that comes to my mind is: maybe that "random stuff" isn't really random after all, but simply serves some purpose we haven't discovered yet.

Well, at least some of the random stuff has been proven to be useless to survival. They bred knockout mice, where the knocked out regions were noncoding regions of no previously known function. The mice were indistinguishable from normal mice. I don't know if they ever tried to breed a line of mice from those knockout mice, so I don't know if there are any long-term effects to knocking out that particular line of junk, but it's still rather compelling evidence that much of the noncoding sequences really ARE junk DNA.

Some scientists have speculated that pseudogenes, at least, form a junkyard like those in Junkyard Wars: They provide lots of ready-made subassemblies that can be pressed into service later on.

Then there's the rationale I've thought of for having junk DNA: When a gene duplicates, it gets plopped down in a (presumably) random spot on some chromosome. If there was no junk DNA, then the chance would be 100% that the duplicated gene would "crash" into another already-functioning gene, most likely disabling it. With 95% of our genome being junk, there's only a 5% chance that a gene duplication would disable a currently functioning gene.

So when a genome acquires the capability to produce stretches of junk DNA, it's actually acquiring a buffer zone that acts synergistically to vastly increase the viability of gene duplication as an evolutionary tool.

I think the JennyP Theory of Noncoding DNA explains why most single-celled organisms don't have junk DNA while all(?) multicelled organisms do.

35 posted on 08/19/2005 12:30:37 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: my post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
But perhaps a bigger shame that so many biologists cling so tenaciously to a theory based on Darwin's 19th century understanding of cellular biology...which he himself admitted would completely break down in the event of discovery of irreducible complexity.

What biologists are still doing this, and what's this about "irreducible complexity"?
36 posted on 08/19/2005 12:33:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I think the JennyP Theory of Noncoding DNA explains why most single-celled organisms don't have junk DNA while all(?) multicelled organisms do.

Not bad at all.

37 posted on 08/19/2005 12:36:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Some scientists have speculated that pseudogenes, at least, form a junkyard like those in Junkyard Wars: They provide lots of ready-made subassemblies that can be pressed into service later on.

I tend to lean in this direction. It seems to me that G-d isn't doesn't leave a lot of extra stuff laying around for no reason. Perhaps they had a function in the past that was superceded by changing needs and/or conditions. DNA is truely wonderous stuff, and a very efficient way of storing a lot of information.

38 posted on 08/19/2005 12:47:13 PM PDT by zeugma (Muslims are varelse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The thing that comes to my mind is: maybe that "random stuff" isn't really random after all, but simply serves some purpose we haven't discovered yet.

I absolutely agree. Medical science has always been quick to dismiss anything they don't understand. Medical science still understands very little about the complexities of the human body. There's a small genetic deletion called VCFS (22q11.2), which can result in 180 different medical problems.

39 posted on 08/19/2005 12:51:04 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I don't know if they ever tried to breed a line of mice from those knockout mice, so I don't know if there are any long-term effects to knocking out that particular line of junk, but it's still rather compelling evidence that much of the noncoding sequences really ARE junk DNA.

OTOH, how many times have we recently seen announcements about scientists who've discovered that sections previously thought to be junk, were really used for something?

It seems more than a bit premature to speculate that what we don't understand is "junk until proven otherwise."

As for the JennyP theory, that's part of what I was getting at: if there's a forcing function toward "thriftiness," it seems that the accumulation of "buffers" in the middle of a genome shouldn't happen.

40 posted on 08/19/2005 12:54:35 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson