"There are only a few hundred genes that we have in the human genome that are not in the mouse genome,"
February 11, 2001 9:45 AM Subscribe
posted by muppetboy at 12:52 PM on February 11, 2001
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54653-2001Feb10.html
posted by stbalbach at 1:43 PM on February 11, 2001
posted by fiery at 12:14 AM on February 12, 2001
That is, a lot of what happens is enabled by the complex environment of the human womb, which provides the context for the baby's initial development.
That greatly reduces the number of genes needed compared to, say, frogs, which aren't warm-blooded and must have a large number of proteins coded for in their DNA to handle various conditions under which they might develop. If the temperature is in a certain range, they'll need one enzyme, but if it's a couple degrees warmer, they'll need a different one, and so on. With the constancy of a warm human womb to hang out in, the number of instructions needed decreases - the DNA code can make assumptions about the developmental environment, as it were.
Plus, add chaos theory, and there ya go. Or, here we are.
posted by beth at 11:10 AM on February 12, 2001
I love the fact that we have only 60% as many genes as *rice*.
posted by rodii at 4:38 PM on February 12, 2001
« Older The Independent | Bruce Springsteen Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
While the amount of genes being fewer than expected doesn't make things easier, it means that we might not be as high up on the ol' scale as we thought. I haven't been following any of this up until now, but I find it utterly fascinating.
posted by hijinx at 9:47 AM on February 11, 2001