GENTECH archive
[Index][Thread]
Genetic Mutations Accumulating Rapidly, Scientists Say
- To: gentech@gen.free.de
- Subject: Genetic Mutations Accumulating Rapidly, Scientists Say
- From: Epstein <namofo@jps.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:25:58 -0800
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: gentech@gen.free.de
- Resent-Message-ID: <"1-NbuC.A.-OE.AzRs2"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: gentech-request@gen.free.de
January 28, 1999
Genetic Mutations Accumulating Rapidly, Scientists Say
By NICHOLAS WADE
Biologists analyzing human genetic data in the
DNA data banks have given fresh meaning to
the saying that no one is perfect. Harmful mutations
have accumulated so fast in the human genome,
according to a new study, that the immediate
question is why the human species has not become
extinct.
Although human populations are evidently doing
fine, common minor afflictions like weakened
eyesight, headaches and stomach upsets could reflect
this inherited baggage of adverse mutations. And
some biologists fear that as the bite of natural
selection is relaxed by medical advances, the
mutational baggage could become more significant in
the centuries ahead.
The effective mutation rate in the human genome is
estimated in the new study as being at least 4.2
mutations per generation, of which at least 1.6
mutations are harmful. This is a high number
considering that a harmful mutation can be
eliminated sooner or later only by the "genetic
death" -- death without progeny -- of its carrier.
The study also found that humans have retained a
much larger proportion of adverse mutations in their
genome than have other animals, like mice and rats.
The authors of the study, which appears in
Thursday's issue of Nature, are Adam Eyre-Walker
of the University of Sussex in England and Peter D.
Keightley of the University of Edinburgh.
The high retention of adverse mutations probably
reflects the fact that human populations have been
extremely small throughout their evolutionary
history. In small populations it is easier for a
mutation to become fixed.
"Our genome appears to be degenerating in one
sense," said Eyre-Walker. But he noted that the
seriousness of the adverse mutations was unknown
and in any case had been outweighed "by some key
adaptations that have made us very successful,"
presumably intelligence.
The new finding is principally of interest to those
engaged in human evolutionary history and has little
immediate bearing on the genetic health of
present-day populations, because the adverse
mutations that were found are all probably small in
effect, even if large in number.
One theoretical implication of interest to
evolutionists is that the high mutation rate confirms a
long-standing speculation about the purpose of sex.
Biologists have often wondered why a species
would go to the bother of sexual reproduction when
division without sex, the way the amoebas do it,
would seem to be more efficient. A favorite answer
is that sexual reproduction, in which the genomes are
shuffled between generations, is an relatively
efficient way of shedding adverse mutations.
The high rate of adverse mutation found in the new
study confirms that some efficient mechanism --
presumably sex -- is required to remove bad
mutations from the genome. "To flush out these
deleterious mutations we need sex," Eyre-Walker
said. "If we were asexual we would probably be
dead."
Dr. James F. Crow, a population geneticist at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison, confirmed
Eyre-Walker's interpretation. "The existence of a
high deleterious mutation rate strengthens the
argument that a major advantage of sex is that it is an
efficient way to eliminate harmful mutations," he
writes in a commentary on the paper. The cleansing
action of sex arises because bad mutations are
brought together and eliminated.
Sex has not been completely efficient, however, and
many adverse mutations still remain in the human
genome. Crow is concerned that the mutational
baggage may increase in the future because of higher
living standards that allow most infants to reach
reproductive age. "Can we keep this up forever?" he
wondered. "I don't know."
Using DNA sequences now on deposit in DNA data
banks, the study compared humans and chimpanzees.
Each DNA difference was declared to be a human
mutation if in a third species, usually a gorilla, the
DNA was the same as the chimp's.
Some mutations are inconsequential because they do
not change the sequence of amino acids in a protein
and therefore have no effect on the organism's
survival. By measuring the numbers of
inconsequential and of effective mutations, the
researchers were able to compute the rate at which
mutations entered the genome over the last 6 million
years.
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company