I've been actually reading a text book today...

Did you guys know that the codon sequence (think of that as an "allele") for albinism was discovered not long ago, and they've conducted research on the American Indian population to find it's prescence?  They compared the Navaho gene pool with Apache, and found that the albinism gene (I'll leave out it's exact nomenclature  ) is only present in the Navaho. 
Using fancy gene-pool/population inheritance statistics (which gets pretty interesting in it's own right -- more than just bell curves...), they've worked backwards to find that the mutation occured between 400 and 1600 years ago. 
Since the Navaho split from it's parent tribe about 1200 years ago, using their oral histories, and since the Apache don't have albinism, it's concurred that the Navaho albinism mutation occurred between 400 and 1000 years ago. 

So, this means that the single guy who developed a mutation in a certain specific region in his DNA (the exact method isn't yet known, whether "crossing over"/deletion/insertion...) could have been in the original group that left the parent Apache tribe. 
Working backwards within that data, it's conceivable that this could have been the reason for the social schism!!

Seriously! 
Once a mutation has developed, that individual must (of course) reproduce for the gene to be passed on.  If the gene is recessive (which it definitely is) then at least two generations are needed for the gene to be shown again.  However, in cases of incomplete dominance (which this is) it takes even longer for it to be shown,  and while coupled with the fact that people dont usually reproduce with physical oddities -- this leads to a very long time between albinism cases (in the first few hundred years).

Anyway...
I'm just saying, one of the first few guys to call himself a Navaho Indian was really just a white guy.   

Indeed. ive read into this, for some strange reason, and find it interesting, even though it is NOT in my field of study . ( as if i had one lmao)

Another one:

Everybody knows how the recessive sickle-cell trait also fights off malaria (or maybe high GPA scores  )...

Well:
Researchers noticed that some people have shown tendencies (there's always that one sicko) to have unprotected sex with multiple HIV-pos patients without being infected themselves.  
After the studies, it's been concluded that a certain allele called Delta (sign for change) -32 is gone.  This means that the allele (#32 in a certain position) that turns on a protein is gone.  The researchers called it a mutation, but (!) it's actually turned out to be an adaptation against either the Black Plague or smallpox!  Pretty cool!

Apparently the gene works like an operon (not the music).  The HIV phage uses a protein to bind to a protein on the outside of the host cell.  Once this happens, a chemical change occurs (going into organic chemistry again...) opening up a third receptor.  A third protein is made inside the host cell, which binds to that third receptor.  This lets the HIV phage past the host cell membrane, into the cell itself.  

Basically:  the HIV knocks on the door.  The cell looks out the window.  The HIV waves, pretending he's the pizza guy.  The host cell gets the cash, and opens the door.  HIV busts the door open, and now lives in your house (making you wash all the dishes).  


Without getting into specifics (which are pretty cool), the difficulty in a HIV antivirus comes in the fact that the first receptor in the host cell is necessary for regulatory body functions.  Can't shut it without actually changing the human genome.  Not possible.  

SOOOO,
Here's my point:
Some people actually have an ancestrial mutation in their genotype that shuts off the third protein.  (Guy in the house can't open the door to let the pizza guy in.  Maybe his hands are slippery from eating hot wings.)
They've worked backwards, statistically, and found that the mutation occurred just around the time of the Black Plague.  
Populations around the northern Mediterranean region/ Baltic Sea have about a 10% occurrence (very high, for genetics) of the mutation, again showing the probability of the original cause.  The original pathogen responsible for the reproductive success (it's alot easier to get chicks when you're alive) of the mutated population hasn't been discovered yet.

Mysterious....






This is the type of thing to be expected, of course, when considering a 6 billion member population.  The interesting thing is:  it takes around a thousand years (not an exaggeration) for a 0.01 change in the statistical genotype of a population.  That's considered fast, and including things like gene shifts, sexual preference, etc.  
So, it's basically impossible to expect the world population to come anywhere close to immunity to diseases (from an evolutionary standpoint).  But, the mutation didn't exist before the middle ages, at which time it jumped up to 11%.  Amazing!

in laymans terms, a very small segment of the human race is either immune to, or resistant to the HIV virus

To clarify, the Change-32  allele rose to as high as 20% in as little as 30 generations.  That's the equivalent of 1/4 of Europe being born as mermaids, 700 years from now.

In my error, I stated that the frequency of the Change-32 allele was 0.01.  It's actually 0.1.  However, statistically it would take about 100 generations (about 2000 years) for the frequency of the allele to go from 0.10 to 0.11.  That's insane.  Especially considering that it went up to about 16% (in parts of Russia) in only about 700 years.  

It's called the CCR5-Change32 allele.  The locus being in the CCR5 gene; I'm unsure which chromosome.  



You like Hardy-Weinberg quantitative genetics, yamahon?  The effect is called oculocutaneous albinism (OCA), meaning eye/skin/hair/nail albinism.  It now has a frequency of about 1 in 1500-2000 (thanks to that one guy).  The mutation is in the MAPT and P genes; it's shown when homozygous only.  It's called a "founder" mutation, in that it's part of what actually founded the Navaho tibe as a separate population.  

It's pretty cool:  
Given the Hardy-Weinberg law, it'll never take over the entire tribe, since it's recessive homozygous.  But, eventually every single member of the Navaho tribe will be a carrier and 25% will actually have OCA, given they keep their standards of inbreeding.  
Unless there is assortive/nonrandom mating (which usually occurs with folks that look different) within the Navaho population... Nobody wants to date a "freak".  



What's so cool about this is that about 47% of the human genome has still not been linked to particular phenotypes.  We still don't know what half of our DNA does.  And, sometimes, these mutations like this are linked to positive factors in our survivability.  We just don't know what they are yet!  (Only in a few cases, like I mentioned.)  

And, don't even get me started on plasmids.... OMG!
Do you seriously know how easy it is to change an animal's genome?  Seriously!  
In about an afternoon, I can give you an E.Coli plasmid that can change any particular part of your gene sequence that you would like (given that it's already been developed).  

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on December 10, 2008, 01:47:39 AM
in laymans terms, a very small segment of the human race is either immune to, or resistant to the HIV virus

Basically, yes.

There are different strains, though.  That segment is "highly resistant" (not entirely immune) to HIV-1. 


You can have yourself tested for that particular allele with a micro-array or electrophoresis, whatever you can afford.  If you're Change-32/Change-32, then you can screw any prostitute you want and not get that particular strain.  Granted - - it WILL be in your blood.  The pathogen will bind ("attack") to your T-cells all the time, they just won't gain entry past the cytoplasm.  (And, you'll probably get Hep-C, syphillis, etc.)
If you're 1/Change-32, then you're semi-resistant.  1/1 = no resistance (of course). 


Thanks to the Black Plague. 
Other regional populations have also developed their own specific resistances, along similar pathways.  I'm pretty sure that researchers are trying to develop all of these into a specific plasmid. 

I wonder when the smart criminals out there (if there are any ) will realize that they can effectively change their DNA with a few injections....

They do it alll the time, already.  First time was with a girl in 1990/1991.  She had a genetic disorder that caused (basically) a lack of an immune system, so they developed a plasmid to block off that particular operon.  It changed her genome, and she's got about 25% of a normal person's white-cell count.

All they test for in the famous "DNA fingerprinting" are only 13 alleles.  Just as comparison, in lymphocytotic sarcoma there are 18,000 genes that have been analyzed, each with two alleles. 
Hell, they publish exactly which alleles they test for in CODIS!

So...
Pop a few specific alleles into a retrovirus (or over a dozen different other vectors) and infect yourself... Bingo!  Instant innocence!


Just getting a cold sore (Herpes simplex) changes your DNA, but I'm sure that those aren't the same alleles chosen by for CODIS (combined DNA index system).  But, I bet you could make a pretty penny selling such a thing....

Indeed. but have you ever seen a "smart " criminal" , ive not. cept for maybe a few politicians", even they are dumb enough to eventually get caught

If you guys honestly knew what kind of stuff could be done.....  you'd flip your wig.

For example:
About 2.8% (876) of the known genome has been characterized for development of cytoskeletal structural protein.  These make up what your hair color will be, whether you will grow arms or a pancreas, etc.
Within those 876 genes, you compare your DNA to your siblings:  Any difference in the A-T-C-G sequence will reflect in their phenotype.  In other words, if there's a difference in the nucleic acid string then it will show in their appearance.  

Say you want to be taller or thinner or look as handsome as me:
Find the 3-letter sequence (known as a codon) within that string that a tall guy has, but you don't
Insert that particular sequence into the DNA of a virus (break apart their DNA, put in yours, put it back together)
Infect yourself with that virus
Impress the chickies as the virus spreads through the cells of your body, making you taller!

I'm not making this up, or joking, or trying to impress anyone, or whatever.  I just learned about it recently, how it all works.  I'm nearly stunned by the simplicity of it, I had to tell somebody.  
I do research in phenotypical presentation/ RNA transcription analysis right now (to get my feet wet), and I just got invited back for next semester.  Apparently I did a good job or something...  I was offered a chance to try out plasmid development, and they taught me the basics of it.  



Want to make a glow-in-the-dark frog without it being fertilized ("immaculate conception")?  
-Suspend an unfertilized egg (reptiles and fish, not sure about mammals) in magnesium chloride
-Egg will automatically undergo cell division by mitosis, as if fertilized.  100% of Mom's DNA will be present, since no Dad, of course
-You've got yourself a clone!  simple as that!
-Either early on or after division occurs, withdraw a sample of the egg's DNA.  Suspend that sample in whatever you want the new animal to do, then reinject it.  Or, just inject the new substance (depending on chemical make-up)
- to glow in the dark: inject a different phosphorous isotope.  (Some amino acids use phosphate groups, so the proteins of the animal will glow under a black light [Phosphorescence])
-radioactive turtles?  same as above, just inject a radioactive (comparatively stable) isotope of nitrogen.  All amino acids use nitrogen, so same as above.  Transfer-RNA will command ribosomes to pick up any available nitrogen to form it's proteins, disregarding isotope status.  (Like a blind guy laying venetian tile, it'll pick up whatever it needs without looking at it first)
- Impress your friends with your DIY ninja turtle!

This is crazy interesting:

There are three main domains of life: Archea, Bacteria, and Eukaria.  We're in Eukaria, meaning our cells have a nucleus and clearly-definable organelles, like mitochondria (everybody's favorite).  So are plants, bugs, and wallabees.

Bacteria are different- their nucleus (which holds the DNA) doesn't have a wall around it.  All the guts in the cell are all spread out like a smoothie.  Who cares, right?
Well... if your house doesn't have a door, then anybody can just walk in or out, right? 
If bacteria rolls across certain elements (even DNA from other animals, if it wants) then it can just encorporate it right into it's own DNA.  It's called a plasmid.  That's how they survive.  They suck up the elements around them, whether they can eat it or whether it just kills them.  If it helps them live in an environment that might otherwise kill them, then they keep it in their own DNA (kind of like armor).

Normally, that's not a problem.  Just one or two little bacteria.
But...
If you subject a butt-load of the same bacteria to the same effect, you get a new species.  This is why antibiotics are so bad, as I was trying to explain to someone earlier.




So.....
You've got a piece of somebody's DNA that you like.  You give it to a non-harmful strain of bacteria (we like to use E.Coli) in the form of a plasmid.  The bacteria then makes that part of it's own genetic make-up. 
If you inject that bacteria into someone or something, then it spreads just like any other virus.  (Viruses transmit their DNA to yours, nonreversible.)
You see where I'm going with this?

It's literally that simple.
The major implications are associated with the fact that over 50% of the human genome is derived from transposable elements.  They're highly replaceable, removable, whatever-you-want-able.  That's 50% of 3 billion nucleotides, each with very, very specific functions. 

translation for some. it can be VERY dangerous to play god

Who's playing?  We're the earthly manifestation of divinity.  Says so right in the bible. 

I know you're not trying to argue. 

I just like to point out that conservative religious statements are always mentioned in regards to genetical research, without any real grounds. 

To say that we're made in God's image:  that can be taken to mean that we're of the same exact form, just without the knowledge.  Genetics gives us the knowledge of the basis of life itself. 
There's no need to mince words, either.  There is a clear, definable moment in cell division where life is passed on.  We can cause it, but we just simply can't replicate it.  (The metaphase stage of mitosis/meiosis, when the chromosomes divide to make two new cells.)  You can watch it all day long under a microscope, some people get really sentimental about it.  One thing turns into two things, all by itself, and it's the exact same process for every single organism on this planet.


We're nearly to the point of being able to promote metaphase in an unliving cell, just through chemiosmosis.  In an unliving cell, the raw material is there, all the proteins and fluids, it just needs to be motivated to actually replicate with activation energy input and pH shifting. The instant we do that...  we've created life.  We'll have become Krishna, the creator and destoyer of worlds. 



Believe what you want, but you see some weird things when you "dispatch" a few dozen folks.  There's absolutely nothing in the Bible that doesn't say that we AREN'T God, save a few bedtime stories about a burning bush, etc.. 
It says so, right in the bible!  They teach you in church, just with a spin on it.  It's right under everybody's nose, just nobody sees it. 
God created Man in his own image, which (why not take it literally?) makes us each seperate physical manifestations of God Himself. 
We call a bunch of ants an "ant colony"; I like to believe that all the human lives in the world together ARE God.

It says it right in the bible:  God is everything.  So, doesn't that make US divine, too?  Doesn't it say in the bible to treat your body as if it were divine, because it's a gift from God?  Why do people refuse to take that literally?
I don't understand that....
Some people take Noah and his ark literally, but not what I just wrote.  To me, you can't get any clearer of an instruction!!

Our religion seems to have no real definitive answer as to what or who God is; it tries to focus on the roles that God plays in our lives.  "Created the heaven and Earth in seven days", "delivered the Isrealites", etc, etc.  We're taught that these are things that God DOES.  But, in only in overlooked specific instances does it actually DEFINE Christ:  God is Everything.  Yet, we refuse to take THAT part of the bible seriously. 




We're not playing God.  We're playing Ourselves. 


(Sorry if I sound irritated.  Just a little tired.)

i know. and understand, and things were put in place ( in my beliefs) for us to make better. like evolution , yes im religious, and yes, i believe in evolution. god says here it is, now deal with it. we are dealing with it. in most of the times, a good way

Yes. 

The evolution debate is as dumb as my sister.  It's simply a cloak for the underlying debate, which no one really has the nuts (or maybe the intelligence and intestinal fortitude) to point out.


The actual debate:
If we change an organism's genetic make-up (which we do, every day), then that organism has just evolved.  It has effectively changed from one thing into another, albeit very slightly.
Since the Bible says that God controls the creation of life, in all it's manifestations, then religion leads us to believe that man is not able to create a new organism.  If we CAN, then religion goes out the window. 

Religion tells us that if any change occurs to an organism, then it's through God's will that it's allowed to live.  If we change an animal's DNA, then that animal should immediately die (according to modern religion). 


I believe it's simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote in my last posting, simply an error in reading the text.  I believe it's been compounded upon by religious circles, in order to turn profit. 

If a severely right-wing Christian ever gets on your nerves about evolution, then just ask him to prove that the "Church" doesn't exist to make profit.  It gets really funny, really quickly. 




The instant that a researcher is able to motivate metaphase, religion becomes a joke.  The "Church" isn't stupid.  The evolution debate got started when some guy wrote a book in the Galapagos ( ), and the church tried to invalidate his findings.  It comes up again and again, whenever an advancement is made.  The last big surge was (so strangely) about the same time that the first humans underwent genetic manipulation and gene therapy.  I'm pretty sure that this shows a correlation. 

The modern Catholic church has lost most of it's power because of this.  That's why the Pope apologized to the Muslims a few years ago (last year?).  It wouldn't have happened, had it not been for Darwin and Mendel and Morgan. 

What do you think's gonna happen when some guy finally promotes mitosis?  Wow....

You seem to be a pretty cool guy, Yamahon. 

I respect your beliefs.  Even more so, because you actually have a brain.
I know it sounds like I'm on a pulpit myself (yes, pun), but I really don't expect anyone to convert to what I say.  There's nothing wrong with what someone believes, no matter how crazy.



I find it incredibly interesting that no one has spoken up about anything that I previously mentioned, I guess.  It seems like someone would have mentioned something in all the years of written human history....
Guess I just wanted to fill the void. 

perhaps god guided the scientists to "fiddle" with teh organisms or guided their brains to find the "right lines of information, so that their thesis' made sense? who knows

Funny that you say that....

The "father of genetics", Gregory Mendel, was one of those male nuns.  What are they called?  I've been up all night; I can't think remember the word.

Monks.  And he fudged his data.

Back off with the undergraduate textbook, my friend.     Methinks you know a little less than you think you do.

"This is why antibiotics are so bad"

Antibiotics are not bad.  Improper use of them is bad.  Used properly, they wipe out an infection quickly and efficiently.  Used improperly, they never quite wipe it out, and allow survivingbacteria to develop resistance.  Used ectopically, they allow both benign and helpful bacteria to develop resistance, which they can pass on to harmful bacteria.


"Say you want to be taller or thinner or look as handsome as me:
Find the 3-letter sequence (known as a codon) within that string that a tall guy has, but you don't
Insert that particular sequence into the DNA of a virus (break apart their DNA, put in yours, put it back together)
Infect yourself with that virus
Impress the chickies as the virus spreads through the cells of your body, making you taller!"

You can't 'change your DNA' just like that.  What it sounds like your friend had was a disorder of the immune system.  That's a different animal from anything else in your body; your blood cells - all of them, red and white - come from the bone marrow, which is generated by hematopoetic stem cells which are constantly regenerating and producing new cells.  You can destroy someone's bone marrow by many means (lethal irradiation being the most common) and put in genetically engineered - or simply transplanted - bone marrow, which will regenerate to fill the space.  All of the bits of your body which are already developed aren't going to change by sticking a virus in you.  Even if we came up with some superwhammy retrovirus that can hit every cell in your body, hit every cell in your body exactly once, and do it without causing a nasty immune response - which is already pie-in-the-sky - it won't impact somatic tissues that have already developed.

Viruses as vectors for gene therapy aren't as useful as the people trying to get grants are hyping them to be.

I also think you're a little confused on what introns, exons, codons, and cDNA are, as well as how genes relate to phenotypes.


"You've got a piece of somebody's DNA that you like.  You give it to a non-harmful strain of bacteria (we like to use E.Coli) in the form of a plasmid.  The bacteria then makes that part of it's own genetic make-up. 
If you inject that bacteria into someone or something, then it spreads just like any other virus.  (Viruses transmit their DNA to yours, nonreversible.)
You see where I'm going with this?"

What choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Some cool genteic facts. Not much of a fan of the sweeping generalizations about Christians/Christianity/Religion. It seems to me that most people today have a complete misunderstanding of the Bible/Christianity... even alot of "Christians". Not trying to start a big argument but thats what I think.

If your theories are correct, then why have they not been implemented? If it sounds so easy, what is stopping scientists and physicians from using your theory to make us all plastic surgeoons' masterpieces? I believe there are a lot of detrimental effects whenever you try to alter the DNA (as I have seen in my own experiments as well as those of my colleagues). Just a thought...