Prokaryote to eukaryote gene transfer

[Mr. McD]

is evident in the sequenced genome of an intesinal parasite, Entamoeba histolyca.

the study indicates that the amoeba has snagged an astonishing 92 genes from bacteria in recent times.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/224/2

[Canuckistanian]

1. Signifying what?

Is this the vector for a new round of genetic engineering?

[Cocoa]

2. password protected site

you tease! :spank:

[Dogmudgeon]

3. The system locks out the "riff raff"

Another profitwall.

I have no idea why scientific publications do this. They are among the most anti-democratic websites on the net.

--p!

[Mr. McD]

4. Sorry, I didn't realize it was restricted,

I wasn't ask for a password. :shrug:

According to the international research team who sequenced the eukaryote's genome. "It is clear that among the 96 genes, some result in significant enhancements to E. histolytica metabolism, thus contributing to its biology to a greater extent than indicated by the numbers alone." This research adds to the mounting evidence for important lateral gene transfer, not merely among bacteria, but across all three biological domains.

[htuttle]

5. Does that mean there is another mechanism for evolution to use?

In addition to random mutation, lateral gene transfer among species (at least tiny, tiny ones)?

Would that imply that species evolution could proceed faster than previously believed? Would that also imply that entire genetic characteristics could naturally transfer from one species to another? (but that sounds like science fiction...).

[Mr. McD]

6. There is mounting evidence to support lateral as well as linear evolution

Here is one example. (abstract only)

Genes from retroviruses — Geneticists recently identified two human endogenous retroviruses that entered the primate lineage 25-40 million years ago that are apparently important in the formation of the human placenta. Now some of the same geneticists report that two related retroviral genes have similar functions in mice, rats, gerbils, voles and hamsters. Their analysis indicates that these rodents acquired them after the rodent and primate lineages had already split. The geneticists conclude, "Our work and other reports... lead to the proposal that several independent retroviral infections may have contributed to the emergence of a common syncytial barrier in different species and played a pivotal convergent role in placenta morphogenesis and physiology."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0406509102v1

[Sufi Marmot]

7. There was an article in the 12/04 Scientific American...

where the authors suggested that certain genes that are present in humans and bacteria, but not other species that are "between" humans and bacteria evolutionarily (yeast, fruit flies, Drosophila, C. elegans, etc.) may have been transfered by from bacteria to humans by viruses at some point. Speculative, but intruiging...

-SM

Edited to add link: article abstract

[NickB79]

8. Hmmm, what's one of those arguments against genetic engineering?

Oh yeah, "Genetic engineering isn't natural! Widely different species don't swap genes!"

Oh really........