I remember when we had 80,000 genes. I really do. Then along came the Human Genome Project and suddenly we had 30,000 genes, hardly more than your average mouse. Suddenly again, we now have a mere 18,000 genes (well 18,308, but I don't think that will stand for long). At this rate, we'll all have less genes than your average E. coli.
It's all devolution, right?
Late note: Larry Moran gives the history. It seems we are losing genes at a somewhat slower rate...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Science moves forward by flow. One experiment leads to another. Observations accrue. What seem like side trips or even dead ends may bring a fuzzy picture further into focus. Yet science often seems as if it moves forward one bombshell at a time, marked by scientific papers and press conferences. I…
Fellow [SBer Tara from Aetiology][tara] pointed me at [this bit of inanity][loonytune], which I can't resist mocking:
[tara]: http://www.scienceblogs.com/aetiology
[loonytune]: http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=2306
>The mystery of the human genome has come into clearer focus as…
Nicholas Wade of the NY Times has written one of those stories that make biologists cringe — it just gets so much wrong. It's a look back at the human genome project, and I was turned off at the first paragraph. The HGP was badly marketed from the very beginning in the sense that there was a…
Lander began by saying he wasn't an evolutionist — an interestingly narrow definition of the term. He's a fan of the research, but considers himself a biomedical geneticist, as if that was something different.
Having entire genomes of many species available for quantitative analysis is going to…
There was a competition for the best gene number prediction:
Currently, ENSEMBL's human gene number is 21,662.
and the VEGA consortium that manually annotates the human genome counts 32235 genes. Seemingly, the number heavily depends on the gene definition used.
The human UniGene database (build #200) counts 28138 sets with at least one mRNA