Decoded chimpanzee genome shows striking similarity with human's

[Sean]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...01_205776.html

A comprehensive comparison of the newly deciphered chimpanzee genome sequence and that of humans shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported Wednesday. In a paper published in the Sept.1 issue of the journal Nature, the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, including 67 researchers from the United States, Israel, Italy, Germany and Spain, described the landmark study comparing the genome of the chimp with that of human. Related papers will also appear in the journal Science. "As our closest living evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees are especially suited to teach us about ourselves," said Robert Waterston, chair of the Department of Genome Sciences of the University of Washington School of Medicine. Waterston is a senior author of the study. "We still do not have in our hands the answer to a most fundamental question: What makes us human? But this genomic comparison dramatically narrows the search for the key biological differences between the species." The chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence, the researchers found. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. They discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of ions. The researchers indicated the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.

[gallo]

It may not be clear from that article that in the non-coding portions of the DNA, the similarity is about 96%. The 99% similarity mentioned is in the coding portions of the DNA. That is the part that produces the proteins that act as our structure, enzymes, and hormones, etc. The 96% non-coding DNA is often referred to as "junk DNA". Actually, some of it isn't junk, some of it we don't know, and most of it seems to serve no function. Noting the differences in the indels (insertions/deletions) is one way to "clock" evolution. Other molecular clocks have narrowed the time since mankind shared a common ancestor with the chimp as between 5 and 7 million years. The article just settles for 6 million. There are also things called pseudogenes that are non-functioning genes that manufacture proteins in other species. An example is the gene for vitamin C, non-functioning in primates. If you count the differences between that pseudogene in humans and chimps, and know the rate of mutation, you can tell how long ago both shared a common ancestor. That works out to between 5 to 7 million years too. Funny about that.

[Prometheus]

This is no suprise. Just another conformation of the predictive ability of the evolutionary theory.

Anyone whose humanity is threatened by this revelation is a weak-minded dolt.

[rez]

Quote by: Prometheus This is no suprise. Just another conformation of the predictive ability of the evolutionary theory. Anyone whose humanity is threatened by this revelation is a weak-minded dolt.

how about less evolved?

[ibm]

not a surprise. god created both men and others using the same clay. :)

[Resolute]

The most surprising thing there is that we've only just coded the chimp genome. I would have thought that would have been right after humans on the genome to-do list.

[gallo]

Quote by: ibm not a surprise. god created both men and others using the same clay. :)

But then, on the other hand, lobsters, also created using the same clay, don't show the same degree of genetic similarity. Or earth worms, or house flies, or vultures. I think maybe the "same clay" argument doesn't hold water.

[rcne]

I am waiting for the analysis of the "differences". Take all the common elements out and identify the functions (if any - classify the true junk) of the remainder.

We have two working data sets and can verify the testable differences between them..