So even though the puffer fish Tetraodon nigroviridis has more genes than we do—nearly 28,—the size of its entire genome is actually only around one tenth of ours as it has much less of the non-coding DNA. In April , the 50th anniversary of the publication of the structure of DNA, the complete final map of the Human Genome was announced. Gene mapping Of the 25, or so human genes that have been identified as coding for proteins, most exist in several sequence variants, called alleles.
Sometimes these variations are harmless. The gene that codes for eye colour has several alleles—one for blue eyes, another for brown eyes. Sometimes these genetic variations can cause a disease. For example, a mutation in the gene that transports ions across the membrane of lung cells can cause cystic fibrosis. So, although our alleles may be different, all humans mostly share the same genes. The Human Genome Project identified the full set of human genes, sequenced them all, and identified some of the alleles, particularly those that can cause disease when they get mutated.
Genes can be mapped relative to physical features of the chromosome, or relative to other genes. The closer together the genes are, the more likely they are to stay together. Analysing how often genes become separated from each other can help establish the distance between genes, and produce a genetic linkage map.
In the Human Genome Project, the first task was to make a genetic linkage map for each chromosome. A genetic linkage map is made from studying patterns in gene separation, and shows the relative locations of genes on a chromosome. It does not tell us anything about the actual physical distances between the genes.
A physical map, made by hybridizing a fluorescent-tagged probe to chromosomes, can be aligned with the linkage map. Molecular scale maps can be constructed from sequence markers in the DNA molecule, and quantifies these distances, usually in terms of how many base pairs there are between genes. Together, the genetic linkage map, the physical map, molecular maps and sequence give us the complete picture of the genome.
But how much significance does this have for our everyday lives? Actually, quite a lot. Identifying how our genes interact and which parts of our genome affect certain diseases and conditions has meant that doctors and scientists are able to better understand how these conditions work and how to treat them. Drug treatments can be developed that are based on specific genetic mutations, and doctors may be able to diagnose a disease in a patient who is not showing typical symptoms.
This can help avoid putting the patient through devastating chemotherapy treatments unnecessarily. These conditions could then be addressed with a preventative approach, before they take serious hold.
A researcher reviews a DNA sequence. There is no doubt that information from the Human Genome Project provides huge benefits to human health in helping to understand and treat genetic diseases such as breast cancer, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia. Could genetic information be misused; for example, through genetic discrimination by employers or insurance companies?
Most people agree that gene testing can be used ethically to prevent serious diseases such as cancer, or during pregnancy to avoid the birth of someone with a severe handicap, but should we allow gene testing to choose a child who will be able to be better at sports, or more intelligent?
What about sex selection, already a problem in some countries? And will it become possible to use genetic information to change genes in children or adults for the better? Do we really want to know if we run the risk of developing a particular disease that may or may not be treatable? What are the privacy issues regarding genome screening on a population scale?
All of these ethical, legal and social issues associated with genetic information are being considered worldwide by scientists and ethicists. However, almost all of the actual sequencing of the genome was conducted at numerous universities and research centers throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and China. In , Congress established funding for the Human Genome Project and set a target completion date of Additionally, the project was completed more than two years ahead of schedule.
It is also important to consider that the Human Genome Project will likely pay for itself many times over on an economic basis - if one considers that genome-based research will play an important role in seeding biotechnology and drug development industries, not to mention improvements in human health.
Since the beginning of the Human Genome Project, it has been clear that expanding our knowledge of the genome would have a profound impact on individuals and society. The leaders of the Human Genome Project recognized that it would be important to address a wide range of ethical and social issues related to the acquisition and use of genomic information, in order to balance the potential risks and benefits of incorporating this new knowledge into research and clinical care.
The United States Congress mandates that no less than five percent of the annual NHGRI budget is dedicated to studying the ethical, legal and social implications of human genome research, as well as recommending policy solutions and stimulating public discussion. The ELSI program at NHGRI, which is unprecedented in biomedical science in terms of scope and level of priority, provides an effective basis from which to assess the implications of genome research.
Among these are major changes to the way investigators and institutional review boards handle the consent process for genomics studies. The ELSI program has been effective in promoting dialogue about the implications of genomics, and shaping the culture around the approach to genomics in research, medical, and community settings.
Having the essentially complete sequence of the human genome is similar to having all the pages of a manual needed to make the human body. The challenge to researchers and scientists now is to determine how to read the contents of all these pages and then understand how the parts work together and to discover the genetic basis for health and the pathology of human disease. In this respect, genome-based research will eventually enable medical science to develop highly effective diagnostic tools, to better understand the health needs of people based on their individual genetic make-ups, and to design new and highly effective treatments for disease.
Individualized analysis based on each person's genome will lead to a very powerful form of preventive medicine. We'll be able to learn about risks of future illness based on DNA analysis. Physicians, nurses, genetic counselors and other health-care professionals will be able to work with individuals to focus efforts on the things that are most likely to maintain health for a particular individual.
That might mean diet or lifestyle changes, or it might mean medical surveillance. But there will be a personalized aspect to what we do to keep ourselves healthy. Then, through our understanding at the molecular level of how things like diabetes or heart disease or schizophrenia come about, we should see a whole new generation of interventions, many of which will be drugs that are much more effective and precise than those available today.
Biological research has traditionally been a very individualistic enterprise, with researchers pursuing medical investigations more or less independently. The magnitude of both the technological challenge and the necessary financial investment prompted the Human Genome Project to assemble interdisciplinary teams, encompassing engineering and informatics as well as biology; automate procedures wherever possible; and concentrate research in major centers to maximize economies of scale.
As a result, research involving other genome-related projects e. The era of team-oriented research in biology is here. In addition to introducing large-scale approaches to biology, the Human Genome Project has produced all sorts of new tools and technologies that can be used by individual scientists to carry out smaller scale research in a much more effective manner.
What is a genome? What is DNA sequencing? Whose DNA was sequenced? What were the goals? Archive Site Provided for Historical Purposes. Begun formally in , the U. Human Genome Project was a year effort coordinated by the U. The project originally was planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the completion date to Project goals. To help achieve these goals, researchers also studied the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms.
These include the common human gut bacterium Escherichia coli , the fruit fly, and the laboratory mouse. A unique aspect of the U. Human Genome Project is that it was the first large scientific undertaking to address potential ELSI implications arising from project data. Another important feature of the project was the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector.
By licensing technologies to private companies and awarding grants for innovative research, the project catalyzed the multibillion-dollar U. For more background information on the U. Human Genome Project, see the following. Note: These numbers do not include construction funds, which are a very small part of the budget.
A genome is all the DNA in an organism, including its genes. Genes carry information for making all the proteins required by all organisms. These proteins determine, among other things, how the organism looks, how well its body metabolizes food or fights infection, and sometimes even how it behaves. DNA is made up of four similar chemicals called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G that are repeated millions or billions of times throughout a genome.
The human genome, for example, has 3 billion pairs of bases. The particular order of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs is extremely important. The order underlies all of life's diversity, even dictating whether an organism is human or another species such as yeast, rice, or fruit fly, all of which have their own genomes and are themselves the focus of genome projects.
Because all organisms are related through similarities in DNA sequences, insights gained from nonhuman genomes often lead to new knowledge about human biology. The current consensus predicts about 20, genes, but this number has fluctuated a great deal since the project began. The reason for so much uncertainty has been that predictions are derived from different computational methods and gene-finding programs. Some programs detect genes by looking for distinct patterns that define where a gene begins and ends "ab initio" gene finding.
Other programs look for genes by comparing segments of sequence with those of known genes and proteins comparative gene finding. While ab initio gene finding tends to overestimate gene numbers by counting any segment that looks like a gene, comparative gene finding tends to underestimate since it is limited to recognizing only those genes similar to what scientists have seen before.
Defining a gene is problematic because small genes can be difficult to detect, one gene can code for several protein products, some genes code only for RNA, two genes can overlap, and many other complications 5.
Even with improved genome analysis, computation alone is simply not enough to generate an accurate gene number. Clearly, gene predictions have to be verified by labor-intensive work in the laboratory 6.
Scientists arrived at this number by excluding the now thought to be functionally meaningless, random occurrences Open-Reading Frames ORFs that were included in the estimate of 24, genes. Clamp et al. At that time, Consortium researchers had confirmed the existence of 19, protein-coding genes in the human genome and identified another 2, DNA segments that are predicted to be protein-coding genes.
The Ensembl genome-annotation system estimated them at 23, Bets ranged from around 26, to more than , genes. Since most gene-prediction programs were estimating the number of protein-coding genes at fewer than 30,, GeneSweep officials decided to declare the contestant with the lowest bet 25, by Lee Rowen of the Institute of Systems Biology in Seattle the winner.
Michael P. Cooke, Dr.
0コメント