One very stupid question I have, which I hope you don't mind my asking: If I share 70 % of my genes with sea sponges, and 98 % of
my genes with chimpanzees, and genes are the unit of selection, why doesn't Hamilton's rule say that I'd be willing to sacrifice myself for 1.02 chimpanzees or 1.43 sea sponges?
We may share many
genes with chimpanzees, but it's rare for them to cluster together in the same combinations.
Not exact matches
In particular, humans share an unfortunate «broken
gene»
with many other primates, including
chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques.
She picked those non-human primates because they are the closest relatives in the animal kingdom, especially gorillas and
chimpanzees, who share more than 98 % of their
genes with humans.
The team found that humans are equipped
with tiny differences in a particular regulator of
gene activity, dubbed HARE5, that when introduced into a mouse embryo, led to a 12 % bigger brain than in the embryos treated
with the HARE5 sequence from
chimpanzees.
«We found that
chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas do not show a significant overlap of
genes under positive selection
with domesticates.
He says this idea has «very profound» implications for the debate over the origins of bacterial
genes that are present in the human genome but absent in our closest relatives (Science, 8 June, p. 1903): The amount of conjugation Waters detected is «high enough to readily explain» the possible infiltration of bacterial genesinto our DNA, meaning that conjugation could have happened quickly enough to add
genes only to humans, in the years since they split from the common ancestor they shared
with chimpanzees.
Before this study, scientists debated how these immune
genes can evolve rapidly (which is necessary to keep up
with the fast - evolving parasites), whilst also showing little or no evolutionary change in their function over millions of years, as observed between humans and
chimpanzees.
But if the
genes for handedness evolved
with humans, why are so many
chimpanzees left - handed and in such predictable numbers?
When Peter Parham's postdoc first showed him data suggesting a
gene in some wild
chimpanzees infected
with the AIDS virus closely resembled one that protects humans from HIV, he was skeptical.
The team found that ARHGAP11B was also present in Neanderthals and Denisovans, human cousins
with similarly sized brains, but not in
chimpanzees,
with which we share 99 percent of our genome — further support for the idea that this
gene could explain our unusually large human brains.
Svante Pääbo Last year Pääbo announced a plan to sequence the entire Neanderthal genome by 2008 and compare our extinct relative's
genes with the
genes of
chimpanzees and humans.
Comparisons
with the
chimpanzee genome indicate that human SIGLEC11 emerged through human - specific
gene conversion by an adjacent pseudogene.
To assess the speed
with which both humans and
chimpanzees accumulated many small differences in
gene sequences accurately, Wu and colleagues in Taiwan and Japan decided to sequence several thousand
genes expressed in the brain of the macaque monkey and compare them
with available genomic sequences from human,
chimpanzee, and mice.