Medical, Research, Science

How Do Our Genes Make Us Human?

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Intro: One thing common to all life on Earth, from bacteria to blue whales to bonobos, is a genetic code contained within strands of DNA. This leads to the perplexing question of how our DNA creates human beings.

LONG sections of genetic code are identical across the entire span of life. About 50 per cent of our own DNA sequence is the same as bananas’, while we share 98 per cent of our DNA with chimpanzees. So, what makes us different?

In April 2003, a major milestone in the study of human genetics was reached with the publication of the complete human genome. An enormous collaborative project worked on by scientists in 20 different countries, it may well come to be regarded in the same light as the great scientific landmarks. Principal among these was the work of the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel – often referred to as the “father of genetics” – which he carried out in the 1850s and ‘60s and which first established the rules of heredity, as well as James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 description of the molecular structure of DNA as the now-famous double helix.

Gene Expression

The published genome contains the sequence of some three billion so-called base pairs, which constitute the genetic code in our DNA. The translation of the code made up by these base pairs is used to build up 20 different essential amino acids which, together with other amino acids we get from our food, combine in numerous different ways to form all the different proteins we require in our bodies. Geneticists used to think that the role of DNA was almost entirely concerned with providing a template for the manufacture of these proteins, but the complete genome showed that the sections of DNA which perform this function, our genes, only account for about two per cent of the total.

The function of the remaining 98 per cent, sometimes known as “junk DNA”, is not entirely known, but it has become increasingly apparent that much of it is not junk at all. It plays a role in, among other things, gene expression. This is the actual process by which the information contained in our genes is used to make up all the different tissues and organs in our body, through the process known as cell differentiation. Here, stem cells divide to produce different types of cells, such as liver cells or nerve cells. Unravelling the way in which one type of cell divides to produce a wide variety of different cells has proved to be extremely difficult and is currently one of the principal areas of genetic research.

The basic functioning of DNA in producing amino acids from the genetic code is relatively straightforward: the double-stranded DNA molecule effectively unzips, splitting apart the base pairs and revealing the code that is then copied by single-stranded RNA and used to assemble amino acids. But the control of this process, in which the required genes are activated and those not needed switched off, appears to be extremely complicated. Each advance in our knowledge of gene expression uncovers a whole new level of complexity that has to be unravelled. Beyond that, there is also the equally tricky problem of determining how, during the process of protein folding, the proteins made from genes assume the three-dimensional shape that determines their functions. The potential applications of our advancing knowledge of gene expression and protein folding are wide, not least in increasing our understanding and ability to treat diseases which have a genetic basis, prominent among which are many forms of cancer.

The Difficulties of Cloning

Another landmark in genetic research was achieved in 1996, when the first mammal (known as Dolly the Sheep) was cloned by geneticists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This involves the removal of a nucleus containing genetic material from a cell of the animal to be cloned, and its introduction into an egg from which the original nucleus has been removed. The egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother and, in theory at least, will develop into an embryo with DNA identical to the animal from which the nucleus was taken.

Needless to say, if it were as easy as that, cloning would be a common occurrence today. In reality, it has proved much more difficult, in part because of the complications which arise as a consequence of gene expression. In some successful cloning experiments, for instance, the observable traits, or phenotype as it is known, of the cloned offspring are not always the same as those of the original animal. So, despite being genetically identical, the offspring looks different from the parent. In order to produce exact copies of the original, the process of cloning has to solve the complicated issues involved with gene expression, including the role of junk DNA in regulating genes. We are, it appears, a long way from seeking flocks of cloned sheep.

Alternative Theories

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that gene expression is not controlled solely by DNA but is also influenced by a number of external factors collectively known as epigenetics. This is a new field of scientific research and the details of how it works are disputed, but, in essence, it implies that the environment in which DNA replication occurs during cell division can influence the activity of genes and, in doing so, can have an effect on the resulting phenotype. This is thought to occur at a molecular level, through environmental factors modifying the actions of those proteins that surround strands of DNA and influencing the switching off or activation of genes. These epigenetic modifications do not change the DNA sequence of base pairs, so are not inherited by future generations, even if those generations may then be subjected to the same environmental conditions as the parent, resulting in similar epigenetic modifications.

Standard
Arts, Education, Philosophy, Research, Society

Oxford academic to launch ‘journal of controversial ideas’

ACADEMIA & RESEARCH

A “controversial ideas” journal where researchers can publish articles anonymously will be launched this year by an Oxford University academic.

The journal is in apparent response to a rise in researchers being criticised and silenced by those who disagree with them. The revelation came towards the end of last year by Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford.

“There is an increasing tendency that I see within academia and outside for people to try to suppress views they don’t like and treat them as wicked and unspeakable, rather than confront those views and refute them,” he said.

The phenomenon of attempting to shut down views you disagree with has become “very pronounced” among young people and those on the Left, he said, adding that academics also feared being censured by their university administrations.

He cited the example of Prof Nigel Biggar, a fellow Oxford academic, being “targeted” after he suggested that people should have “pride” about aspects of their imperialist past. More than 50 professors, lecturers and researchers signed an open letter expressing their “firm rejection” of his views. Prof Biggar later revealed that young academics were afraid of damaging their careers if they were seen with him.

Another example he gave was when the Oxford Students For Life group invited speakers to discuss the legislation surrounding abortion in Ireland. “They were shut down by a feminist group and unable to proceed,” Prof McMahan said.

A newly formed group of over 100 academics from UK universities has raised concerns about “the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism”.

They said that members of their group had experienced campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censure academic research and publications.

Francesca Minerva, a bioethicist at the University of Ghent in Belgium, approached Prof McMahan about setting up The Journal of Controversial Ideas after she received death threats due to her academic research.

She had to seek police protection following the publication of an article she co-authored in the Journal of Medical Ethics which defended the permissibility of early infanticide in a certain range of cases. Prof McMahan said that the new cross-disciplinary publication, which is due to launch this year, would be fully peer-reviewed in line with normal academic standards.

He said that he and Peter Singer, the prominent Australian philosopher, were assembling an editorial board that is made up of academics and distinguished people in their fields from across the political and religious spectrum.

OPINION

The publication of a new journal in which academics may write under pseudonyms, for fear of retribution, is truly alarming. The motive for the founding of this new Journal of Controversial Ideas is to avoid persecution by the universities that employ contributors.

This is not like a medieval inquisition; it is actually worse. In the High Middle Ages scholars publicly debated points of controversy – quodlibets, they were called – and no thesis was too outlandish to defend. Today we see closed-shop “academies”, in history or science, monstering anyone who dares to venture outside the fashionable consensus.

To suggest, for instance, that the British Empire had its good points and – bang – the solid weight of academe will likely fall on those making the claims. When even universities won’t favour free and open discussion, the resort to pseudonyms and anonymity convicts them of betrayal.

Standard
Health, Medical, Research, Science

Injection of antibodies could reduce risk of heart attacks and strokes

MEDICAL RESEARCH

THOUSANDS of lives could be saved every year after scientists discovered a group of antibodies that dramatically reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes – and revealed plans to develop an injection of the substance for those most at risk.

The researchers say their discovery could lead to the development of a test to determine a person’s risk of heart disease within three years and an antibody injection to protect them in as little as five years.

A lead researcher at Imperial College London, said: “If this line of research is successful it would mean a revolution in tackling the biggest killer in the world.”

Everybody has at least some of these antibodies, but levels vary widely between people and that plays a crucial role in determining how likely they are to suffer life-threatening heart problems.

The effect of the antibodies is so profound that people with high levels of them are 70 per cent less likely to develop heart disease than people with low levels of them.

High levels of the antibodies show their hosts have less of the dangerous plaques in their arteries that cause most heart attacks and strokes.

The discovery has the potential to save numerous lives, leading heart specialists have said.

More than 100,000 people in the UK die each year from a cardiac arrest or stroke that has been caused by plaque on the inside of an artery. By discovering which patients have plaques that are more likely to rupture and why, thousands of lives a year could be saved.

The development of new drugs might be used to tweak the immune system to prevent people from having a heart attack or stroke.

The British Heart Foundation is known to have funded much of the research and has given Dr Khamis – a consultant cardiologist at Hammersmith Hospital – £1million to develop his work further. He is working on a blood test to identify people at high risk of heart disease by measuring levels of the antibody. He hopes this will be available on the NHS in the next three to four years.

Those people identified as being most at risk can then make lifestyle changes to reduce the threat.

Even more significant, Dr Khamis is also developing an antibody injection that could be given to patients at high risk, which he hopes would be available in the next five to ten years.

However, he cautions more research is needed on both the test and the treatment to confirm their effectiveness before they could become available.

Scientists do not yet fully know why some people have higher levels of the antibodies.

Standard