DNA mutations within our bodies.

This article opens a can of worms in my mind. If this proves to be true, it means we may have varying DNA mutations in our bodies. Would these mutations effect DNA testing used in crime detection? Will this news effect the readings of DNA used for ancestral identification. I am not sure I am reading this quite right.... my hand may not have the same DNA as the rest of my body? If this is true than specialized genetic therapies they are researching may not be feasible.

www.sciencedaily.com...

This was listed on science daily a few days ago also. There must have been some modification of the article and it was listed to front page today. I have been thinking about it for a few days and am wondering if someone out there with more knowledge of this can shed light on the implications of this research.

reply to post by rickymouse

Next up. How to cheat on a DNA test. Sorry, officer, you got the wrong man. The DNA sample I provided proves it.

It wasn't me.

Or how about modifying your own DNA, like scraping inside the barrel of a gun to change the rifling?

Ooh,Ooh, how about modifying others DNA so they are guilty of your crime?

The possibilities are blameless.

Now "they" are developing computer code to build artificial DNA.
There goes the neighbourhood

As far as practical application goes, this unique programming language creates a coded set of instructions to build DNA molecules, building on the concept of chemical reaction network theory, which is best described as an “area of applied mathematics that attempts to model the behavior of real world chemical systems,” which in this case, is none other than the building blocks of life, DNA itself.

www.complex.com

Interesting article. These identical somatic mutations the researchers found in multiple individuals' mitochondrial DNA are described as occurring only in kidney, liver, and skeletal tissue, not throughout the body. It seems this will only be the beginning of research into how widespread these mutations are, how they arise, what their effects are, etc. but they're suggesting the mutations are likely linked with the aging process. They aren't something a person could choose to induce at will (say, to try to throw off DNA profiling or mess with a paternity test), and they wouldn't appear in DNA extracted from non-kidney/liver/skeletal tissue samples. However, it could mean that DNA extracted from a sample of your kidney/liver/skeletal tissue during your youth wouldn't perfectly match a sample taken from the same place many years later or one taken at the same time but from another part of your body.

I look forward to the insights continued research into these patterns of mutation may yield.

reply to post by rickymouse


I don't really see how this is news. Mutations can occur in the DNA of any cell; if the cell thereafter undergoes mitosis, it stands to reason that the mutant DNA will also be present in the daughter cells. I believe this is how some cancers form.

Even creepier, you can be chimeral, and be what's known as a mosaic person.

As such, you would have the DNA from 2 or more sets of germ cells.

Say, for example, your mom *should* have had fraternal twins. Instead, the two people merge and form one mosaic person. Some of your cells will be your twin. Some will be you.

reply to post by Astyanax


This article addresses that these mutations aren't random though, like there is something structuring the DNA changes. I bet they will find a pattern to these mutations of the DNA. It is not like cancer, it seems that this is common to a lot of people. It appears to be a possible positive adaptation so a person can adapt to evolutionary changes within his lifetime. So your organs can mutate to allow for some changes in diet. These changes cannot be passed on to offspring though, the diet has to be taught to the young. It could go the other way though, with negative effects. Genetic specific changeability passed on through teaching. One diet cannot fit all, one diet can negatively effect another person by either eliminating necessary mutations or causing troublesome mutations.

This evidence could play a major role in defining nutrigenomic changes in the body. I think they also refer to this as Epigenomic. It is not only the nutrients that we presently recognize but the chemical structure of the foods that can effect these things. The plants defense system and immune system chemicals, the chemicals that give different foods an either good or blah taste, may be important. A chicken that runs around eating bugs and weeds tastes a lot better than one in an environment void of these. It is because the chemistry of the meat is different, possibly supplying us with chemicals to establish necessary things.

This information kind of blows the present way we look at things out of the water.

reply to post by opopanax


The skeletal tissue includes cartiledge and also tendons and muscle attachment materials. The altering of this can either cause good or bad results. The kidneys and liver detox the body, maybe the change in genetics here helps to protect the body or it can actually cause problems if it does not mutate correctly.

reply to post by rickymouse

I think they also refer to this as Epigenomic. ...
This information kind of blows the present way we look at things out of the water.

Not epigenetics - this is about genetic mutation/change - while epigenetics refers to changes that are NOT genetic (don't affect genes).

Yes - this does blow lots out of the water. For one thing, genetic inheritance is even more different than what we were taught, and Eugenics is even more of a crock than it was previously proved to be.




PS. S&F for a GREAT find.

reply to post by rickymouse


One of the BIG implications here has to do with organ transplants - organs have to be genetically matched to prevent rejection. Given these findings, any tests need to be done on the actual organ, not the 'donor.'

Things are just getting curiouser and curiouser.

reply to post by soficrow


To me this information backs my hypothesis that as you age and eat different foods, you may not be able to return to eating the same foods as you did when you were very young or as your parents did. These changes in the DNA in the liver may mean that evolution within your personal lifetime can effect your livers ability to detox. It also gives me the idea that genetic changes can cause personal genetic diseases that your children will never get if their evolution does not follow your path. The kids get a second chance at starting anew. It appears that kids can follow their grandparents ways while we may not be able to.

soficrow
reply to post by rickymouse

 

One of the BIG implications here has to do with organ transplants - organs have to be genetically matched to prevent rejection. Given these findings, any tests need to be done on the actual organ, not the 'donor.'

Things are just getting curiouser and curiouser.

I must be getting a little nuts, information like this actually gets me exited. It is probably boring to most people so I guess I do not fit into the norm of society well anymore.

Oh well, I have made every job I ever had into a fun job. I even made shoveling a truckload of chicken manure around fruit trees and into a garden for an older woman into an interesting job when I was younger, I think the smell made my brother and I drunk or high.

In order for this to help liver transplant success it would be necessary to know the makeup of the donor liver. This could necessitate a lot of biopsies in choosing a liver from donors. This could also mean their thoughts of growing organs using skin cell stem cells may not actually work properly. I can't actually wait to see more information about this subject in the future.

reply to post by rickymouse

This article addresses that these mutations aren't random though, like there is something structuring the DNA changes.

They just found that some unrelated people carried the same mutation. They were probably affected by the same environmental mutagen. Still nothing new.

reply to post by Astyanax

They just found that some unrelated people carried the same mutation. They were probably affected by the same environmental mutagen. Still nothing new.

No - they found that individuals can carry several distinct genetic profiles - and ALSO found that some mutations occur in unrelated individuals.

...two novel discoveries: first, a person can have several DNA mutations in parts of their body, with their original DNA in the rest -- resulting in several different genotypes in one individual -- and second, some of the same genetic mutations occur in unrelated people.

FYI - Mutagens do not necessarily affect different individuals in the same way - which is why (somatic) mutation has always been assumed to be "random." ...It's possible that the mutations identified in this study are beneficial, and also, maybe spread horizontally like antibiotic-resistance genes in bacteria. ...Further study is definitely needed.

...these tissue-specific, recurrent, common mutations in mtDNA among unrelated study subjects -- only detected in three body tissues -- are "not likely being developed and maintained through purely random processes," according to Williams. They indicate "a completely different model …. a decidedly non-random process that results in particular mutations, but only in specific tissues."

...If our human DNA changes, or mutates, in patterns, rather than randomly; if such mutations "match" among unrelated people; or if genetic changes happen only in part of the body of one individual, what does this mean for our understanding...

...The theory would be that selected mutations confer a selective advantage to mitochondria...

..."Most genetic changes don't cause disease..."

reply to post by soficrow


The discovery of Horizontal transfer of genetics is relatively new. This discovery of horizontal transfer is somehow related to these findings. This brings up another possibility, it is whether the sperm of an animal can somehow interact with gene expression of the fertilized egg through horizontal transfer. This would mean that if the female was interacting sexually with other animals other after getting pregnant that there could be genetic changes. The sexual tactics of the female could also interact with her DNA but it is unlikely to effect the dna of the eggs. Just something I am toying with. Maybe this is why there is so much emphasis on virgin mothers in past writings. But they may have been wrong, the eggs are protected, the original mitochondrial dna would have not been effected in the next generation.

I do not have any evidence for this assumption and it is just an assumption. I cannot find any research on this subject, sort of like it's been purposely ignored. Maybe now there will be some new research on this coming out.

Intelligence and discovery are dependent on imagination that allows you to think out of the box. It requires processing of a lot of knowledge of all related subjects to come up with a viable hypothesis. It takes testing and thinking to try to evaluate the results, using a closed mind and a belief in the present knowledge mankind presently having as supreme will likely distort the interpretations to follow a path that is believed to be true. All great scientists were able to see out of the box and identify the right path we should be following. This creativity is a part of intellect, knowledge and intellect are very different. We have computers to hold knowledge now, before we had books. Often what we thought to be true isn't always the case because we misapply the evidence to situations where it does not apply. I understand that the sperm after the egg is fertilized cannot directly impregnate the egg, but can it have an influence on the junk DNA or gene expression. Can it alter the DNA of the fetus. This concept should be studied, it could be relevant to something....I do not know what because I have no way of testing. I can only furnish Ideas, someone may be able to use these ideas.

If my assumptions are wrong after someone tests them appropriately and diversely...then they are wrong. If you do not investigate something than you will never know. I am glad to see more and more investigations into things lately but most of the evidence is just shuffled away and not properly evaluated. The reasons vary from being in direct conflict with accepted beliefs to misinterpreting the evidence because of negative effects associated with profit or consensus of the time. You cannot fight city hall, city hall is a belief or consensus of individuals in control, not a building.

reply to post by rickymouse


well that's a can of worms - could set us back millenia if more people start buying the Eugenics of fundamentalism. Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant AND locked up. And blame 'em when any little thing goes wrong.

...do some research on "germ theory" and the "weismann barrier" - this is the dogma epigenetics and the sourced resaearch are bringing into question.

reply to post by soficrow


I've read about both of those before, but I just reread them as a refresher in case I missed something. I often go back and reread things as I go on, this makes me compare what new I learned with what started my journey to adjust my comprehension. People who do not reread articles later can stray off their path, I do not want to be someone like that.

The horizontal transfer of genetics that they said is a new discovery is just a new discovery. It has existed all along. We just didn't think it could happen but real research is showing that this concept is real. We should have no reason not to change knowledge as soon as more conclusive research refines this, but sadly to say, this will not get addressed correctly for a generation. People will often not accept something if it interferes with their belief in the knowledge they hold. Tie that to all the misinterpretation of evidence through the years and I do not blame them. Bacon was never that bad for most of us.

When we get bit by a dragon fly, it effects the Junk DNA and a record of the saliva or venom alters it. When enough of the junk DNA is changed it can possibly change the regular DNA. That is something I read in an article a while ago.. I might not have the exact wording right and the article was a research article so this may not be in books.

Maybe liver disease is caused by the altering of the DNA by something. We may have weakened our defenses that protect the DNA, something like depletion of the protective layer N-Acetyl Cysteine that surrounds it in the cells. There is probably another name for this substance depending on the science involved. I find that this science specific naming of things is kind of a pain. It is to confuse us and also to keep other sciences from latching onto the knowledge I think. Sort of an intellectual patent system. This is wrong, there should not be different names for the same thing in the English language. It makes my research harder, having to learn how different sciences address the same thing.

reply to post by soficrow


I know all that. Still nothing new. The article is just reporting on a study.

Well, this is an old thread but I figured I would add this to the thread since this deals with epigenetic changes to our genome. It means that our kids, if we can have them, might acquire intolerances that have never been in our families by the hormone or endocrine disrupters having an influence on our epigenetics and our kids epigenetics. Epigenetics are markers that are sort of like highway signs that steer our bodies immune, metabolic, and endocrine systems to the right place when we need to go there.

www.sciencedaily.com...

These endocrine disruptors and hormones have been in our diet and in medications for a long time, leading to a gradual change in health of our societies. Isn't it strange that people have been saying all along that these were not good for us yet the watchdogs keep saying there is no evidence to show a direct link. Maybe if they would have done this kind of testing years ago and ACCEPTED the results we would have less healthcare costs worldwide. But the ones creating these chemistries have been telling us they are safe, cause the FDA says they are safe. The FDA got their information regarding safety from the people making the crap.