March 23, 2005

OH SAY DOES THAT FINCH-SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE?:

Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene (NICHOLAS WADE, 3/23/05, NY Times)

In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents, as if some handy backup copy with the right version had been made in the grandparents' generation or earlier.

The finding implies that some organisms may contain a cryptic backup copy of their genome that bypasses the usual mechanisms of heredity. If confirmed, it would represent an unprecedented exception to the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century. Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material.

The discovery also raises interesting biological questions - including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system.


It could certainly help explain the stubborn persistence of species.


MORE:
Plants Fix Genes With Copies From Ancestors (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, March 23, 2005)

Plants inherit secret stashes of genetic information from their long-dead ancestors and can use them to correct errors in their own genes -- a startling capacity for DNA editing and self-repair wholly unanticipated by modern genetics, researchers said yesterday.

The newly discovered phenomenon, which resembles the caching of early versions of a computer document for viewing later, allows plants to archive copies of genes from generations ago, long assumed to be lost forever.

Then, in a move akin to choosing their parents, plants can apparently retrieve selected bits of code from that archive and use them to overwrite the genes they have inherited directly. The process could offer survival advantages to plants suddenly burdened with new mutations or facing environmental threats for which the older genes were better adapted. [...]

Pruitt said others have occasionally noted the appearance of "revertant" plants but ignored them, assuming they were the result of sloppy technique or other errors. By contrast, Pruitt and Lolle took the observation seriously, said Elliot Meyerowitz, a pioneering arabidopsis researcher at California Institute of Technology.

"There are different sorts of scientists. Some like to ignore the exceptions, and others like to concentrate on them," Meyerowitz said, adding that he suspects the novel gene-fixing mechanism is present in a wide variety of organisms, including animals. He suspects the trick has been overlooked because it operates only some of the time and because scientists have been predisposed to write off the evidence as random events.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 23, 2005 12:00 PM
Comments

The ancients are in the present.

Posted by: ghostcat at March 23, 2005 12:59 AM

Uh oh. Better dust off our copy of Summa Contra Gentiles. That "back-up copy" is stored where?

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 23, 2005 4:32 AM

It kind of gives you hope for Harry's and Bart's kids, doesn't it?

Posted by: Peter B at March 23, 2005 8:12 AM

Bart is actually an argument against the self-correcting genome.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 8:21 AM

Peter:

I was counting on regression toward the mean.

Posted by: jeff at March 23, 2005 10:04 AM

This passage struck me as a bit odd:

The finding poses a puzzle for evolutionary theory because it corrects mutations, which evolution depends on as generators of novelty. Dr. Meyerowitz said he did not see this posing any problem for evolution because it seems to happen only rarely. "What keeps Darwinian evolution intact is that this only happens when there is something wrong," Dr. Surridge said.

Eh? Who, or what, determines that a mutation is "wrong" and that the self-correction mechanism should kick in?

Note that the article was accepted by Nature within six weeks of receiving it, despite its flying in the face of conventional wisdom.

Posted by: Eugene S. at March 23, 2005 11:14 AM

Eugene:

The Dutch boy only has so many fingers.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 11:30 AM

That would put scientists in the unique position of being both the boy and the flood (if we take Darwinian evolution to be the dike).

Posted by: Eugene S. at March 23, 2005 11:35 AM

Yes, Science can't withstand science.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 11:38 AM

Reading this thread just now, I had the most vivid image of a rural New England country store, in winter, with a wood stove and cracker barrel, surrounded by old-timers and off-season farmers.

Posted by: ghostcat at March 23, 2005 2:28 PM

Fitting, since they're the ones Darwin got it from.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 2:32 PM

Off topic OJ, but the Eric/Julia saga is taking strange turns. Sailor posted a letter from one of his readers as follows:

"This reminds me of something I meant to write about Julia Roberts' unfortunately named progeny.... her daughter is named Hazel, as you know. Hazel Moder. Which sounds an awful lot like the hillbilly psycho protagonist of Flannery O'Connor's famous novel Wise Blood: Hazel Motes. This rang a bell and I checked: Julia Roberts' stepfather IS surnamed 'Motes.' Her mother is now Betty Motes. so her daughter is named Hazel Moder, whose stepgrandfather is named Motes...I hope little Ms. Moder never goes postal."

Posted by: h-man at March 23, 2005 2:44 PM

taking?

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 3:47 PM

can someone refer me to the origins of the eric/julia storyline ? i can enjoy the various posts on an ad hoc basis, but i am really curious about how it all got started.

Posted by: cjm at March 23, 2005 6:09 PM

cjm:

I simply refuse to accept the idea that she isn't him in a skirt.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 6:29 PM

cjm:

Go with it, and be happy it deflects his theocratic and Inquisitorial instincts.

Posted by: Peter B at March 23, 2005 7:15 PM

oj: this presents a paradox, if eric and julia are the same person, then who is the father of their twins ?

Posted by: cjm at March 23, 2005 11:19 PM

twins?

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 11:39 PM
« WEDDED TO THEIR OWN DECLINE: | Main | EAT THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM: »