Long before fly DNA became inextricable from that of Jeff Goldblum, there was Wolbachia.
On Thursday, the University of Rochester issued a press release relating that some of its scientists, in conjunction with the J. Craig Venter Institute, had discovered the entire genome of the bacterial parasite Wolbachia inside the genome of its host.
The research ... shows that lateral gene transferthe movement of genes between unrelated speciesmay happen much more frequently between bacteria and multicellular organisms than scientists previously believed, posing dramatic implications for evolution.
For those of you who slept through high school biology, this means that the DNA of a parasitic bacteria has become part of the DNA of the fruit fly it was found in. Wolbachia exists within 70% of the world's invertebrates, meaning that there may be many more cases of genetically influenced bugs out there as these mutant individuals reproduce.
So, if microbes and multicellular organisms have been doing the genome shuffle, what does this mean for us? Is there a little M. tuberculosis in my making, or perhaps some M. leprae? The idea that evolution might have received a kick in the rump due to the inheritance of the genes of unrelated species makes you wonder.
"Such transfers have happened before in the distant past" notes Werren. "In our very own cells and those of nearly all plants and animals are mitochondria, special structures responsible for generating most of our cells' supply of chemical energy. These were once bacteria that lived inside cells, much like wolbachia does today. Mitochondria still retain their own, albeit tiny, DNA, and most of the genes moved into the nucleus in the very distant past. Like wolbachia, they have passively exchanged DNA with their host cells. It's possible wolbachia may follow in the path of mitochondria, eventually becoming a necessary and useful part of a cell.
"In a way, wolbachia could be the next mitochondria," says Werren. "A hundred million years from now, everyone may have a wolbachia organelle."
"Well, not us," he laughs. "We'll be long gone, but wolbachia will still be around."
Oh, shit.
I, for one, welcome our new Wolbachia overlords.
Flux would like to remind you that as a trusted intertubez personality, she can be helpful in rounding up others whose genetic code is ripe for infection.
Another interesting thing about this discovery is that it's been seen before, except all the experimenters went "oh damn, I got some Wolbachia contamination in my fruit-fly DNA" and tossed the samples.
I think the hard part of this particular paper was proving beyond a doubt that the samples and laboratory protocol was pristine.
gcash056 said:
Another interesting thing about this discovery is that it's been seen before, except all the experimenters went "oh damn, I got some Wolbachia contamination in my fruit-fly DNA" and tossed the samples.
Well, yeah, and the implications of that are pretty incredible. They tossed out a lot of bacteria-coding as contamination when they mapped the human genome.
Going back and looking at that may be very interesting.
gcash056 said:
Another interesting thing about this discovery is that it's been seen before, except all the experimenters went "oh damn, I got some Wolbachia contamination in my fruit-fly DNA" and tossed the samples.
Well, yeah, and the implications of that are pretty incredible. They tossed out a lot of bacteria-coding as contamination when they mapped the human genome.
Going back and looking at that may be very interesting.
Garfish said:
Hmm... does this mean that one day, potentially, specially altered bacteria could be used for gene therapy OR more importantly giving me x-ray vision?
That's a possibility, but I don't think that will really be in the works for quite a long time. Currently most work in the gene therapy field is using viruses, which are incredibly simple where as bacteria are quite complex. Keep It Simple, Stupid! I think viruses are still the way to go for gene therapy. That being said... I could be wrong
Garfish said:
Hmm... does this mean that one day, potentially, specially altered bacteria could be used for gene therapy OR more importantly giving me x-ray vision?
That's a possibility, but I don't think that will really be in the works for quite a long time. Currently most work in the gene therapy field is using viruses, which are incredibly simple where as bacteria are quite complex. Keep It Simple, Stupid! I think viruses are still the way to go for gene therapy. That being said... I could be wrong
Ah, thanks for clearing that up, it's been a while since I touched anything to do with biology.
Garfish said:
Hmm... does this mean that one day, potentially, specially altered bacteria could be used for gene therapy OR more importantly giving me x-ray vision?
That's a possibility, but I don't think that will really be in the works for quite a long time. Currently most work in the gene therapy field is using viruses, which are incredibly simple whereas bacteria are quite complex. Keep It Simple, Stupid! I think viruses are still the way to go for gene therapy. That being said... I could be wrong
I guess the gene therapy guys will have to look carefully at places their engineered viruses might therapise, if the genome they're looking at contains stuff they didn't know was there before.
For some reason while reading it I was reminded of Chimeras. Since the DNA of an organism can blend...
whoah, too many thoughts, brain shut down.
So much we don't know because we just throw the research away or think it isn't important or possible. It is always exciting to see what might be around the corner.
Garfish said:
Hmm... does this mean that one day, potentially, specially altered bacteria could be used for gene therapy OR more importantly giving me x-ray vision?
That's a possibility, but I don't think that will really be in the works for quite a long time. Currently most work in the gene therapy field is using viruses, which are incredibly simple where as bacteria are quite complex. Keep It Simple, Stupid! I think viruses are still the way to go for gene therapy. That being said... I could be wrong
It's not a matter of simple/complex; it's a matter of mechanism. Viruses reproduce by actively inserting their DNA in a host's cells, taking it over and forcing the cell to make copies of the virus. Wolbachia (and similar parasites actually categorized as "alive") do not, as a matter of normal function, exchange genetic material with their hosts. Bacterial DNA spliced into a host's genetic code is a much rarer phenomenon. (Although, I guess, not quite as rare as we thought!)
Flux
SUICIDEGIRL
Georgia, USA
SEP 04, 2007 11:09 AM