Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ir9hbqx wrote


HollandJim t1_ir9if8p wrote

I thought mitochondrial DNA was something we had already, passed down through our mothers. That’s (in theory) how the idea of “Mitochondrial Eve” came about.


Antique-Painting-627 t1_ir9ipu7 wrote

We already have mitochondrial DNA... But it is confined to the mitochondria. This says that the mitochondrial DNA is moving into the nucleus


Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_ir9jygq wrote

> This says that the mitochondrial DNA is moving into the nucleus

It also says that might be causing cancer...

>In some cases, the insertion of mtDNA contributes to the development of cancer. “Our nuclear genetic code is breaking and being repaired all the time,” said Chinnery. “Mitochondrial DNA appears to act almost like a band-aid, a sticking plaster to help the nuclear genetic code repair itself. And sometimes this works, but on rare occasions if might make things worse or even trigger the development of tumors.”

I feel like they buried the lede there


DarbyBartholomew t1_irag87k wrote

Am I wrong to interpret that as "some of the time this reduces your chances of getting cancer but on rare occasions it increases it instead"? So might cause cancer, might prevent cancer?


ScoobyDeezy t1_irat42a wrote

DNA editing is a crap shoot. Good mutations survive and get passed on, bad mutations die.

It’s a tale as old as time.


verasev t1_irb81fa wrote

Even then, some genes offer both benefits and negatives. It might be better to stop categorizing mutations as good or bad and just examine whether they're useful for a given context.


Technic235 t1_irdc32g wrote

The only questions that matters is can I survive and can I reproduce? If both are yes, then the mutation is an evolutionary win.


verasev t1_irdcmas wrote

By survive, you mean survive long enough to reproduce. Nature doesn't reward long life, it rewards reproduction. Life is just an entropic process. It's all the things that come as side effects that matter to humans. I read a book that argued destroying our consciousness would be an evolutionary boon. Made me think that at a certain point you have to choose between quality of life or evolutionary fitness.


Technic235 t1_irdetao wrote

Ya, you're right about surviving. This next part is my personal view of evolution. I have begun to think that biological evolution is only the first step of evolution. Social bonds is the 2nd step in that knowledge gained through lifetimes can be passed down through generations through culture rather than just hard-coding behaviors into our DNA. To get from step 1 to step 2 takes the longest but each step is exponentially faster to progress. Step 3 is technology that emerges as a natural consequence of culture and generational knowledge. Step 4??? Maybe it's AI? Step 5??? Maybe it's revisiting step 1 and editing our own genes. Like I said, I expect each step to be faster than the previous.


verasev t1_irdfdb1 wrote

I imagine the line between mechanical and biological will also blur and you'll have organic robots. So it could be both AI and gene editing. I've contributed to culture through raising a step-son but I'm a dead-end biological reproduction-wise. And I'm here on the internet, scribbling in the margins of human culture's great big electronic record book. Who knows what parts of me will persist? Probably nothing significant.


salablesaturnine t1_irdhz8r wrote

I've thought along similar lines. There are multiple levels of "intelligence", each building upon the last and characterized by a new, faster, and more efficient way to process and store information about how best to live.

    1. Dumb matter
    1. Life - stores information about how best to live as DNA; updates it via evolution; passes it down via reproduction
    • 2a. Life with isolated brains - stores information about how best to live as synaptic weights; updates it via thinking; no ability for thoughts to be passed down
    1. Brain that can speak - stores information about how best to live via often-retold stories; updates it via making up new stories or modifying existing ones; knowledge is passed down by retelling stories to children - the genesis of family
    1. Brain that can write - stores information about how best to live as persistent symbols applied to physical objects; updates it via publishing new works or modifying existing ones; knowledge is passed down by duplicating these works - the genesis of society
    • 4a. Brain that can write very efficiently - printing press, radio, telephone, television, the computer, the internet - we are here
    1. ??? - anything that makes updating memory faster, particularly if it allows also updating lower levels (e.g. humans currently find it much easier to update their memories than to update their DNA)

rephaim_ t1_irb8a8t wrote

Bad mutations that aren't known, aren't cared about, or don't present until after children are reared get passed on. That's why we still have known bad mutations on top of the garden variety natural mutations.

[Edit: typos]


Olorin_in_the_West t1_ird5enr wrote

If our genetic codes are breaking, why don’t they just fill the gaps with frog dna?


f_d t1_irbzok9 wrote

Anything that tampers with the genome has the potential to contribute to cancer. It's not that shocking.


KnightCreed13 t1_ir9ixzc wrote

Well why tf is it doing that?


Darkhorseman81 t1_ir9o901 wrote

Some Viruses want to avengers assemble. Ask cytoskeletal ARC why. It's responsible for the efficiency of human long term memory, but started as an ancient aids like virus.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

You can reverse amnesia by stimulating arc protein expression. Chems like Withanolides stimulate it.


catty_big t1_iravqab wrote

Amnesia, of course! I knew there was something I wanted to try to reverse. Now if only I could remember what that thing was I wanted to try to reverse.


mrsmoose123 t1_ir9pw82 wrote

This so cool! How plants work as medicine in our bodies seems to be getting a better evidence base.

How are we able to find things like this out? I'm aware genetic sequencing is involved, but it baffles me how we know which proteins do what.


danielravennest t1_ir9ws4q wrote

> it baffles me how we know which proteins do what.

Mice have 85% of the same DNA as we do. So-called "knockout mice" have bits of DNA removed, then they see what problem removing it causes.

The other approach is finding an antigen that blocks the particular protein, then see what happens.


BiggWigg92 t1_irc2721 wrote

Can ypu elaborate on that or share a good source to read up on that please?


Lvl100Glurak t1_ir9zgds wrote

so mitochondria are weak creatures and they know. so instead of becoming strong themselves, they offered help to strong creatures. this seemed very kind, but in reality they're playing the long game and soon they overtake those strong creatures, as the strong creatures are 100% dependent on the ATP mitochondria produce. they're like the hidden elite in our bodies.


adamtheskill t1_irayald wrote

Probably just because it's possible, it's not like the dna has a goal. It's just pure chance and if any changes increase the chance of dna getting passed on they will persist. It's not like a higher chance of getting cancer in old age has any effect on how many children a person has on average.


rephaim_ t1_irb9cdk wrote

Getting into more genomes is an endgame. There are viruses fossilized in our genomes, it's good for the virus because it's dna gets passed on with no additional work, and it's good for the host because that virus won't trigger immune responses since it's now recognized as part of the host.


HollandJim t1_ir9iuqi wrote

Ah, okay - my last science class was in the late 1970s, so at least I learned a new thing today!



ctothel t1_ir9kdyg wrote

To be clear, mitochondria were once separate organisms, which had evolved to process oxygen for their energy.

Our single-called ancestors probably got energy from hydrogen, or from fermentation, but one of them engulfed a mitochondria (actually, an ancestor of what we call mitochondria) and was then able to use the energy produced by it.

When that cell divided, the mitochondria divided too, going along for the ride. This line of symbiotic cells was very successful, and is the ancestor of all plants and animals.

The exact same thing happened on a sub branch of this line, but with the cell also incorporating a kind of photosynthetic bacteria we now call chloroplasts. This sub branch evolved into plants.

Both chloroplasts and mitochondria have their own separate DNA that has nothing to do with ours. They are literally separate organisms that make up part of our cells.


Rheytos t1_ir9q7h3 wrote

Every time man. It gives me the thrills how wonderfully complicated nature is. Truly marvelous


ctothel t1_irex83i wrote

Hey do you know why your other reply to me was removed?


Rheytos t1_irfj49x wrote

I don’t. I don’t think we said anything wrong… Reddit mods gotta mod I guess


peolorat t1_ir9ocg7 wrote

Didn't know this, my mind is currently blown. I though that somewhere in one of our chromosomes there was the genetic sequences for all the proteins that make up a mitochondria as well.

So what happens if we introduce chloroplasts into an animal? Did anyone try?


ctothel t1_ir9qqki wrote

Mind blowing is the appropriate response!

I’m not sure if anybody has tried what you’re suggesting. It would probably just be broken down though, unless there was some technique nobody knows about.


Guciguciguciguci t1_irazq3p wrote

It will be the first animal that doesn’t have to eat!!

If humans could stand in the sun three times a day and then be like: ah, that was delicious. Now back to work.


UmdieEcke2 t1_irhk0hp wrote

Sure, although you would probably have to sunbath around 300 hours per day to cover your energy needs.


Darkhorseman81 t1_ir9oent wrote

H2S hydrogen and sulphur. It's why H2S is still such an important epigenetic signalling molecule.


Alternative-Flan2869 t1_ir9nm0l wrote

Is the euglena the crossroad point of plant/animal separation/ evolution?


ctothel t1_ir9pzms wrote

It doesn’t really make sense to look at a species that’s alive today and think of it as the last common ancestor of two branches, because that species has been changing as well (even if not very much).

Plus, given we don’t have chloroplasts but the Euglena does, it might be safe to assume it split off the branch that would eventually form plants after we did. Unless we once had chloroplasts but got rid of them, but I haven’t heard that theory.

But it seems as though the Euglena split off quite early, yes.


kongx8 t1_irevs0g wrote

It is thought that euglena split off from the plant/green algae line before the development chloroplasts from captured Cyanobacteria. It likely that Euglena’s ancestors received their chloroplasts from engulfing an eukaryotic green algae. Over time, the engulfed algae was reduced to a chloroplast and a nucleus, thus serving a similar function to the original chloroplasts.


travelling-through t1_irc1bb7 wrote

so what does this change mean for us? do we have an idea?

by we I mean any human anywhere who is qualified to have an educated guess


ctothel t1_irdn77l wrote

If I understand your question, mitochondria are probably responsible for us existing at all. The partnership between our cells and theirs granted the energy required to become multi-cellular, and to start increasing the size of the genome.

It takes energy to copy a gene, and more genes require more energy. Oxygen is much more efficient energy source for cells than the alternatives.

There’s also a theory that having a separate set of genes that handled energy means the host cell didn’t need to worry about that bit, which allowed both us and our “powerhouse” to adapt more quickly and effectively to our environment.


travelling-through t1_irdrbz4 wrote

I was mislead by the title. I thought the mitochondria is now working its way in to nuclear DNA and it didn't do that before, so thats why I was asking about how this will affect us

Now I had time to read the full article and I get it.
Thanks for trying to answer though.


ctothel t1_irdrli5 wrote

Oh I see! I thought you meant the change that came from the original incorporation of mitochondria. Makes sense now :-)


ClarkFable t1_iraw6hc wrote

but that mitochondrial DNA is printed from some subset of the 46 chromosomes as everything else, so what's the distinction? i.e., humans start as a zygote, not a zygote + some mitochondrial DNA, right?


kanated t1_ircm4po wrote

>that mitochondrial DNA is printed from some subset of the 46 chromosomes

It's not.

Don't think of mitochondria as just another organelle. Think of them as something similar to a parasite that lives inside your cells, except it's beneficial.

They have their own DNA, they reproduce independently. They aren't formed in the zygote, they already come inside the egg. They spread from mother to child this way for billions of years. Each time a cell divides, some of them go along.


rintryp t1_irb6e17 wrote

Actually the mitochondria are a given from the mother, so the egg already has mitochondria whereas semen only brings in some nucleus DNA but no mitochondria.


Arcal t1_irbmw53 wrote

Mitochondria have their own chromosomes, tens to thousands of copies per cell. Your mother's egg cell had its own mitochondria with its own DNA. That's what all your mitochondria have now. Somehow, the mitochondria from sperm are specifically targeted and eliminated. We're still working on that mechanism.


TheGreat_War_Machine t1_irchier wrote

Sperm don't have mitochondria in the first place, do they not?


Arcal t1_irckqk1 wrote

They do, hard working ones too, for all that swimming.


BigUptokes t1_irbpdnu wrote

Okay, I’m no scientist - what does this actually mean?


Dragonmodus t1_ir9iqdb wrote

This mitochondrial DNA is -in- the mitochondria, we have two sets of DNA. That DNA is being copied (moved?) to the nucleus for some reason.


Sonic_Sugar t1_ir9jcyk wrote

I am also not a scientist, but my understanding of the read was that mtDNA is being inserted to repair DNA. I don’t understand all the jargon and processes, though, and this week I don’t have the time to deep dive into it as I would like to.


Arcal t1_irbn62p wrote

The nucleus is a safer place for DNA, protected and with more advanced repair mechanisms, so its advantageous to have the genes drift over. The original pre-mitochondrial microbe didn't have a nucleus, and it doesn't matter so much with single celled organisms.


Nicodolivet t1_irboalp wrote

And mRNA can be integrated to human DNA.


TheGreat_War_Machine t1_irchvpc wrote

mRNA is created using DNA, so it doesn't make sense for mRNA to be integrated into DNA. Not to mention the fact that it is impossible, because both use different nucleotides.