Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thenaterator t1_ir9tcru wrote

Scientist here. As usual the press release (at least the headline) is misleading, and invokes a lot in the imagination of readers.

You have 2 places where DNA are stored, and they are for all practical purposes, completely different. (1) In the nucleus of all of your cells. This is, in a sense, YOUR DNA. It encodes all the stuff that makes you. (2) In the mitochondria of all of your cells (often called "the powerhouse of the cell). It encodes all the stuff the mitochondria needs to generate "power."

All organisms we call "Eukaryotes" have these 2 stores. That's because (we think), Eukaryotes came into being when two different types of organisms fused together into one symbiotic organism. Hence the 2 different stores of DNA. Each store is descended from those ancestral organisms.

We already know that DNA can be transferred from the mitochondria to the nuclear store. In principle it's similar to how DNA can be shared across species (called "Horizontal Gene Transfer").

This paper? It describes these DNA transfer events in 66,083 human genomes, and speculates on the downstream effects of those transfers.

It isn't something just happening to humans.


rosellem t1_ir9yl6g wrote

How is the headline misleading?

I mean, it's not the full story, but you can never get the full story from a headline. If you just read the headline, yeah a lot will be left to the imagination, but then, your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

A headline that leaves out important details is not misleading, it's just a normal headline. The details are in the article.


HollandJim t1_iraiym8 wrote

Only goes to show what passes for a “normal” headline these days. I’d say the headline misdirects the reader with an vague inference, and it’s up to them to run through the article to straighten themselves out (if they can understand the details). The tone of the headline itself is almost worrying if you have no idea what they’re suggesting.


rosellem t1_irajfam wrote

>it’s up to them to run through the article to straighten themselves out

Yes! You need to read articles to not be ignorant. That's the way it has always worked. That's not something that happens "these days".


HollandJim t1_irdcfyf wrote

I would rather not panic people into reading an article - I’d prefer to encourage them instead of generating a fight-or-flight response. That’s my point.


LordAlveric t1_irdgmvc wrote

I like my headlines to be accurate and factual. The headline for this article is click bait, clearly aimed at the uninformed. I almost ignored it myself, because cross transfer of this nature is hardly anything new. But the headline makes it seem as though this is something novel, which is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, only a fool would expect honesty in a headline, and in today's cyberworld that is driven by clicks and eyeballs, it is tough for the publishers to resist the temptation.


rosellem t1_ire8tcc wrote

>I like my headlines to be accurate and factual.

What part of this headline is inaccurate or untruthful?

>But the headline makes it seem as though this is something novel, which is intellectually dishonest.

Where? how? The headline is a simple, factual statement.

The only thing that implies it is "new", is that they are writing a story about it. The headline is very simple and implies nothing. If you read this headline and make the assumption it is "novel", that is your fault. You should not make that assumption. You can't make assumption's when reading headlines.


GypsyV3nom t1_irb6pi4 wrote

It also happens more in obligate aerobes who need those mitochondria for respiration. Facultative anerobes (like most yeasts) have some pretty chunky mitochondrial DNA, especially compared to the highly slimmed-down versions found in mammals.


HollandJim t1_irdcmhq wrote

I neglected to say thank you for that detailed response. Looking back now, I think I learned more about “Eve” from Time magazine and Battlestar Galactica than in university in the day.


[deleted] t1_irap94n wrote

So we might have some feature of bacteria in the future


ClarkFable t1_irawgyb wrote

How is mitochondrial DNA stored separately if all humans start as a zygote? It's not a zygote + some mitochondrion, is it?


Arcal t1_irbninw wrote

Yes, it is. All the zygote mitochondria are maternally derived an have their own DNA. The fathers are selectively degraded.

Over millennia, genes have been moving from the mitochondria to the nuclear DNA, there are only 13 protein coding genes left in the mitochondrial genome now vs 30,000 ish in the nucleus.


DanielNoWrite t1_irazl1u wrote

It's passed along with the human dna, primarily in the egg, meaning it's inherited maternally (though I believe there are some exceptions to this).