Major_t0Ad
Major_t0Ad t1_jbnnlhz wrote
Reply to I just learned that the known shortest DNA in an “organism” is about 1700 base pairs in a certain virus. Is there a minimum amount of “code” required for an organism (or virus) to function in any capacity? by mcbergstedt
There is selection pressure to strip away genes you don't need because the investment for offspring is smaller. Environmental bacteria tend to lose genes quite quickly, e.g. when they enter simple growth medium in the lab because they don't have to "fight" for survival in harsh conditions.
So when you find organisms they kind of already have the 'minimum set' for their respective environment.
The smallest DNA for a free-living organism is around 1.3 Mbp with 1354 encoding genes (Marine bacteria Pelagibacter ubique)
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114057 Publication figure 1 shows different species, also mycoplasmum, in a scatter plot genome size over number of genes.
Major_t0Ad t1_j1qbprd wrote
Reply to comment by Available_Username_2 in All 10 people feared missing in Austria avalanche found alive | CNN by ybdiel
Four injured, one seriously. So four people "really" were there. The other six were only visible on a video taken shortly before the incident. Rescue workers assumed 10 missing because of the video. They continued searching until all persons could be identified and asked to call in.
Hopes were already high since no person were called missing by relatives or hotels.
Major_t0Ad t1_jbwx7av wrote
Reply to comment by Dr_Vesuvius in I just learned that the known shortest DNA in an “organism” is about 1700 base pairs in a certain virus. Is there a minimum amount of “code” required for an organism (or virus) to function in any capacity? by mcbergstedt
Adding to this awesome answer: ecologically speaking, the investment for offspring is much less dependent on sheer DNA mass for complex organisms than it is for bacteria. Bacteria optimize things unheard of for complex organisms, they have crazy selection pressure.