Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Hayley Mann | March 19th 2009 12:28 PM | 17 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Alternate Allele articles

All

About Hayley Mann

In 2006, I graduated from UC Davis with a degree in Genetics and Anthropology. I've had the privilege of working for various laboratories conducting research in different areas of interest including... Full Bio

We’re all aware of the severe genetic and unpleasant physical consequences that result from reproducing with a closely related relative.  Aside from unfortunate aesthetics, inbreeding can also lead to the extinction of small organismal populations.  This decrease of reproductive success is referred to as “inbreeding depression” and mechanisms that cause it are still being debated by biologists. 

A study led by Ken Paige at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms associated with inbreeding depression, and his results are surprising.  Paige’s study shows that two different mechanisms are responsible for reproductive decline, and even more surprisingly, alleles affected by inbreeding are not random and can be grouped into three categories of cellular function.  Furthermore, these alleles are regulated by only a few key genes.

Currently, there are two mechanisms that are considered to be responsible for inbreeding depression—loss of dominant alleles and the loss of overdominance.

The loss of dominant alleles and subsequent unmasking of recessive alleles, is generally thought to be the predominant mechanism responsible for a population’s loss of fitness.  Recessive alleles typically do not cause the organism harm unless two identical copies are inherited.  During inbreeding, the frequency of inheriting two recessive alleles increases.

Overdominance occurs when two different alleles inherited together causes a higher level of gene expression than that of the offspring’s parents.  Since inbreeding reduces genetic diversity, the odds of an offspring inheriting different alleles decreases.  Therefore, any advantage that is conferred by overdominance is lost.

Although scientists have known for more than a century that small inbred populations are likely to suffer from low reproductive success, biologists have long wondered which mechanisms are responsible.  Also, the impact of inbreeding on an organism’s entire genome had not been studied.

In order to clarify these unknowns, researchers at the University of Illinois mated genetically identical fruit flies and analyzed gene expression via microarray analysis.

To start, six different lines of inbred fruit flies were created.  All six strains were genetically identical to each other except for chromosome three.  The degree of inbreeding depression observed in the six fly lines was highly variable—24 to 59 percent when compared to non-inbred flies.

Paige’s Conservation Biology study is the first to analyze the impact of inbreeding on an entire genome.   In oligonucleotide microarray analysis, gene expression of a whole genome can be studied all at once.  Paige and colleagues compared the different inbred lines by determining if each individual gene was either more active (up-regulated) or less active (down-regulated).

In the fruit fly lines that suffered the greatest percentage of inbreeding depression, 567 genes were identified as up-regulated or down-regulated in comparison to lines that exhibited a lower percentage of inbreeding depression.  Only 62 percent of the 567 genes expressing differences were located on the non-genetically identical chromosome three.  This means that 38 percent of the genes differentially expressed on other chromosomes had been modified by chromosome three.

“These results suggest that a significant amount of inbreeding depression is due to a few key genes that affect the expression of other genes,” explains animal biology professor and department head Ken Paige.

Overall, microarray analysis showed that a relatively small amount of genes were affected by inbreeding directly, however, these  genes in turn regulated the overall expression of other genes which significantly increases the total genes affected at the whole genome level.

To answer the question of which mechanisms are involved, Paige found that approximately 75 percent of the reproductive declines seen in the inbred flies could be attributed to the loss of dominant alleles while 25 percent of the declines were due to the loss of overdominance.

“This means we have two mechanisms ongoing.  One does predominate, but the other may be important too,” Paige said.

Furthermore, the 567 genes found to be associated with inbreeding depression can be grouped into three broad categories of cellular function; metabolism, defense and stress.  A significant amount of metabolic genes as well as genes that fight pathogens were up-regulated in the most inbred flies.  The other group of genes that protect cells from damaging reactive molecules was down-regulated.   These changes in gene regulation divert energy away from reproduction and undermine other basic cellular functions.

“This is a surprising finding,” Paige said, “because we think of inbreeding as a random process.”

Genetic drift is the loss of genetic diversity within a population due to chance and occurs during inbreeding.   Therefore, we would expect genetic drift to cause the random fixation of different alleles within the different inbred fly lines as opposed to the same alleles affected in each fly line.

Paige further explains the significance of his findings, “Given the number of replicate lines and the fact that the set of genes found to be differentially expressed is not a random sampling of the gene pool but primarily related to metabolism and stress resistance, we find it unlikely that genetic drift alone can explain our results.”

Overall, the fact that a relatively large number of genes are affected by inbreeding is bad news for conservational biologists that are trying to preserve small populations of plants or animals on the brink of extinction.  Clearly there is no quick and easy fix for saving small populations and the best approach still is to maintain genetic diversity in natural populations long before the risk of extinction emerges.



Comments

BUt wat if like 2 rly smart + bueatiful ppl r bro + sis, there kids would b norml right?

Alternate Allele's picture
Shameful post, but I'll address it to keep it legit.

No.  There is a good chance their children would not turn out to be "normal."  Considering those genes that are perhaps responsible for "beauty" and "intellect" may be as a result of dominant genes expressed in the parents.  Highly genetically similar matings would lead to unmasking of recessive or rather "non-optimal" gene expression which could lead to severe physical developmental problems, disease and possibly even horrible typing and grammar skills.

Stellare's picture
Fantastic response: "...and possibly even horrible typing and grammar skills." Simply hilarious! :-)
I think I'll start my week-end with that. :-)

Actually, I would like to respond to Hayley Mann and Bente Lilja Bye on their response to the anonymous contributor. The question of highly fit offspring from genetically similar individuals is surprisingly legitimate without their condescending response. For example, one of the founders of theoretical population genetics, Sewall Wright, was the result of a first cousin mating (Hartl and Clark, 2007, pg 266).

Whether the fitness of the parents are resulting from the expression of “dominant” alleles actually provides reasoning for progeny from genetically identical parents to be MORE “fit” than the initial random mating population under some situations (Barrett and Charlesworth, 1991). Consider the following: according to the dominance theory, deleterious alleles are maintained in the population by mutation-selection balance. Therefore, with inbreeding, the increase of homozygosity will unmask recessive deleterious alleles allowing for more efficient selection (and thus removal) of these mutations. This may ultimately lower the frequency of recessive deleterious alleles in the population, leaving a population characteristically void of deleterious alleles. Thus, hypothetically, you could have two genetically identical individuals, and produce offspring that are not only “normal” but superior to the original outbred population (Roff, 2002).

Considering the original post has already indicated that the parents are “really smart and beautiful” may indicate that they may already have extremely low numbers of deleterious recessive alleles. I understand this post is more than two months late and therefore I do not expect a response, however any rebuttal is not only welcomed but desired. I hope the anonymous contributor sees this reply and that is was actually not a “stupid” question. Hayley Mann and Bente Lilja Bye, next time you are insult someone for the lack of knowledge in a given area make sure that you are well informed yourself. Feel free to check the cited literature.

Barrett, S.C.H. and D. Charlesworth. 1991. Effects of a Change in the Level of Inbreeding on the Genetic Load. Nature. 352:522-524.

Hartl, D.L. and A.G. Clark. 2007. Principles of Population Genetics. Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts.

Roff, D.A. 2002. Inbreeding Depression: Tests of the Overdominance and Partial Dominance Hypothesis. Evolution. 56(4):768-775.

logicman's picture
group of genes that protect cells from damaging reactive molecules was down-regulated

Do any, or could any of those genes protect the DNA integrity itself ?  I was thinking that if inbreeding reduces diversity, a reduction in DNA repair/protection mechanisms might be a counter-mechanism to loss of diversity amongst the species.  That would be useful where a species is near the edge of extinction.  Of course, 'useful' is a highly anthropocentric term.

Alternate Allele's picture
An interesting point and it seems completely plausible that a reduction in DNA repair could be a mechanism to generate genetic diversity faster (I'm sure a population biologist could confirm that).

So the reduction of DNA repair mechanisms certainly would lead to more mutations in a shorter time interval which would be in the almost extinct population's favor.  However, such an incredibly small percentage of mutations are actually advantageous to an organism.  So hypothetically, even though the rate of mutation would increase in a small population it would be completely up to chance if they are able to recover.  Recovery of course depends on environmental, population size and mutational chance.  Although many populations of different numbers of founding members have recovered from very grim circumstances (with and without help from conversationalists); including humans!  I'd love to write an article on human bottlenecks observed in our genome.

logicman's picture
I'd love to write an article on human bottlenecks observed in our genome.

I'd love to read an article on human bottlenecks observed in our genome.  :)

My interest in this is linguistic.  Are you familiar with any of the work of  Joseph Greenberg ?  His theories of languages and migration patterns show interesting similarities to the migration patterns inferred from mitochondrial DNA by Dr. Douglace Wallace et al.

As to bottlenecks.  Suppose a small community made smaller by some relatively long-term natural catastrophe.  Surely their seed stock and livestock would be subject to at least some degree of the same bottleneck mechanism?

Q:  Has anyone done a study on mDNA to seek correlations between humans and their livestock, or on DNA (presumably) in the case of plants?  I'm thinking of,  perhaps, Pacific or Indian ocean island populations.


adaptivecomplexity's picture
His theories of languages and migration patterns show interesting similarities to the migration patterns inferred from mitochondrial DNA by Dr. Douglace Wallace et al

I'm sure you've read Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, Peoples, and Languages. There are certainly some similarities there.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
A variety of studies (check out this one for some details) have estimated that we carry ~4-5 "lethal equivalents" of harmful (recessive) mutations.
Very roughly, what that means is that if you could produce children by having sex with yourself, you would have enough lethal mutations to kill those children 4-5 times over.
EDIT: OK, I'm describing this a little too roughly in the interest of making a lame joke. Basically, the idea is that you have enough harmful recessive alleles in your genome that, if they were all made homozygous, it would be enough to kill you 4-5 times over. It wouldn't be quite so bad for your kids if you reproduced hermaphroditically - they wouldn't be homozygous at all of these lethal sites. In any case, each of us harbors a lot of bad mutations.




logicman's picture
each of us harbors a lot of bad mutations.

Tsk! Tsk! There ought to be a law against that sort of thing. :)

Interesting article & comments regarding how this would enhance genetic diversity. Any thoughts as to whether these principles might vary across species? That is, might some species' genes could 'punish' inbreeding more than others, & if so why?

Alternate Allele's picture
Yes, inbreeding depression and its effects varies across species and their adaptive strategies differ.  In other words, some species with very low population sizes don't suffer as greatly. 

One hypothesis is that some of these species have endured numerous bottlenecks throughout its history and harmful alleles that reduce fitness have been lost/already weeded out by natural selection.  Therefore, the population has adapted to having low genetic diversity in that the majority of fixed alleles in the population do not reduce fitness.

Similarly, another "strategy" to dealing with a low population size would be to have an extremely large amount of genetic diversity to begin with; who you mate with doesn't matter because the odds of you inheriting two deleterious alleles are very small.

Then you have differences in genomes.  Prokaryotes are considered to have a very "efficient" genome in that the presence of "junk DNA" or rather, non-coding DNA is virtually non-existent.  Deleterious genes are excised/purged from the genome very quickly by either molecular mechanisms or death before reproduction.  Overall, small population size isn't that much of a concern in prokaryotes since rate of mutation is faster and harmful mutations are eliminated quickly.  This is in contrast to eukaryotes where genetic diversity is essential since we retain mutations and have a low rate of mutation.

Thanks for the enlightening response

logicman's picture
Thanks for the enlightening response

Ditto. :)

A follow-up question and a bit of idle speculation.

Parsimony.
 Surely the non-coding or 'junk' DNA must have a function.  Why replicate so much biological material to no apparent purpose?

Speculation. 
Is it possible that the 'junk' DNA's apparent redundancy is part of an error-correcting mechanism?  I'm thinking of a parallel with the massive redundancy of human language.  With language, we can lose about 70% of the bandwidth + about 50% of the remaining data as time-slices (think of audio sampling rates), and peak-lop the resulting waveform, and add in a bit of echo,  and still understand the bulk of human speech under otherwise ideal conditions.  Redundancy in language has massive survival value in a noisy environment filled with obstacles that reflect sound and cause sound shadows.

Has anybody run a search for correspondences between known 'words' and 'junk' DNA sub-strings?  Maybe biology needs some input from cryptologists?

Another idea.  Is it possible that the 'Junk' DNA is a 'peak-lopping' device.  Let me explain that.  In industry, a generator might be used to supply extra electrical power to a factory at a time of peak demand.  (Surges, or peaks, incur a cash penalty from the utility company.)  Is it possible for the DNA to be 'reconfigured', or activated some way if protein supply is outpaced by demand in a cell?  Does that make sense to a biologist?

um, this isn't exactly news. scientists have known this stuff for a long time.

Alternate Allele's picture
Um, well apparently these findings were significant enough to be published in a notable journal.  Not to mention this is the first attempt to quantify how much each mechanism contributes to inbreeding depression on a whole genome scale; definitely a scientific unknown. 

It also challenges the notion that alleles affected by inbreeding are not random and those of us who study genetics, would find that enlightening.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if scientists have known this "stuff" for a long time.  As with all articles posted on here, this was written for the public, and um, not scientists.

logicman's picture
scientists have known this stuff for a long time.

More accurately: scientists have known about this stuff for a long time - meaning that for a long time, scientists have considered it an area worthy of further investigation.

It is so worthy of investigation that scientists like to publish studies and results.  Others can then help to build a bigger picture, one small step at a time.
(Yes, I know it's a mixed metaphor!  At least it doesn't cloud the issue in a dungeon of ignorance.)

A long time after Sir Isaac Newton formulated his mathematical laws of gravity, other people, using his methods, plotted trajectories between the earth and the Moon which were then experimentally verified.

Now, which is it better to say:
"yeah, scientist have known about gravity for donkey's years."
or
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

Related link
Inventing the future.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.