Category Archives: Genetics

SEATTLE, Aug. 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Atossa Genetics Inc. (NASDAQ: ATOS), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics and delivery methods to treat breast cancer and other breast conditions, today announced second quarter ended June 30, 2018 financial results and provided an update on recent company developments.

Steve Quay, President and CEO commented, We have made tremendous progress with our clinical programs. We opened enrollment in two phase 2 clinical studies: one study using our proprietary topical Endoxifen for breast density reduction, and another study using our proprietary oral Endoxifen for reducing breast cancer tumor cell activity in the window of opportunity between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgery. We also completed dosing and patient visits in our phase 1 study of topical Endoxifen in men. Our intraductal microcatheter immunoOncology pre-clinical program was launched and we contracted with an additional manufacturer for Endoxifen. We have had a very busy and productive first six months of 2018 as we continue the momentum in the advancement of our clinical programs. We are looking forward to announcing preliminary results from our phase 1 study of topical Endoxifen in men by September 30, 2018, added Dr. Quay.

Recent Corporate Developments

Atossas important recent developments include the following:

Q2 2018 Financial Results

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, we had no revenue and no associated cost of revenue.

Total operating expenses were approximately $4.1 million and $6.0 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, respectively, consisting of general and administrative (G&A) expenses of approximately $2.7 million and $4.1 million, respectively; and research and development (R&D) expenses of approximately $1.5 million and $1.9 million, respectively. For the previous year, total operating expenses were approximately $1.9 million and $3.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, consisting of G&A expense of approximately $1.1 million and $2.2 million, respectively, and R&D expenses of $0.8 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

About Atossa Genetics

Atossa Genetics Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics and delivery methods to treat breast cancer and other breast conditions. For more information, please visit http://www.atossagenetics.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Forward-looking statements in this press release, which Atossa undertakes no obligation to update, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from the anticipated or estimated future results, including the risks and uncertainties associated with any variation between preliminary and final clinical results, actions and inactions by the FDA, the outcome or timing of regulatory approvals needed by Atossa including those needed to commence studies, lower than anticipated rate of patient enrollment, estimated market size of drugs under development, the safety and efficacy of Atossa's products and services, performance of clinical research organizations and investigators, obstacles resulting from proprietary rights held by others with respect to fulvestrant, such as patent rights, potential market sizes for Atossas drugs under development and other risks detailed from time to time in Atossa's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including without limitation its periodic reports on Form 10-K and 10-Q, each as amended and supplemented from time to time.

Atossa Genetics Company Contact:

Atossa Genetics Inc.Kyle GuseCFO and General CounselOffice: 866 893-4927kyle.guse@atossagenetics.com

Investor Relations Contact:

Scott GordonCorProminence LLC377 Oak StreetConcourse 2Garden City, NY 11530Office: (516) 222-2560scottg@corprominence.com

Source: Atossa Genetics Inc.

Read the original here:
Atossa Genetics Announces Second Quarter 2018 Financial ...

ByRobin Scullin

Scientists at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have developed a powerful method for characterizing patterns of genetic contributions to different traits such as height, BMI, and childhood IQ, as well as diseases including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart disease, and bipolar disorder. The new method provides a "big picture" of genetic influences that should be particularly helpful in designing future genetic studies and understanding genetic risk prediction.

In a study published today in the journal Nature Genetics, the scientists mined existing data from genetic studies and used novel statistical techniques to obtain estimates of the numbers of DNA variations that contribute to different physical traits and diseases,

"In terms of practical results, we can now use this method to estimate, for any trait or disease, the number of individuals we need to sample in future studies to identify the majority of the important genetic contributions," says study senior author Nilanjan Chatterjee, a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in the Department of Biostatistics.

Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Department of Biostatistics

Affordable DNA-sequencing technology became available around the turn of the millennium. With it, researchers have performed hundreds of genome-wide association studies to discover DNA variations that are linked to different diseases or traits. These variationscalled single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPsare changes in DNA "letters" at various sites on the genome. Knowing which variations are linked to a disease or trait can be useful in gaining biological understanding about how diseases and other traits originate and further progress.

There is also interest in using genetic markers to develop risk-scores that could identify individuals at high or low risk for diseases and then use the information to develop a "precision medicine" approach to disease prevention.

"Depending on their sample sizes, previous genome-wide association studies have uncovered a few SNPs or many for any given disease or trait," Chatterjee says. "But what they generally haven't done is reveal the overall genetic architectures of diseases or traitsin other words, the likely number of SNPs that contribute and the distributions of their effect sizes."

Chatterjee and his colleagues developed statistical tools to infer this overall architecture from publicly available genome-wide association study data. They then applied these tools to 32 datasets covering 19 quantitative traits and 13 diseases.

The findings show that what is known about many traits represents the "tip of the iceberg." An individual trait could be associated with thousands to tens of thousands of SNPs, each of which has small effect, but which cumulatively make a substantial contribution to the trait variation. Intriguingly, they found that traits related to mental health and ability, such as IQ, depression, and schizophrenia, appear to be influenced by the largest number, on the order of tens of thousands of SNPs, each with tiny effects.

"For the traits we analyzed related to mental health and cognitive ability, there is really a continuum of effect sizes, suggesting a distinct type of genetic architecture," says Chatterjee, who has a joint appointment in Johns Hopkins Medicine's Department of Oncology.

By contrast, the analysis suggested that common chronic diseases such as heart disease and type-2 diabetes typically are influenced by relatively feweron the order of thousandsof SNPs, most of which have small effects, although a sizable group "stick out" for their stronger effects.

Knowing the approximate genetic architecture of a disease or trait allows scientists to predict how informative any new genome-wide association studies for that trait or disease will be, given the sample size. For example, projections in the study suggest that for most traits and diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, the point of diminishing return for these studies only starts after a sample size reaches several hundred thousand. For psychiatric diseases and cognitive traits, with their "long-tail" distributions of gene effects, diminishing returns usually won't kick in until sample sizes are even larger‐possibly in the millions, Chatterjee says. These results have implications for how useful genetic risk prediction models could be for different diseases depending on the sample size achievable for future studies.

"Our approach at least provides the best available 'road map' of what is needed in future studies," Chatterjee says.

More here:
Understanding genetic architecture of different traits and ...

Taxonomy of freshwater mussels from family Unionidae has been ambiguous for a long time. A number of methods used for their identification, including the so-called comparative method, are based on shell morphology. However, this morphology turned out to have a high level of within-species variation, and the shape of the shell of a specimen depends strongly on its environment and conditions of growth. For these reasons, the number of species recognized by the comparative method kept increasing. We applied both the comparative morphological method and methods of molecular genetics to address the taxonomy of Unionidae. We performed the comprehensive study of 70 specimens of Unionidae mussels collected from the River Ivitza, Volga basin. The specimens represented 14 comparative species, belonging to 4 comparative genera of Unionidae: Colletopterum, Pseudanodonta, Unio and Crassiana. Sequencing of the nuclear (ITS1) and mitochondrial (COI, 16S rDNA) genetic regions revealed 5 groups with high within-group genetic homogeneity separated from each other by long genetic distances. According to the comparison with the available sequences, these groups correspond to 3 Eastern European genera and 5 species: Anodonta anatina, Pseudanodonta complanata, Unio pictorum, Unio tumidus and Unio crassus. The results obtained indicate that the comparative method is inappropriate for the taxonomic analysis of East European Unionidae.

Visit link:
The comparative and genetic methods for East European ...

August 13, 2018 - By Kristin Houston

Investors sentiment increased to 1.11 in Q1 2018. Its up 0.20, from 0.91 in 2017Q4. It improved, as 3 investors sold Cancer Genetics, Inc. shares while 6 reduced holdings. 6 funds opened positions while 4 raised stakes. 2.70 million shares or 2.75% less from 2.78 million shares in 2017Q4 were reported.The Illinois-based Northern Tru Corporation has invested 0% in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). Morgan Stanley holds 16,169 shares or 0% of its portfolio. Geode Limited Liability has invested 0% in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). 11,600 were accumulated by Spark Invest Management Ltd Llc. Perkins Cap Management reported 963,600 shares. Virtu Financial Ltd Liability Corporation accumulated 0% or 29,495 shares. Granahan Inv Ma owns 235,502 shares. Wells Fargo Mn reported 0% in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). National Bank Of America Corporation De has invested 0% in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). Barclays Public Limited Company has invested 0% of its portfolio in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). Moreover, Jacobs Levy Equity Management Incorporated has 0% invested in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). The New York-based Hrt Lc has invested 0.02% in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX). Vanguard Group Inc holds 583,886 shares or 0% of its portfolio. Dimensional Fund Advsr Limited Partnership reported 19,866 shares. Diker Mngmt Ltd Liability invested 0.04% of its portfolio in Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX).

Analysts expect Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX) to report $-0.13 EPS on August, 14 before the open.They anticipate $0.03 EPS change or 18.75 % from last quarters $-0.16 EPS. After having $-0.16 EPS previously, Cancer Genetics, Inc.s analysts see -18.75 % EPS growth. The stock decreased 3.22% or $0.0314 during the last trading session, reaching $0.9451. About 69,965 shares traded. Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX) has declined 74.25% since August 13, 2017 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 86.82% the S&P500.

Among 2 analysts covering Cancer Genetics (NASDAQ:CGIX), 1 have Buy rating, 0 Sell and 1 Hold. Therefore 50% are positive. Cancer Genetics had 3 analyst reports since April 3, 2018 according to SRatingsIntel. The firm earned Hold rating on Tuesday, April 3 by Maxim Group. The stock of Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX) has Buy rating given on Tuesday, May 29 by H.C. Wainwright. The company was maintained on Wednesday, June 27 by H.C. Wainwright.

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides molecular and biomarker tests and services in the United States, India, and China. The company has market cap of $26.22 million. The Companys tests enable physicians to personalize the clinical management of each individual patient by providing genomic information to diagnose, monitor, and inform cancer treatment; and enable biotech and pharmaceutical companies involved in oncology trials to select candidate populations and reduce adverse drug reactions by providing information regarding genomic factors influencing subject responses to therapeutics. It currently has negative earnings. The company's clinical services provide information on diagnosis, prognosis, and predicting treatment outcomes of cancers to guide patient management.

More news for Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX) were recently published by: Nasdaq.com, which released: Cancer Genetics to Report Second Quarter 2018 Financial Results on August 14, 2018 on August 07, 2018. Globenewswire.coms article titled: Cancer Genetics Closes $2.625 million Convertible Note Financing and published on July 18, 2018 is yet another important article.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

Follow this link:
Analysts See $-0.13 EPS for Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX ...

The Division of Medical Genetics at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh is committed to the treatment and study of genetic disorders in children, providing advanced patient care of the highest quality and an active research program dedicated to providing a deeper understanding of the fundamental issues underlying these disorders and developing better therapeutic approaches.

Clinical services, a critical part of the comprehensive care offered by the Division of Medical Genetics, include diagnosis, evaluation, treatment and management of a range of genetic conditions, such as birth defects, chromosomal abnormalities, specific genetic syndromes and inborn errors of metabolism. These services are organized under two programs:an Inborn Errors of Metabolism Clinic and a General Genetics Clinic. Both offer an experienced team of faculty and staff, including physician geneticists, genetic counselors, a nurse practitioner, metabolic dietitian and social worker.

The Inborn Errors of Metabolism Clinic at Childrens Hospital provides diagnostic services, evaluation, treatment management, genetic counseling and other support to children with these inherited disorders and to their families. A Phenylketonuria Clinic specializes in the diagnosis, treatment and management of one of the most common inborn errors of metabolism.

Counseling, education and other support services to address all of the needs of patients and their families are also provided. Genetic counselors are available to help to identify families at risk, serve as patient advocates, help families understand genetic disorders and their consequences, provide supportive counseling and counsel families who may be at risk for inherited conditions. Division staff members also help families arrange for physical, occupational and speech therapists, comprehensive developmental assessments and other services and support.

Research within the division is providing new insight into genetic disorders from which new and better therapies can be developed. The laboratory research program focuses on discovering the underlying causes of genetic diseases, understanding the clinical implications of mutations in genes, and development of novel approaches for treatment of genetic disorders. An active clinical research program collaborates with other genetic programs world wide to evaluate new therapies for genetic disease.

Referrals from primary care physicians, medical and social agencies or other Childrens Hospital specialty services are helpful, but not necessary. Authorization from the patients insurance provider and/or primary care physician may be needed for insurance coverage. The Division of Medical Genetics staff can help with these matters. Medical records from previous medical evaluations may be requested. For more information, please call the office number listed.

See original here:
Genetics | Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh

Scientists have discovered an unmistakable language within all living things. Like a miniature library, DNA stores piles of information in extraordinary molecules that specify the details of everything from the shape of flower petals to the color of your eyes. A supremely intelligent Author and Life-Giver left His indelible message in every living thing.

The species on earth today descend from the original created kinds of Genesis 1. The many inter-species breedings that are possible today (e.g., zonkeys, wholphins), as well as the close similarities within biological groups (e.g., the canine group) that are distinct from one another, remind us of this fact. But exactly why the created kinds have fractured into many incompatible species has only been answered indirectly by creationists.

Successful evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new proteins that are found in new organs and systems. Losing structures, or misplacing their development, should not be equated with the increased information that is needed to form novel structures and cellular systems.

Minimal genomes is the number of genes considered essential for a bacterium to survive in a nutrient-rich, stress-free and competitor-free environment in the lab. Evolutionists believe if the genes universal to all life can be determined then its just a matter of tinkering with the existing genetic information via mutations to go from goo to you.

Read more:
Genetics | Answers in Genesis

Gregor Johann Mendel (Czech: eho Jan Mendel;[1] 20 July 1822[2] 6 January 1884) (English: ) was a scientist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia. Mendel was born in a German-speaking family[3] in the Silesian part of the Austrian Empire (today's Czech Republic) and gained posthumous recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics. Though farmers had known for millennia that crossbreeding of animals and plants could favor certain desirable traits, Mendel's pea plant experiments conducted between 1856 and 1863 established many of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance.[4]

Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height, pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and color. Taking seed color as an example, Mendel showed that when a true-breeding yellow pea and a true-breeding green pea were cross-bred their offspring always produced yellow seeds. However, in the next generation, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1 green to 3 yellow. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms recessive and dominant in reference to certain traits. (In the preceding example, the green trait, which seems to have vanished in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is dominant.) He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible factorsnow called genesin predictably determining the traits of an organism.

The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery of his laws.[5] Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of genetics.[4]

Mendel was born into a German-speaking family in Hynice (Heinzendorf bei Odrau in German), at the Moravian-Silesian border, Austrian Empire (now a part of the Czech Republic).[3] He was the son of Anton and Rosine (Schwirtlich) Mendel and had one older sister, Veronika, and one younger, Theresia. They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years.[6] During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener and studied beekeeping. As a young man, he attended gymnasium in Opava (called Troppau in German). He had to take four months off during his gymnasium studies due to illness. From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy and physics at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olomouc, taking another year off because of illness. He also struggled financially to pay for his studies, and Theresia gave him her dowry. Later he helped support her three sons, two of whom became doctors.

He became a friar in part because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself. As the son of a struggling farmer, the monastic life, in his words, spared him the "perpetual anxiety about a means of livelihood."[8] He was given the name Gregor (eho in Czech)[1] when he joined the Augustinian friars.

When Mendel entered the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of Natural History and Agriculture was headed by Johann Karl Nestler who conducted extensive research of hereditary traits of plants and animals, especially sheep. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz,[10] Mendel entered the Augustinian St Thomas's Abbey in Brno (called Brnn in German) and began his training as a priest. Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering religious life. Mendel worked as a substitute high school teacher. In 1850, he failed the oral part, the last of three parts, of his exams to become a certified high school teacher. In 1851, he was sent to the University of Vienna to study under the sponsorship of Abbot C. F. Napp so that he could get more formal education. At Vienna, his professor of physics was Christian Doppler.[12] Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics. In 1856, he took the exam to become a certified teacher and again failed the oral part. In 1867, he replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery.[13]

After he was elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended, as Mendel became overburdened with administrative responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over its attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions.[14] Mendel died on 6 January 1884, at the age of 61, in Brno, Moravia, Austria-Hungary (now Czech Republic), from chronic nephritis. Czech composer Leo Janek played the organ at his funeral. After his death, the succeeding abbot burned all papers in Mendel's collection, to mark an end to the disputes over taxation.[15]

Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at the Palack University, Olomouc (Friedrich Franz and Johann Karl Nestler), and his colleagues at the monastery (such as Franz Diebl) to study variation in plants. In 1854, Napp authorized Mendel to carry out a study in the monastery's 2 hectares (4.9 acres) experimental garden,[16] which was originally planted by Napp in 1830.[13] Unlike Nestler, who studied hereditary traits in sheep, Mendel used the common edible pea and started his experiments in 1856.

After initial experiments with pea plants, Mendel settled on studying seven traits that seemed to be inherited independently of other traits: seed shape, flower color, seed coat tint, pod shape, unripe pod color, flower location, and plant height. He first focused on seed shape, which was either angular or round. Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, the majority of which were pea plants (Pisum sativum).[18][19][20] This study showed that, when true-breeding different varieties were crossed to each other (e.g., tall plants fertilized by short plants), in the second generation, one in four pea plants had purebred recessive traits, two out of four were hybrids, and one out of four were purebred dominant. His experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later came to be known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.[21]

Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche ber Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865. It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers,[23] but was ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brnn,[24] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.[25] Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had, genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.[26][27] Mendel's scientific biography thus provides an example of the failure of obscure, highly original, innovators to receive the attention they deserve.[28]

Mendel began his studies on heredity using mice. He was at St. Thomas's Abbey but his bishop did not like one of his friars studying animal sex, so Mendel switched to plants. Mendel also bred bees in a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he designed.[30] He also studied astronomy and meteorology,[13] founding the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865.[12] The majority of his published works was related to meteorology.[12]

Mendel also experimented with hawkweed (Hieracium)[31] and honeybees. He published a report on his work with hawkweed,[32] a group of plants of great interest to scientists at the time because of their diversity. However, the results of Mendel's inheritance study in hawkweeds was unlike his results for peas; the first generation was very variable and many of their offspring were identical to the maternal parent. In his correspondence with Carl Ngeli he discussed his results but was unable to explain them.[31] It was not appreciated until the end of the nineteen century that many hawkweed species were apomictic, producing most of their seeds through an asexual process.

None of his results on bees survived, except for a passing mention in the reports of Moravian Apiculture Society.[33] All that is known definitely is that he used Cyprian and Carniolan bees,[34] which were particularly aggressive to the annoyance of other monks and visitors of the monastery such that he was asked to get rid of them.[35] Mendel, on the other hand, was fond of his bees, and referred to them as "my dearest little animals".[36]

He also described novel plant species, and these are denoted with the botanical author abbreviation "Mendel".[37]

It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a friend.[8]

During Mendel's lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.

By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to independent duplication of his work by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.[5] Though Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand Mendel's laws.[38] Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism, other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.[5] All three of these researchers, each from a different country, published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span in the Spring of 1900.

Mendel's results were quickly replicated, and genetic linkage quickly worked out. Biologists flocked to the theory; even though it was not yet applicable to many phenomena, it sought to give a genotypic understanding of heredity which they felt was lacking in previous studies of heredity which focused on phenotypic approaches.[40] Most prominent of these previous approaches was the biometric school of Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon, which was based heavily on statistical studies of phenotype variation. The strongest opposition to this school came from William Bateson, who perhaps did the most in the early days of publicising the benefits of Mendel's theory (the word "genetics", and much of the discipline's other terminology, originated with Bateson). This debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians was extremely vigorous in the first two decades of the twentieth century, with the biometricians claiming statistical and mathematical rigor,[41] whereas the Mendelians claimed a better understanding of biology.[42][43] (Modern genetics shows that Mendelian heredity is in fact an inherently biological process, though not all genes of Mendel's experiments are yet understood.)[44][45]

In the end, the two approaches were combined, especially by work conducted by R. A. Fisher as early as 1918. The combination, in the 1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.[46][47]

In 1936, R.A. Fisher, a prominent statistician and population geneticist, reconstructed Mendel's experiments, analyzed results from the F2 (second filial) generation and found the ratio of dominant to recessive phenotypes (e.g. green versus yellow peas; round versus wrinkled peas) to be implausibly and consistently too close to the expected ratio of 3 to 1.[48][49][50] Fisher asserted that "the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel's expectations,"[48] Mendel's alleged observations, according to Fisher, were "abominable", "shocking",[51] and "cooked".[52]

Other scholars agree with Fisher that Mendel's various observations come uncomfortably close to Mendel's expectations. Dr. Edwards,[53] for instance, remarks: "One can applaud the lucky gambler; but when he is lucky again tomorrow, and the next day, and the following day, one is entitled to become a little suspicious". Three other lines of evidence likewise lend support to the assertion that Mendels results are indeed too good to be true.[54]

Fisher's analysis gave rise to the Mendelian Paradox, a paradox that remains unsolved to this very day. Thus, on the one hand, Mendel's reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true; on the other, "everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or in unconscious adjustment of his observations."[54] A number of writers have attempted to resolve this paradox.

One attempted explanation invokes confirmation bias.[55] Fisher accused Mendel's experiments as "biased strongly in the direction of agreement with expectation... to give the theory the benefit of doubt".[48] This might arise if he detected an approximate 3 to 1 ratio early in his experiments with a small sample size, and, in cases where the ratio appeared to deviate slightly from this, continued collecting more data until the results conformed more nearly to an exact ratio.

In his 2004, J.W. Porteous concluded that Mendel's observations were indeed implausible.[56] However, reproduction of the experiments has demonstrated that there is no real bias towards Mendel's data.[57]

Another attempt[54] to resolve the Mendelian Paradox notes that a conflict may sometimes arise between the moral imperative of a bias-free recounting of one's factual observations and the even more important imperative of advancing scientific knowledge. Mendel might have felt compelled to simplify his data in order to meet real, or feared, editorial objections.[53] Such an action could be justified on moral grounds (and hence provide a resolution to the Mendelian Paradox), since the alternativerefusing to complymight have retarded the growth of scientific knowledge. Similarly, like so many other obscure innovators of science,[53][28] Mendel, a little known innovator of working-class background, had to break through the cognitive paradigms and social prejudices of his audience.[53] If such a breakthrough could be best achieved by deliberately omitting some observations from his report and adjusting others to make them more palatable to his audience, such actions could be justified on moral grounds.[54]

Daniel L. Hartl and Daniel J. Fairbanks reject outright Fisher's statistical argument, suggesting that Fisher incorrectly interpreted Mendel's experiments. They find it likely that Mendel scored more than 10 progeny, and that the results matched the expectation. They conclude: "Fisher's allegation of deliberate falsification can finally be put to rest, because on closer analysis it has proved to be unsupported by convincing evidence."[51][58] In 2008 Hartl and Fairbanks (with Allan Franklin and AWF Edwards) wrote a comprehensive book in which they concluded that there were no reasons to assert Mendel fabricated his results, nor that Fisher deliberately tried to diminish Mendel's legacy.[59] Reassessment of Fisher's statistical analysis, according to these authors, also disprove the notion of confirmation bias in Mendel's results.[60][61]

Originally posted here:
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

Genetics, study of heredity in general and of genes in particular. Genetics forms one of the central pillars of biology and overlaps with many other areas, such as agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology.

Since the dawn of civilization, humankind has recognized the influence of heredity and applied its principles to the improvement of cultivated crops and domestic animals. A Babylonian tablet more than 6,000 years old, for example, shows pedigrees of horses and indicates possible inherited characteristics. Other old carvings show cross-pollination of date palm trees. Most of the mechanisms of heredity, however, remained a mystery until the 19th century, when genetics as a systematic science began.

Genetics arose out of the identification of genes, the fundamental units responsible for heredity. Genetics may be defined as the study of genes at all levels, including the ways in which they act in the cell and the ways in which they are transmitted from parents to offspring. Modern genetics focuses on the chemical substance that genes are made of, called deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, and the ways in which it affects the chemical reactions that constitute the living processes within the cell. Gene action depends on interaction with the environment. Green plants, for example, have genes containing the information necessary to synthesize the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll that gives them their green colour. Chlorophyll is synthesized in an environment containing light because the gene for chlorophyll is expressed only when it interacts with light. If a plant is placed in a dark environment, chlorophyll synthesis stops because the gene is no longer expressed.

Genetics as a scientific discipline stemmed from the work of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 19th century. Mendel suspected that traits were inherited as discrete units, and, although he knew nothing of the physical or chemical nature of genes at the time, his units became the basis for the development of the present understanding of heredity. All present research in genetics can be traced back to Mendels discovery of the laws governing the inheritance of traits. The word genetics was introduced in 1905 by English biologist William Bateson, who was one of the discoverers of Mendels work and who became a champion of Mendels principles of inheritance.

Read More on This Topic

heredity

clear in the study of genetics. Both aspects of heredity can be explained by genes, the functional units of heritable material that are found within all living cells. Every member of a species has a set of genes specific to that species. It is this set of genes that provides

Although scientific evidence for patterns of genetic inheritance did not appear until Mendels work, history shows that humankind must have been interested in heredity long before the dawn of civilization. Curiosity must first have been based on human family resemblances, such as similarity in body structure, voice, gait, and gestures. Such notions were instrumental in the establishment of family and royal dynasties. Early nomadic tribes were interested in the qualities of the animals that they herded and domesticated and, undoubtedly, bred selectively. The first human settlements that practiced farming appear to have selected crop plants with favourable qualities. Ancient tomb paintings show racehorse breeding pedigrees containing clear depictions of the inheritance of several distinct physical traits in the horses. Despite this interest, the first recorded speculations on heredity did not exist until the time of the ancient Greeks; some aspects of their ideas are still considered relevant today.

Hippocrates (c. 460c. 375 bce), known as the father of medicine, believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and, to account for this, he devised the hypothesis known as pangenesis. He postulated that all organs of the body of a parent gave off invisible seeds, which were like miniaturized building components and were transmitted during sexual intercourse, reassembling themselves in the mothers womb to form a baby.

Aristotle (384322 bce) emphasized the importance of blood in heredity. He thought that the blood supplied generative material for building all parts of the adult body, and he reasoned that blood was the basis for passing on this generative power to the next generation. In fact, he believed that the males semen was purified blood and that a womans menstrual blood was her equivalent of semen. These male and female contributions united in the womb to produce a baby. The blood contained some type of hereditary essences, but he believed that the baby would develop under the influence of these essences, rather than being built from the essences themselves.

Aristotles ideas about the role of blood in procreation were probably the origin of the still prevalent notion that somehow the blood is involved in heredity. Today people still speak of certain traits as being in the blood and of blood lines and blood ties. The Greek model of inheritance, in which a teeming multitude of substances was invoked, differed from that of the Mendelian model. Mendels idea was that distinct differences between individuals are determined by differences in single yet powerful hereditary factors. These single hereditary factors were identified as genes. Copies of genes are transmitted through sperm and egg and guide the development of the offspring. Genes are also responsible for reproducing the distinct features of both parents that are visible in their children.

In the two millennia between the lives of Aristotle and Mendel, few new ideas were recorded on the nature of heredity. In the 17th and 18th centuries the idea of preformation was introduced. Scientists using the newly developed microscopes imagined that they could see miniature replicas of human beings inside sperm heads. French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck invoked the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters, not as an explanation for heredity but as a model for evolution. He lived at a time when the fixity of species was taken for granted, yet he maintained that this fixity was only found in a constant environment. He enunciated the law of use and disuse, which states that when certain organs become specially developed as a result of some environmental need, then that state of development is hereditary and can be passed on to progeny. He believed that in this way, over many generations, giraffes could arise from deerlike animals that had to keep stretching their necks to reach high leaves on trees.

British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace originally postulated the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Charles Darwins observations during his circumnavigation of the globe aboard the HMS Beagle (183136) provided evidence for natural selection and his suggestion that humans and animals shared a common ancestry. Many scientists at the time believed in a hereditary mechanism that was a version of the ancient Greek idea of pangenesis, and Darwins ideas did not appear to fit with the theory of heredity that sprang from the experiments of Mendel.

Before Gregor Mendel, theories for a hereditary mechanism were based largely on logic and speculation, not on experimentation. In his monastery garden, Mendel carried out a large number of cross-pollination experiments between variants of the garden pea, which he obtained as pure-breeding lines. He crossed peas with yellow seeds to those with green seeds and observed that the progeny seeds (the first generation, F1) were all yellow. When the F1 individuals were self-pollinated or crossed among themselves, their progeny (F2) showed a ratio of 3:1 (3/4 yellow and 1/4 green). He deduced that, since the F2 generation contained some green individuals, the determinants of greenness must have been present in the F1 generation, although they were not expressed because yellow is dominant over green. From the precise mathematical 3:1 ratio (of which he found several other examples), he deduced not only the existence of discrete hereditary units (genes) but also that the units were present in pairs in the pea plant and that the pairs separated during gamete formation. Hence, the two original lines of pea plants were proposed to be YY (yellow) and yy (green). The gametes from these were Y and y, thereby producing an F1 generation of Yy that were yellow in colour because of the dominance of Y. In the F1 generation, half the gametes were Y and the other half were y, making the F2 generation produced from random mating 1/4 Yy, 1/2 YY, and 1/4 yy, thus explaining the 3:1 ratio. The forms of the pea colour genes, Y and y, are called alleles.

Mendel also analyzed pure lines that differed in pairs of characters, such as seed colour (yellow versus green) and seed shape (round versus wrinkled). The cross of yellow round seeds with green wrinkled seeds resulted in an F1 generation that were all yellow and round, revealing the dominance of the yellow and round traits. However, the F2 generation produced by self-pollination of F1 plants showed a ratio of 9:3:3:1 (9/16 yellow round, 3/16 yellow wrinkled, 3/16 green round, and 1/16 green wrinkled; note that a 9:3:3:1 ratio is simply two 3:1 ratios combined). From this result and others like it, he deduced the independent assortment of separate gene pairs at gamete formation.

Mendels success can be attributed in part to his classic experimental approach. He chose his experimental organism well and performed many controlled experiments to collect data. From his results, he developed brilliant explanatory hypotheses and went on to test these hypotheses experimentally. Mendels methodology established a prototype for genetics that is still used today for gene discovery and understanding the genetic properties of inheritance.

Mendels genes were only hypothetical entities, factors that could be inferred to exist in order to explain his results. The 20th century saw tremendous strides in the development of the understanding of the nature of genes and how they function. Mendels publications lay unmentioned in the research literature until 1900, when the same conclusions were reached by several other investigators. Then there followed hundreds of papers showing Mendelian inheritance in a wide array of plants and animals, including humans. It seemed that Mendels ideas were of general validity. Many biologists noted that the inheritance of genes closely paralleled the inheritance of chromosomes during nuclear divisions, called meiosis, that occur in the cell divisions just prior to gamete formation.

It seemed that genes were parts of chromosomes. In 1910 this idea was strengthened through the demonstration of parallel inheritance of certain Drosophila (a type of fruit fly) genes on sex-determining chromosomes by American zoologist and geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan. Morgan and one of his students, Alfred Henry Sturtevant, showed not only that certain genes seemed to be linked on the same chromosome but that the distance between genes on the same chromosome could be calculated by measuring the frequency at which new chromosomal combinations arose (these were proposed to be caused by chromosomal breakage and reunion, also known as crossing over). In 1916 another student of Morgans, Calvin Bridges, used fruit flies with an extra chromosome to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the only way to explain the abnormal inheritance of certain genes was if they were part of the extra chromosome. American geneticist Hermann Joseph Mller showed that new alleles (called mutations) could be produced at high frequencies by treating cells with X-rays, the first demonstration of an environmental mutagenic agent (mutations can also arise spontaneously). In 1931 American botanist Harriet Creighton and American scientist Barbara McClintock demonstrated that new allelic combinations of linked genes were correlated with physically exchanged chromosome parts.

In 1908 British physician Archibald Garrod proposed the important idea that the human disease alkaptonuria, and certain other hereditary diseases, were caused by inborn errors of metabolism, suggesting for the first time that linked genes had molecular action at the cell level. Molecular genetics did not begin in earnest until 1941 when American geneticist George Beadle and American biochemist Edward Tatum showed that the genes they were studying in the fungus Neurospora crassa acted by coding for catalytic proteins called enzymes. Subsequent studies in other organisms extended this idea to show that genes generally code for proteins. Soon afterward, American bacteriologist Oswald Avery, Canadian American geneticist Colin M. MacLeod, and American biologist Maclyn McCarty showed that bacterial genes are made of DNA, a finding that was later extended to all organisms.

A major landmark was attained in 1953 when American geneticist and biophysicist James D. Watson and British biophysicists Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins devised a double helix model for DNA structure. This model showed that DNA was capable of self-replication by separating its complementary strands and using them as templates for the synthesis of new DNA molecules. Each of the intertwined strands of DNA was proposed to be a chain of chemical groups called nucleotides, of which there were known to be four types. Because proteins are strings of amino acids, it was proposed that a specific nucleotide sequence of DNA could contain a code for an amino acid sequence and hence protein structure. In 1955 American molecular biologist Seymour Benzer, extending earlier studies in Drosophila, showed that the mutant sites within a gene could be mapped in relation to each other. His linear map indicated that the gene itself is a linear structure.

In 1958 the strand-separation method for DNA replication (called the semiconservative method) was demonstrated experimentally for the first time by American molecular biologist Matthew Meselson and American geneticist Franklin W. Stahl. In 1961 Crick and South African biologist Sydney Brenner showed that the genetic code must be read in triplets of nucleotides, called codons. American geneticist Charles Yanofsky showed that the positions of mutant sites within a gene matched perfectly the positions of altered amino acids in the amino acid sequence of the corresponding protein. In 1966 the complete genetic code of all 64 possible triplet coding units (codons), and the specific amino acids they code for, was deduced by American biochemists Marshall Nirenberg and Har Gobind Khorana. Subsequent studies in many organisms showed that the double helical structure of DNA, the mode of its replication, and the genetic code are the same in virtually all organisms, including plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. In 1961 French biologist Franois Jacob and French biochemist Jacques Monod established the prototypical model for gene regulation by showing that bacterial genes can be turned on (initiating transcription into RNA and protein synthesis) and off through the binding action of regulatory proteins to a region just upstream of the coding region of the gene.

Technical advances have played an important role in the advance of genetic understanding. In 1970 American microbiologists Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Othanel Smith discovered a specialized class of enzymes (called restriction enzymes) that cut DNA at specific nucleotide target sequences. That discovery allowed American biochemist Paul Berg in 1972 to make the first artificial recombinant DNA molecule by isolating DNA molecules from different sources, cutting them, and joining them together in a test tube. These advances allowed individual genes to be cloned (amplified to a high copy number) by splicing them into self-replicating DNA molecules, such as plasmids (extragenomic circular DNA elements) or viruses, and inserting these into living bacterial cells. From these methodologies arose the field of recombinant DNA technology that presently dominates molecular genetics. In 1977 two different methods were invented for determining the nucleotide sequence of DNA: one by American molecular biologists Allan Maxam and Walter Gilbert and the other by English biochemist Fred Sanger. Such technologies made it possible to examine the structure of genes directly by nucleotide sequencing, resulting in the confirmation of many of the inferences about genes originally made indirectly.

In the 1970s Canadian biochemist Michael Smith revolutionized the art of redesigning genes by devising a method for inducing specifically tailored mutations at defined sites within a gene, creating a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis. In 1983 American biochemist Kary B. Mullis invented the polymerase chain reaction, a method for rapidly detecting and amplifying a specific DNA sequence without cloning it. In the last decade of the 20th century, progress in recombinant DNA technology and in the development of automated sequencing machines led to the elucidation of complete DNA sequences of several viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals. In 2001 the complete sequence of human DNA, approximately three billion nucleotide pairs, was made public.

A time line of important milestones in the history of genetics is provided in the table.

Classical genetics, which remains the foundation for all other areas in genetics, is concerned primarily with the method by which genetic traitsclassified as dominant (always expressed), recessive (subordinate to a dominant trait), intermediate (partially expressed), or polygenic (due to multiple genes)are transmitted in plants and animals. These traits may be sex-linked (resulting from the action of a gene on the sex, or X, chromosome) or autosomal (resulting from the action of a gene on a chromosome other than a sex chromosome). Classical genetics began with Mendels study of inheritance in garden peas and continues with studies of inheritance in many different plants and animals. Today a prime reason for performing classical genetics is for gene discoverythe finding and assembling of a set of genes that affects a biological property of interest.

Cytogenetics, the microscopic study of chromosomes, blends the skills of cytologists, who study the structure and activities of cells, with those of geneticists, who study genes. Cytologists discovered chromosomes and the way in which they duplicate and separate during cell division at about the same time that geneticists began to understand the behaviour of genes at the cellular level. The close correlation between the two disciplines led to their combination.

Plant cytogenetics early became an important subdivision of cytogenetics because, as a general rule, plant chromosomes are larger than those of animals. Animal cytogenetics became important after the development of the so-called squash technique, in which entire cells are pressed flat on a piece of glass and observed through a microscope; the human chromosomes were numbered using this technique.

Today there are multiple ways to attach molecular labels to specific genes and chromosomes, as well as to specific RNAs and proteins, that make these molecules easily discernible from other components of cells, thereby greatly facilitating cytogenetics research.

Microorganisms were generally ignored by the early geneticists because they are small in size and were thought to lack variable traits and the sexual reproduction necessary for a mixing of genes from different organisms. After it was discovered that microorganisms have many different physical and physiological characteristics that are amenable to study, they became objects of great interest to geneticists because of their small size and the fact that they reproduce much more rapidly than larger organisms. Bacteria became important model organisms in genetic analysis, and many discoveries of general interest in genetics arose from their study. Bacterial genetics is the centre of cloning technology.

Viral genetics is another key part of microbial genetics. The genetics of viruses that attack bacteria were the first to be elucidated. Since then, studies and findings of viral genetics have been applied to viruses pathogenic on plants and animals, including humans. Viruses are also used as vectors (agents that carry and introduce modified genetic material into an organism) in DNA technology.

Molecular genetics is the study of the molecular structure of DNA, its cellular activities (including its replication), and its influence in determining the overall makeup of an organism. Molecular genetics relies heavily on genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology), which can be used to modify organisms by adding foreign DNA, thereby forming transgenic organisms. Since the early 1980s, these techniques have been used extensively in basic biological research and are also fundamental to the biotechnology industry, which is devoted to the manufacture of agricultural and medical products. Transgenesis forms the basis of gene therapy, the attempt to cure genetic disease by addition of normally functioning genes from exogenous sources.

The development of the technology to sequence the DNA of whole genomes on a routine basis has given rise to the discipline of genomics, which dominates genetics research today. Genomics is the study of the structure, function, and evolutionary comparison of whole genomes. Genomics has made it possible to study gene function at a broader level, revealing sets of genes that interact to impinge on some biological property of interest to the researcher. Bioinformatics is the computer-based discipline that deals with the analysis of such large sets of biological information, especially as it applies to genomic information.

The study of genes in populations of animals, plants, and microbes provides information on past migrations, evolutionary relationships and extents of mixing among different varieties and species, and methods of adaptation to the environment. Statistical methods are used to analyze gene distributions and chromosomal variations in populations.

Population genetics is based on the mathematics of the frequencies of alleles and of genetic types in populations. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg formula, p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1, predicts the frequency of individuals with the respective homozygous dominant (AA), heterozygous (Aa), and homozygous recessive (aa) genotypes in a randomly mating population. Selection, mutation, and random changes can be incorporated into such mathematical models to explain and predict the course of evolutionary change at the population level. These methods can be used on alleles of known phenotypic effect, such as the recessive allele for albinism, or on DNA segments of any type of known or unknown function.

Human population geneticists have traced the origins and migration and invasion routes of modern humans, Homo sapiens. DNA comparisons between the present peoples on the planet have pointed to an African origin of Homo sapiens. Tracing specific forms of genes has allowed geneticists to deduce probable migration routes out of Africa to the areas colonized today. Similar studies show to what degree present populations have been mixed by recent patterns of travel.

Another aspect of genetics is the study of the influence of heredity on behaviour. Many aspects of animal behaviour are genetically determined and can therefore be treated as similar to other biological properties. This is the subject material of behaviour genetics, whose goal is to determine which genes control various aspects of behaviour in animals. Human behaviour is difficult to analyze because of the powerful effects of environmental factors, such as culture. Few cases of genetic determination of complex human behaviour are known. Genomics studies provide a useful way to explore the genetic factors involved in complex human traits such as behaviour.

Some geneticists specialize in the hereditary processes of human genetics. Most of the emphasis is on understanding and treating genetic disease and genetically influenced ill health, areas collectively known as medical genetics. One broad area of activity is laboratory research dealing with the mechanisms of human gene function and malfunction and investigating pharmaceutical and other types of treatments. Since there is a high degree of evolutionary conservation between organisms, research on model organismssuch as bacteria, fungi, and fruit flies (Drosophila)which are easier to study, often provides important insights into human gene function.

Many single-gene diseases, caused by mutant alleles of a single gene, have been discovered. Two well-characterized single-gene diseases include phenylketonuria (PKU) and Tay-Sachs disease. Other diseases, such as heart disease, schizophrenia, and depression, are thought to have more complex heredity components that involve a number of different genes. These diseases are the focus of a great deal of research that is being carried out today.

Another broad area of activity is clinical genetics, which centres on advising parents of the likelihood of their children being affected by genetic disease caused by mutant genes and abnormal chromosome structure and number. Such genetic counseling is based on examining individual and family medical records and on diagnostic procedures that can detect unexpressed, abnormal forms of genes. Counseling is carried out by physicians with a particular interest in this area or by specially trained nonphysicians.

Go here to see the original:
genetics | History, Biology, Timeline, & Facts ...

CYP1A1*2C A4889Grs1048943CTT-/-CYP1A1*4 C2453Ars1799814TGG-/-CYP1A2 C164Ars762551CAC+/-CYP1B1 L432Vrs1056836CCG+/-CYP1B1 N453Srs1800440CTT-/-CYP1B1 R48Grs10012CGG-/-CYP2A6*2 A1799Trs1801272TAA-/-CYP2C19*17rs12248560TCC-/-CYP2C9*2 C430Trs1799853TCC-/-CYP2C9*3 A1075Crs1057910CAA-/-CYP2D6 S486Trs1135840GGG+/+CYP2D6 T100Crs1065852AGG-/-CYP2D6 T2850Crs16947AAA+/+CYP2E1*1B G9896Crs2070676GCC-/-CYP2E1*4 A4768Grs6413419AGG-/-CYP3A4*1Brs2740574CTT-/-CYP3A4*3 M445Trs4986910GAA-/-CYPs are primarily membrane-associatedproteins located either in the inner membrane ofmitochondriaor in theendoplasmic reticulumof cells. CYPs metabolize thousands ofendogenousandexogenouschemicals. Some CYPs metabolize only one (or a very few) substrates, such asCYP19(aromatase), while others may metabolize multiple substrates. Both of these characteristics account for their central importance inmedicine. Cytochrome P450 enzymes are present in most tissues of the body, and play important roles inhormonesynthesis and breakdown includingestrogenandtestosteronesynthesis and metabolism,cholesterolsynthesis, andvitamin Dmetabolism. Cytochrome P450 enzymes also function to metabolize potentially toxic compounds, includingdrugsand products of endogenous metabolism such asbilirubin, principally in theliver.rs762551 (C) allele is a slow metabolizer or of certain substrates including caffeine which means Im more stimulated by it than most people.rs1056836 increases susceptibility to lung and breast cancer, blocks testosterone and inhibits mitochondrial function.rs1135840 is involved in the metabolism of approximately 25% of all medications and most psych meds including antipsychotics and antidepressants.GPX3rs8177412CTT-/-GSTM1rs12068997TCC-/-GSTM1rs4147565AGG-/-GSTM1rs4147567GAA-/-GSTM1rs4147568ATT-/-GSTM1rs1056806TCC-/-GSTM1rs12562055ATT-/-GSTM1rs2239892GAA-/-GSTP I105Vrs1695GAG+/-GSTP1 A114Vrs1138272TCC-/-GSTP genes encode the Glutathione S-transferase P enzyme. Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are a family of enzymes that play an important role in detoxification by catalyzing the conjugation of manyhydrophobic and electrophilic compounds with reducedglutathione. Mutations here will increase your need for glutathione and importance of chelating out mercury.rs1695 influences asthma risk.NAT1 A560G(?) (R187Q)rs4986782AGG-/-NAT2 A803G (K268R)rs1208GGG+/+NAT2 C190T (R64W)rs1805158TCC-/-NAT2 G590A (R197Q)rs1799930AGG-/-NAT2 G857A (G286E)rs1799931AGG-/-NAT2 T341C (I114T)rs1801280CCC+/+NAT2 encodes N-acetyltransferases which are enzymes acting primarily in the liver to detoxify a large number of chemicals, includingcaffeineand several prescribed drugs. The NAT2 acetylation polymorphism is important because of its primary role in the activation and/or deactivation of many chemicals in the bodys environment, including those produced by cigarettes as well as aromatic amine and hydrazine drugs used medicinally. In turn, this can affect an individualscancerrisk.I have a particular combination of NAT2 polymorphisms rs1801280 (C) +rs1208 (G) which makes me a slow metabolizer. In general, slow metabolizers have higher rates of certain types ofcancerand are more susceptible to side effects from chemicals (known as MCS) metabolized by NAT2.SOD2rs2758331AAA+/+SOD2rs2855262TCT+/-SOD2 A16Vrs4880GGG+/+SOD2 gene is a member of the iron/manganesesuperoxide dismutasefamily and may be one of the key sources of my troubles. This protein transforms toxic superoxide, a byproduct of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, intohydrogen peroxideand diatomicoxygen. In simpler terms, the more energy your mitochondria produce, the more byproducts (also called free radicals) get produced. These toxic byproducts tear up cell membranes and walls through a process called oxidative stress.Mutations in the SOD2 gene diminish your ability to transform these toxic byproducts into harmless components. People with SOD2 polymorphisms may not tolerate nitrates or fish oil well. Mutations in this gene have been associated withidiopathic cardiomyopathy(IDC), sporadic motor neuron disease, and cancer.

Now what about SOD1 & 3? I dont know why it doesnt appear on this report but I was able to get some information on it from Livewello and it looks like I am much better off there. Heres my SOD1 and SOD3 status. Just for kicks, I decided to run SOD2 and I find it shows a much different picture than sterlings app: my SOD 2 on Livewello. Notice how it shows that I do have some working SOD2 genes!

Read the original here:
My genetics - How I Recovered my journey through heavy ...

Human history is often something modern man only sees as through a glass, darkly. This is particularly the case when that history did not occur in the Mediterranean, the Nile Valley, India, or China, or when there is no written record on which scholars can rely. Exacerbating the disrupting effects of time on history can be when that history occurs in a region where extensive migration has disrupted whatever temporarily stable civilization happened to have taken root at that place at any particular time.

But humans leave traces of themselves in their history and a variety of such traces have been the source of reconstructions outside conventional sources. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza began the study of human population genetics as a way to understand this history in 1971 in The Genetics of Human Populations, and later extended these studies to include language and how it influences gene flow between human populations. More recent efforts to use genetics to reconstruct history include Deep Ancestry: The Landmark DNA Quest to Decipher Our Distant Past by Spencer Wells (National Geographic: 2006), and The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science that Reveals our Genetic Ancestry by Brian Sykes (Carrol & Graf: 2002). And even more recently, genetic studies have illuminated the "fine structure" of human populations in England (see "Fine-structure Genetic Mapping of Human Population in Britain").

Two recent reports illustrate how genetics can inform history: the first, in the American Journal of Human Genetics entitled "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences"; and a second in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, entitled "Genomic landscape of human diversity across Madagascar." In the first study, authors* from The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, University of Cambridge, University of Zurich, University of Otago, Bournemouth University, Lebanese American University, and Harvard University found evidence of genetic admixture over 5,000 years of a Canaanite population that has persisted in Lebanese populations into the modern era. This population is interesting for historians in view of the central location of the ancestral home of the Canaanites, the Levant, in the Fertile Crescent that ran from Egypt through Mesopotamia. The Canaanites also inhabited the Levant during the Bronze Age and provide a critical link between the Neolithic transition from hunter gatherer societies to agriculture. This group (known to the ancient Greeks as the Phoenicians) is also a link to the great early societies recognized through their historical writings and civilizations (including the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans); if the Canaanites had any such texts or other writings they have not survived. In addition, the type of genetic analyses that have been done for European populations has not been done for descendants of inhabitants of the Levant from this historical period. This paper uses genetic comparisons between 99 modern day residents of Lebanon (specifically, from Sidon and the Lebanese interior) and ancient DNA (aDNA) from ~3,700 year old genomes from petrous bone of individuals interred in gravesites in Sidon. For aDNA, these analyses yielded 0.4-2.3-fold genomic DNA coverage and 53-264-fold mitochondrial DNA coverage, and also compared Y chromosome sequences with present-day Lebanese, two Canaanite males and samples from the 1000 Genomes Project. Over one million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used for comparison.

These results indicated that the Canaanite ancestry was an admixture of local Neolithic populations and migrants from Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Iran. The authors estimate from these linkage disequilibrium studies that this admixture occurred between 6,600 and 3,550 years ago, a date that is consistent with recorded mass migrations in the region during that time. Perhaps surprisingly, their results also show that the majority of the present-day Lebanese population has inherited most of their genomic DNA from these Canaanite ancestors. These researchers also found traces of Eurasian ancestry consistent with conquests by outside populations during the period from 3,750-2,170 years ago, as well as the expansion of Phoenician maritime trade network that extended during historical time to the Iberian Peninsula.

The second paper arose from genetic studies of an Asian/African admixture population on Mozambique. This group** from the University of Toulouse, INSERM, the University of Bordeaux, University of Indonesia, the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Institut genomique, Centre Nacional de Genotypage, University of Melbourne, and the Universite de la Rochelle, showed geographic stratification between ancestral African (mostly Bantu) and Asian (Austronesean) ancestors. Cultural, historical, linguistic, ethnographic, archeological, and genetic studies supports the conclusion that Madagascar residents have traits from both populations but the effects of settlement history are termed "contentious" by these authors. Various competing putative "founder" populations (including Arabic, Indian, Papuan, and/or Jewish populations as well as first settlers found only in legend, under names like "Vazimba," "Kimosy," and "Gola") have been posited as initial settlers. These researchers report an attempt to illuminate the ancestry of the Malagasy by a study of human genetics.

These results showed common Bantu and Austronesian descent for the population with what the authors termed "limited" paternal contributions from Europe and Middle Eastern populations. The admixture of African and Austronesian populations occurred "recently" (i.e., over the past millennium) but was gender-biased and heterogeneous, which reflected for these researchers independent colonization by the two groups. The results also indicated that detectable genetic structure can be imposed on human populations over a relatively brief time (~ a few centuries).

Using a "grid-based approach" the researchers performed a high-resolution genetic diversity study that included maternal and paternal lineages as well as genome-wide data from 257 villages and over 2,700 Malagasy individuals. Maternal inheritance patterns were interrogated using mitochondrial DNA and patterns of paternity assayed using Y chromosomal sequences. Non-gender specific relationships were assessed through 2.5 million SNPs. Mitochondrial DNA analyses showed maternal inheritance from either African or East Asian origins (with one unique Madagascar variant termed M23) in roughly equal amounts, with no evidence of maternal gene flow from Europe or the Middle East. The M23 variant shows evidence of recent (within 900-1500 years) origin. Y chromosomal sequences, in contrast are much more prevalent from African origins (70.7% Africa:20.7% East Asia); the authors hypothesize that the remainder may reflect Muslim influences, with evidence of but little European ancestry.

Admixture assessments support Southeast Asian (Indonesian) and East African source populations for the Malagasy admixture. These results provide the frequency of the African component to be ~59%, the Asian component frequency to be ~37%, and the Western European component to have a frequency of about 4% (albeit with considerable variation, e.g., African ancestry can range from ~26% to almost 93%). Similar results were obtained when the frequency of chromosomal fragments shared with other populations were compared to the Malagasy population (finding the closest link to Asian populations from south Borneo, and excluding Indian, Somali, and Ethiopian populations, although the analysis was sensitive in one individual to detect French Basque ancestry). The split with ancestral Asian populations either occurred ~2,500 years ago or by slower divergence between ~2,000-3,000 years ago, while divergence with Bantu populations occurred more recently (~1,500 years ago).

There were also significant differences in geographic distribution between descendants of these ancestral populations. Maternal African lineages were found predominantly in north Madagascar, with material Asian lineages found in central and southern Madagascar (from mtDNA analyses). Paternal lineages were generally much lower overall for Asian descendants (~30% in central Madagascar) based on Y chromosome analyses. Genome-wide analyses showed "highlanders" had predominantly Asian ancestry (~65%) while coastal inhabitants had predominantly (~65%) African ancestry; these results depended greatly on the method of performing the analyses which affected the granularity of the geographic correlates. Finally, assessing admixture patterns indicated that the genetic results are consistent with single intermixing event (500-900 years ago) for all but one geographic area, which may have seen a first event 28 generations ago and a second one only 4 generations ago. These researchers also found evidence of at least one population bottleneck, where the number of individuals dropped to a few hundred people about 1,000-800 years ago.

These results are represented pictorially in the paper:

In view of the current political climate, the eloquent opening of the paper deserves attention:

Ancient long-distance voyaging between continents stimulates the imagination, raises questions about the circumstances surrounding such voyages, and reminds us that globalization is not a recent phenomenon. Moreover, populations which thereby come into contact can exchange genes, goods, ideas and technologies.

* Marc Haber, Claude Doumet-Serhal, Christiana Scheib, Yali Xue, Petr Danecek, Massimo Mezzavilla, Sonia Youhanna, Rui Martiniano, Javier Prado-Martinez, Micha Szpak, Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, Holger Schutkowski, Richard Mikulski, Pierre Zalloua, Toomas Kivisild, Chris Tyler-Smith

** Denis Pierrona, Margit Heiskea, Harilanto Razafindrazakaa, Ignace Rakotob, Nelly Rabetokotanyb, Bodo Ravololomangab, Lucien M.-A. Rakotozafyb, Mireille Mialy Rakotomalalab, Michel Razafiarivonyb, Bako Rasoarifetrab, Miakabola Andriamampianina Raharijesyb, Lolona Razafindralambob, Ramilisoninab, Fulgence Fanonyb, Sendra Lejamblec, Olivier Thomasc, Ahmed Mohamed Abdallahc, Christophe Rocherc,, Amal Arachichec, Laure Tonasoa, Veronica Pereda-lotha, Stphanie Schiavinatoa, Nicolas Brucatoa, Francois-Xavier Ricauta, Pradiptajati Kusumaa,d,e, Herawati Sudoyod,e, Shengyu Nif, Anne Bolandg, Jean-Francois Deleuzeg, Philippe Beaujardh, Philippe Grangei, Sander Adelaarj, Mark Stonekingf, Jean-Aim Rakotoarisoab, Chantal Radimilahy, and Thierry Letelliera

The rest is here:
Using Genetics to Uncover Human History - JD Supra (press release)