K Barrett wrote:
Scientists sequenced the genome of the honeybee.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob1.asp

In this article the reporter writes "Among the novelties of the honeybee,
Apis mellifera, are its 170 genes for odor receptors."

(snip)

But if this is the first time a species' genome has been looked at and if
there are only 5 other insects that have had their genome cracked, much less
studied, then 'How do they know?"

By comparison with known odor receptor genes in fruit flies, Drosophila
melanogaster. It doesn't actually matter how many insects have had
their genomes sequenced. What matters is that fruitflies have been
sequenced, AND their genes have been mutated to see what they do.

wrote:
K Barrett wrote:
Scientists sequenced the genome of the honeybee.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob1.asp

In this article the reporter writes "Among the novelties of the honeybee,
Apis mellifera, are its 170 genes for odor receptors."

(snip)

But if this is the first time a species' genome has been looked at and if
there are only 5 other insects that have had their genome cracked, much less
studied, then 'How do they know?"

By comparison with known odor receptor genes in fruit flies, Drosophila
melanogaster. It doesn't actually matter how many insects have had
their genomes sequenced. What matters is that fruitflies have been
sequenced, AND their genes have been mutated to see what they do.


Yep. We bioinformatics geeks do this all the time. It doesn't much
matter that we haven't figured out all the honeybee genes, it does
matter that we know a lot about related genes in other organisms.

The 170 genes were probably mostly predicted computationally. We know
what coding DNA looks like from experience with other organisms. We
assume that it is similar in 'unknown' organisms. It is a computational
model (probably several different ones) that of course isn't perfect.
Perhaps some of those 170 genes aren't real, or slightly mis-predicted.
But we might have missed a few, too.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Thank you both for answering.

K


"Rob" wrote in message
...
wrote:
K Barrett wrote:
Scientists sequenced the genome of the honeybee.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob1.asp

In this article the reporter writes "Among the novelties of the
honeybee,
Apis mellifera, are its 170 genes for odor receptors."

(snip)

But if this is the first time a species' genome has been looked at and
if
there are only 5 other insects that have had their genome cracked, much
less
studied, then 'How do they know?"

By comparison with known odor receptor genes in fruit flies, Drosophila
melanogaster. It doesn't actually matter how many insects have had
their genomes sequenced. What matters is that fruitflies have been
sequenced, AND their genes have been mutated to see what they do.


Yep. We bioinformatics geeks do this all the time. It doesn't much
matter that we haven't figured out all the honeybee genes, it does matter
that we know a lot about related genes in other organisms.

The 170 genes were probably mostly predicted computationally. We know
what coding DNA looks like from experience with other organisms. We
assume that it is similar in 'unknown' organisms. It is a computational
model (probably several different ones) that of course isn't perfect.
Perhaps some of those 170 genes aren't real, or slightly mis-predicted.
But we might have missed a few, too.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Well it's simple Kathy, I was kicked out of science class for turning on
the Bunson Burners ( in a 3rd world class in Africa)

Anyway it's all in the genes. If you don't gnome the mutant then leave it
to the odor receptors!

HaH!
Cheers Wendy


email Address Invalid

K Barrett wrote:
Thank you both for answering.

K


"Rob" wrote in message
...
wrote:
K Barrett wrote:
Scientists sequenced the genome of the honeybee.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob1.asp

In this article the reporter writes "Among the novelties of the
honeybee,
Apis mellifera, are its 170 genes for odor receptors."

(snip)

But if this is the first time a species' genome has been looked at
and if
there are only 5 other insects that have had their genome cracked,
much less
studied, then 'How do they know?"

By comparison with known odor receptor genes in fruit flies,
Drosophila melanogaster. It doesn't actually matter how many
insects have had their genomes sequenced. What matters is that
fruitflies have been sequenced, AND their genes have been mutated
to see what they do.

Yep. We bioinformatics geeks do this all the time. It doesn't much
matter that we haven't figured out all the honeybee genes, it does
matter that we know a lot about related genes in other organisms.

The 170 genes were probably mostly predicted computationally. We
know what coding DNA looks like from experience with other
organisms. We assume that it is similar in 'unknown' organisms. It
is a computational model (probably several different ones) that of
course isn't perfect. Perhaps some of those 170 genes aren't real,
or slightly mis-predicted. But we might have missed a few, too.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Nothing makes you feel older than finding out everyting you were taught
isn't true anymore.

K

"wendy7" wrote in message
...
Well it's simple Kathy, I was kicked out of science class for turning on
the Bunson Burners ( in a 3rd world class in Africa)

Anyway it's all in the genes. If you don't gnome the mutant then leave it
to the odor receptors!

HaH!
Cheers Wendy


email Address Invalid

K Barrett wrote:
Thank you both for answering.

K


"Rob" wrote in message
...
wrote:
K Barrett wrote:
Scientists sequenced the genome of the honeybee.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob1.asp

In this article the reporter writes "Among the novelties of the
honeybee,
Apis mellifera, are its 170 genes for odor receptors."

(snip)

But if this is the first time a species' genome has been looked at
and if
there are only 5 other insects that have had their genome cracked,
much less
studied, then 'How do they know?"

By comparison with known odor receptor genes in fruit flies,
Drosophila melanogaster. It doesn't actually matter how many
insects have had their genomes sequenced. What matters is that
fruitflies have been sequenced, AND their genes have been mutated
to see what they do.

Yep. We bioinformatics geeks do this all the time. It doesn't much
matter that we haven't figured out all the honeybee genes, it does
matter that we know a lot about related genes in other organisms.

The 170 genes were probably mostly predicted computationally. We
know what coding DNA looks like from experience with other
organisms. We assume that it is similar in 'unknown' organisms. It
is a computational model (probably several different ones) that of
course isn't perfect. Perhaps some of those 170 genes aren't real,
or slightly mis-predicted. But we might have missed a few, too.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

K Barrett wrote:
Nothing makes you feel older than finding out everyting you were taught
isn't true anymore.

It's even worse when it's your job. Research that required three years
of late nights in the lab when I was a grad student now takes about 15
minutes on the computer. Many of the techniques that I learned are
completely obsolete, and it has been less than ten years since I
defended my dissertation.

Nick

I saw a TV show on my new 60" HD TV about a census of marine micro organisms
that is currently underway.

They are using cutting edge genetic sequencing tools to count new micro
organisms in sea water. They collect the water, strain it through ever
finer filters to collect a gooey glob of micro organisms and then they
extract their DNA by slicing it into tiny nucleotide bits, then they
replicate these bits, then they REASSEMBLE them back into complete
genomes....and out of this gene puree and reassembly process comes something
a computer program can use to count the number of unique organisms that were
in the sea water sample BEFORE they were chopped to bits.

One of the remarkable things they have discovered, other than the Amazing
and unpredictably large number of new species at the microscopic level are
lots of gene groups with interesting mutations on gene groups which they
already know are used by these organisms to do things like turn light into
energy, break down oily carbon compounds, enhance immunity to cold, etc.

It is just scary what bags of genes called 'humans' can infer about
themselves based on what is literally a sampling of their gene pool.



wrote in message
oups.com...
K Barrett wrote:
Nothing makes you feel older than finding out everyting you were taught
isn't true anymore.

It's even worse when it's your job. Research that required three years
of late nights in the lab when I was a grad student now takes about 15
minutes on the computer. Many of the techniques that I learned are
completely obsolete, and it has been less than ten years since I
defended my dissertation.

Nick