'Junk DNA' uncovers the nature of our ancient ancestors

Oct 20, 2010
'Junk DNA' uncovers the nature of our ancient ancestors
The sea lamprey

The key to solving one of the great puzzles in evolutionary biology, the origin of vertebrates -- animals with an internal skeleton made of bone -- has been revealed in new research from Dartmouth College and the University of Bristol.

Vertebrates are the most anatomically and genetically complex of all organisms, but explaining how they achieved this complexity has vexed scientists. The study, published today [20 October] in claims to have solved this scientific riddle by analysing the genomics of primitive living fishes such as sharks and , and their spineless relatives such as sea squirts. 

Alysha Heimberg of Dartmouth College and colleagues studied the family relationships of primitive vertebrates. The team used microRNAs, a class of tiny molecules only recently discovered residing within what has usually been considered 'junk DNA', to show that lampreys and slime eels are distant relatives of jawed vertebrates.

Alysha said: “We learn from our results that lamprey and hagfish are equally related to jawed vertebrates and that hagfish are not representative of a more primitive vertebrate, which suggests that the ancestral vertebrate was more complex than anyone had previously thought.

“Vertebrates have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years but still express the same microRNA genes in the same organs as when they both first appeared.”

The team went on to test the idea that it was these same ‘junk DNA’ genes, microRNAs, which were responsible for the evolution origin of vertebrate anatomical features. They found that the same suite of microRNAs were expressed in the same organs and tissues, in lampreys and mice.

Co-author, Professor Philip Donoghue of the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, said: “The origin of and the origin of these genes is no coincidence.”

Professor Kevin Peterson of Dartmouth College said: “This study not only points the way to understanding the evolutionary origin of our own lineage, but it also helps us to understand how our own was assembled in deep time.”

Explore further: Evolution of marine crocodilians constrained by ocean temperatures

Related Stories

New piece in the jigsaw puzzle of human origins

Jan 15, 2009

In an article in today's Nature, Uppsala researcher Martin Brazeau describes the skull and jaws of a fish that lived about 410 million years ago. The study may give important clues to the origin of jawed vertebrates, and th ...

Ancient Chinese lampreys are studied

Jun 21, 2006

The fossilized remains of two tiny freshwater lampreys have been found in Inner Mongolia, China, each about 125 million years old.

Ancient Jawless Vertebrates Used Novel Immune Responses

Dec 22, 2005

Researchers recently discovered that the sea lamprey, a modern representative of ancient jawless vertebrates, fights invading pathogens by generating up to 100 trillion unique receptors. These receptors, referred ...

Recommended for you

Orb-weaving spiders living in urban areas may be larger

18 hours ago

A common orb-weaving spider may grow larger and have an increased ability to reproduce when living in urban areas, according to a study published August 20, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Eli ...

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2010
Unfortunately the logic is flawed because it is heavily biased.

It is also equally probable that the said Micro RNAs have the exact same function in so-called primitives as it does in man. It is equally valid that it could be a common design feature and not a hereditary trait. The researcher does not explore this option because of his/her predisposition towards evolutionary thinking.

There is just no way of knowing how the skeleton evolved since there's no documentation that shows it evolved. The mystery might be solved for evolutionists because it presents them with a plausible scenario as to how it could have happened and because of that it will become an evolutionary truth - regardless of what actually might be the case [ e.g. a common design feature ].
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2010
Upon delving deeper into the so-called junk DNA, more and more complex functionality and processing will be discovered which will simply thrash this theory. I doubt the evolutionists will retract this bit.
JRDarby
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2010
What would it take to convince you, along with all the other creationists, that evolution qua natural/sexual selection occurs on what you call both the micro- and macro- (stupid distinction, by the way) scales? It's extremely obvious that you just *can't* accept evolution for what it is--or at least what other, more educated people accept it as.

If you're unwilling to be convinced why bother posting here? We want profitable, open discussion--not dogmatism like you're probably used to every Sunday morning.
Rohitasch
not rated yet Oct 21, 2010
Errr.., Documentation usually comes much later in the story of life as documenters would have to evolve to the point where they can document. And the process of documentation itself evolves as it takes all available paths as can be perceived by different branches of documenters who themselves branch off by branching the process of documentation, creating a positive feedback within their branches thus perpetuating the evolution of their branch.
DavidMcC
4 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2010
If you forget bones for a minute, and look at eyes, you find that hagfish have the primitive form (a non-imaging, circadian "eye". This "eye" is similar to the larval lamprey's non-imaging eye, but the lamprey eye goes through a metamorphosis and becomes a fully functioning vertebrate eye. This may be related to the unusually long and complex larval development.
Thraxzer
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2010
kevinrtrs,
Perhaps lampreys and hagfish were 'designed' to appear as relatives to vertebrates. The same way you were designed to seem related to your parents.
Besides, what is the problem with designed things being evolutionary? The computer used here is clearly both designed and evolutionary. There are only slight differences between this computer and a related 1 year older computer. Also between that computer and one 2 years old, and so on to the first digital computer, which had an eerily similar design to the non-digital computers before it. Engineers have just been designing components based on already working devices.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Nov 13, 2010
Further thoughts on the main thesis:
Alysha should ask herself whether there is such a thing as a "pseudo-micro-RNA", ie, is it possible that the micro-RNAs being studied are actually junk after all? If this is the case, then they are just little DNA clocks, and no conclusions can be drawn from their study concerning the sophistication or otherwise of the common ancestors of hagfish and lampreys.

Even if it is still possible to claim a sophisticated ancestor, without knowing the details of any effects of these micro-RNAs, the thesis remains vague. For example, is she arguing that hagfish circadian "eyes" are degenerate from imaging eyes, or not?