We are all mutants: Measurement of mutation rate in humans by direct sequencing

Aug 27, 2009

An international team of 16 scientists today reports the first direct measurement of the general rate of genetic mutation at individual DNA letters in humans. The team sequenced the same piece of DNA - 10,000,000 or so letters or 'nucleotides' from the Y chromosome - from two men separated by 13 generations, and counted the number of differences. Among all these nucleotides, they found only four mutations.

In 1935 one of the founders of modern genetics, J. B. S. Haldane, studied men in London with the blood disease haemophilia and estimated that there would be one in 50,000 incidence of mutations causing haemophilia in the gene affected - the equivalent of a mutation rate of perhaps one in 25 million across the genome. Others have measured rates at a few further specific genes or compared DNA from humans and to produce general estimates of the mutation rate expressed more directly in nucleotides of DNA.

Remarkably, the new research, published today in , shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Fortunately, most of these are harmless and have no apparent effect on our health or appearance.

"The amount of data we generated would have been unimaginable just a few years ago," says Dr Yali Xue from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and one of the project's leaders. "But finding this tiny number of mutations was more difficult than finding an ant's egg in the emperor's rice store."

Team member Qiuju Wang recruited a family from China who had lived in the same village for centuries. The team studied two distant male-line relatives - separated by thirteen generations - whose lived two hundred years ago.

To establish the rate of mutation, the team examined an area of the . The Y chromosome is unique in that, apart from rare mutations, it is passed unchanged from father to son; so mutations accumulate slowly over the generations.

Despite many generations of separation, researchers found only 12 differences among all the DNA letters examined. The two Y chromosomes were still identical at 10,149,073 of the 10,149,085 letters examined. Of the 12 differences, eight had arisen in the cell lines used for the work. Only four were true mutations that had occurred naturally through the generations.

We have known for a long time that mutations occur occasionally in each of us, but have had to guess exactly how often. Now, thanks to advances in the technology for reading DNA, this new research has been possible.

Understanding mutation rates is key to many aspects of human evolution and medical research: mutation is the ultimate source of all our genetic variation and provides a molecular clock for measuring evolutionary timescales. Mutations can also lead directly to diseases like cancer. With better measurements of mutation rates, we could improve the calibration of the evolutionary clock, or test ways to reduce mutations, for example.

Even with the latest DNA sequencing technology, the researchers had to design a special strategy to search for the vanishingly rare mutations. They used next-generation sequencing to establish the order of letters on the two Y chromosomes and then compared these to the Y chromosome reference sequence.

Having identified 23 candidate SNPs - or single letter changes in the DNA - they amplified the regions containing these candidates and checked the sequences using the standard Sanger method. A total of four naturally occurring mutations were confirmed. Knowing this number of mutations, the length of the area that they had searched and the number of generations separating the individuals, the team were able to calculate the rate of mutation.

"These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotides each generation - that we had expected," says the study's coordinator, Chris Tyler-Smith, also from The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "This was reassuring because the methods we used - harnessing next-generation sequencing technology - had not previously been tested for this kind of research. New mutations are responsible for an array of genetic diseases. The ability to reliably measure rates of DNA mutation means we can begin to ask how mutation rates vary between different regions of the genome and perhaps also between different individuals."

Source: Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (news : web)

Explore further: Researchers develop model for better testing, targeting of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Connecting cancer genes

May 15, 2008

A large genetic study in mice has identified hundreds of genes involved in the development of cancer by examining the DNA of more than 500 lymphomas to find the cancer causing mutations.

Probing question: What is a molecular clock?

Nov 20, 2008

It doesn't tick, it doesn't have hands, and it doesn't tell you what time of day it is. But a molecular clock does tell time -- on an epoch scale. The molecular clock, explained S. Blair Hedges, is a tool ...

Researchers link genetic errors to schizophrenia

Mar 27, 2008

A team of researchers at the University of Washington and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories has uncovered genetic errors that may shed light on the causes of schizophrenia. The scientists found that deletions and duplications ...

The nonsense in our genes: 1 in 200 human genes superfluous?

Feb 05, 2009

1 in 200 of our human genes can be inactivated with no detectable effect on our health. A study by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute scientists raises new questions about the effects of gene loss on our wellbeing and evolution.

Recommended for you

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Adam
not rated yet Aug 27, 2009
Nice to have that so brilliantly clarified. So in the 3.2 billion base-pairs of my genome there's ~100 mutations away from my parents' genomes. Interesting. In probabilistic terms most are neutral. If I then differ from a chimp by 2% of my genome I'm 320,000 generations removed from members of 'Pan'. Wonder what the generation time is? If it's just 15 years then the split between the two was just 4,800,000 years ago, and 20 years pushes it back to 6,400,000 years... average is then ~5.6 million years. That's younger than fossil hominids 'Sahelanthropus' and 'Orrorin'... hmmm.
nkalanaga
not rated yet Aug 27, 2009
Maybe the hominids are dead-end branches? I wouldn't be surprised if there were several events leading to "hominid-looking" results before one (our line) survived.
MatthiasF
not rated yet Aug 28, 2009
Adam, I doubt the current variation would be the same as 100,000 generations ago. Over time as genes spread out over wider swaths of the population, the variation even at each generation would probably decrease. Leading inevitably to what nkalanaga hints on, that there were probably a lot more steps in between that were either wiped out or assimilated and might not even have a fossil record.

Anyway, awesome discovery!
Ronan
not rated yet Aug 28, 2009
MatthiasF: Well, it depends on how much we've evolved to evolve, doesn't it? If we've been selected for slightly less or more accurate "bug-checking" of our genes, than the mutation rate'd definitely change. On that subject, I seem to recall reading something recently which suggested that humans have been evolving more rapidly in the past few tens of thousands of years than we had previously--although, of course, if I remember that correctly (big if) it doesn't mean that the mutation rate itself changed substantially.

And an interesting sidenote; Adam estimated that humans diverged from chimps somewhere between 4.8 and 6.4 MYA, while this states a range of somewhere between 5 and 7 MYA: http://www.msnbc....0536414/

...Surprisingly close, really.
MatthiasF
not rated yet Aug 29, 2009
Ronan, agreed. The increase in gene changes recently (the last ten thousand years as you said), could be due more interactions over greater distances from technological advances (wheel, boats, sail, etc.)

Also agree that Adam's math was quite an eye opener.
HenisDov
not rated yet Aug 31, 2009
Mutants With An Ironic Twist

Life Scientists Are All Myopic,
They Think We Are All Mutants...


A. From "We are all mutants"
http://www.eureka...2509.php

- "Understanding mutation rates is key to many aspects of human evolution and medical research: mutation is the ultimate source of all our genetic variation and provides a molecular clock for measuring evolutionary timescales. Mutations can also lead directly to diseases like cancer. With better measurements of mutation rates, we could improve the calibration of the evolutionary clock, or test ways to reduce mutations, for example."

- "To establish the rate of mutation, the team examined an area of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is unique in that, apart from rare mutations, it is passed unchanged from father to son; so mutations accumulate slowly over the generations."


B. Genetic accidental "mutations" are minor contributors to genetic evolution

See "Evolution, Genetics And Culture"
http://www.the-sc...age#2485

Adaptation is culture. And culture is the driver of Universal Evolution, of all evolutions.
See "Rethink Unified Field Theory And Evolution"
http://www.the-sc...page#982

and see "Spontaneous Speciation?"
http://www.physor...378.html


C. An ironic twist...

Searching for genetic change rate in the human Y chromosome is searching at night for a lost coin under the street light only.

See "Conservation of Y-linked genes during human evolution revealed by comparative sequencing in chimpanzee"
http://www.the-sc...age#2887

And see especially "On The Origin And Tasks Of Brain Cells"
http://www.the-sc...age#2822

The human Y-linked genes are indeed conspicuously preserved. The irony is that this is part of THE proof that genetic changes are NOT brought about by "mutations", as it is culture that drives genetic changes!


Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 04, 2009
The irony is that this is part of THE proof that genetic changes are NOT brought about by "mutations", as it is culture that drives genetic changes!


That is partially false. Culture is part of the environment and thus it does play a part in selection BUT it cannot produce the change in the genome. Mutations ARE the changes in the genome but they go through the selection process. Those that work are conserved those that are a disaster fail to reproduce.

It takes BOTH mutation and selection to drive evolution. Without mutation there is nothing to select from. It is not that culture has nothing to do with evolution its that you overstate the case for culture over mutations.

And a goodly hunk of the cultural effects are actually disease effects that were enhanced by increased communication between various groups. Without long distance trade many diseases would never have left their area of origin.

Ethelred
zilqarneyn
not rated yet Sep 05, 2009
Adam (& Ronan, & MatthiasF),
Your math assumes a continuous long-time probability. If that is visible even by looking at small intervals of time, that regularity opposes yet another evolutionist lore, namely "punctuated-equilibrium." Keep in mind that, they had to come up with that PE theory, because of the gaps (constancies, then spurts) in the fossil records. When looking into seas (such as Tiktaalik), a "transitional"-looking something might sound something, but when the rock strata of fossils show sophitication-over-time, but with gaps, then you have to make something with that data. Creationists take that as evidence for instantaneous-creation, while evolutionists think that as "punctuated-equilibrium." But you deny both, if you would assume that regular mutation rate. (Perhaps, you would believe that fossils reflect only after a threshold of gene changes. Or, point out that molecular analyses are not entirely in agreement with fossils, http://www.physor...477.html )

Furthermore, if you would assume such a constant rate of probability for all nature, then the first fossil that you would find of old monkeys which might be similar to a current monkey, would refute your hypothesis. Otherwise, you would be suggesting that, monkeys threw all-tails, while humans threw all-heads, wit that probability. 320000 tails, in a row? Wow!

More news stories

Child maltreatment increases risk of adult obesity

Children who have suffered maltreatment are 36% more likely to be obese in adulthood compared to non-maltreated children, according to a new study by King's College London. The authors estimate that the prevention or effective ...

After a decade, global AIDS program looks ahead

(AP)—The decade-old law that transformed the battle against HIV and AIDS in developing countries is at a crossroads. The dream of future generations freed from the epidemic is running up against an era ...

New immune system discovered

(Medical Xpress)—A research team, led by Jeremy Barr, a biology post-doctoral fellow, unveils a new immune system that protects humans and animals from infection.

Do salamanders hold the solution to regeneration?

Salamanders' immune systems are key to their remarkable ability to regrow limbs, and could also underpin their ability to regenerate spinal cords, brain tissue and even parts of their hearts, scientists have ...

Lab sets a new record for creating heralded photons

(Phys.org) —Entanglement, by general consensus of physicists, is the weirdest part of quantum science. To say that two particles, A and B, are entangled means that they are actually two parts of an inseparable ...