Category: DNA

Posted on

Wheats and gluten

Sometimes it takes some personal connection to get me motivated enough to try and understand something a little more fully. Laziness, I guess. Anyway, for example, I vaguely knew about the gluten seed storage proteins of wheat and the coeliac disease they cause in about 1% of the population. But I decided to delve a little deeper only when an old friend I hadn’t seen for a while visited today and told me that she was a sufferer, and that she needed to know how to describe the condition in italian so she wouldn’t get into trouble eating in restaurants here in Rome.

Having sorted that out, I was interested to know whether there are differences among wheat species in the “toxicity” of their glutens. You’ll remember that wheat comes in a polyploid series: diploid, tetraploids and hexaploids. And that three distinct genomes are involved: AA, BB and DD. Diploid einkorn (AA) and BB genome species got together to form tetraploid emmer and durum wheat (AABB). And these hybridized with wild diploid Triticum tauschii to make hexaploid (AABBDD) bread wheat.

It turns out that differences in gluten toxicity do exist. An analysis of the ancestral A, B and D genomes of wheat found that DNA sequences associated with 4 peptides that have been identified as triggering a response in coeliac patients are not distributed at random. For example, the B genome sequences analyzed did not reveal any of the “guilty” sequences.

On the basis of such insight, breeding strategies can be designed to generate less toxic varieties of wheat which may be tolerated by at least part of the [coelic disease] patient population.

Oh, and coeliac disease is called celiachia in italian.

Posted on

Fido decoded

An article by Elaine Ostrander in the latest American Scientist summarizes recent advances in canine genomics, which have been considerable:

The dog genome has been mapped and sequenced. A host of disease loci have been mapped, and in many cases the underlying mutations identified. Our understanding of how dog breeds relate to one another is beginning to develop, and we have a fundamental understanding of the organization of the canine genome. The issue of complex traits is no longer off-limits. We have begun to understand the genetic portfolio that leads to variation in body size and shape, and even some performance-associated behaviors.

Some snippets:

  1. Between-breed genetic variation is about 27.5% of the total, compared to about 5% between human populations.
  2. Dog breeds fall into 4 main groups: Asian and African dogs, plus grey wolves; mastiffs; herding dogs and sight hounds; and modern huntings dogs.
  3. 75% of the 19,000 genes that have been identified in the dog genome show close similarities with their human counterparts.
  4. Variation in a single gene (IGF1) explains a lot of the size differences among and within breeds.

What to do with all this information?

It is certainly hoped that the disease-gene mapping will lead to the production of genetic tests and more thoughtful breeding programs associated with healthier, more long-lived dogs. It will be easier to select for particular physical traits such as body size or coat color… Finally, canine geneticists will have a chance to develop an understanding of the genes that cause breed-specific behaviors (why do pointers point and herders herd?).

Posted on

Backyard domestication

There’s a “dump heap” hypothesis of agricultural origins which suggests that people first got interested in actively managing and manipulating plants for food or other products when they saw them sprouting out of piles of garbage in and about settlements. There they could observe them daily and experiment with them. A slight variation on this theme — involving corrals in pastoralist campsites rather than garbage dumps — has been proposed for the domestication of quinoa.

One of the things that might have happened in these fertile micro-environments in close proximity to human habitations is that different related species might have been brought accidentally together, leading to hybridization and the development of interesting new — polyploid — types. But there really hasn’t been much empirical evidence for this.

No more. A new paper ((Colin E. Hughes, Rajanikanth Govindarajulu, Ashley Robertson, Denis L. Filer, Stephen A. Harris, and C. Donovan Bailey. Serendipitous backyard hybridization and the origin of crops. PNAS published August 17, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0702193104.)) looks at the domestication of the legume tree Leucaena in Mexico, where it is grown for food (it is also used as a fodder in some parts of the world). A variety of evidence is discussed which suggests that there has indeed been much hybridization among up to 13 different wild species of Leucaena in Mexican backyards. This has proved “a potent trigger for domestication.” The authors think a similar thing also happened in Mexico with two other perennial crops, Agave and Opuntia.

Posted on

Genotyping Support Service

The CGIAR’s Generation Challenge Programme‘s mission is

To use advanced genomics science and plant genetic diversity to overcome complex agricultural bottlenecks that condemn millions of the world’s neediest people to a future of poverty and hunger

They’ve just announced a new service: the Genotyping Support Service. What will GSS do?

Here’s a sample of what our latest service offers: assessing proposals, hiring genotyping services from the best providers, taking care of the administrative hassles, ensuring the generation of high-quality data and training participating researchers to interpret and work with the data to optimise outputs. In this way, researchers get to use the technology right away, while also learning how to get the greatest mileage out of the technology, thus creating local capacity. As such, GSS contributes to GCP’s effort to support and motivate plant breeding ‘champions’ in developing regions.

Posted on

All cows are not equal

Cows produce milk, right? Its qualities vary among breeds, with creamy Jersey milk at one end and that skimmed milk cow at the other. And the quantity varies within a breed, which is how we got to the monster lactation machines that are the modern Friesian. But until this morning I had no idea that there was a distinct difference in the type of milk produced by cows within a breed.

Apparently, the major protein in milk, beta-casein, comes in two different forms, called A1 and A2 (original, huh). Some cows have both forms of casein in their milk, some only A1 and some only A2. (Students of genetics will want to know the ratios. I can’t seem to find them.) The A2 corporation, which has registered and trademarked A2 milkâ„¢, says that the A2 form is the original, and that at some point in the past a mutation produced A1. It also hints strongly that as a result, pure A2 milk is better for you. There seems to be some evidence floating around out there, but none of it is overwhelmingly positive.

Anyway, one can determine which cows produce what milk with a simple DNA test, and this morning’s awakening came from a report about the first dairy farm in the US to separate the milk from its A2 cows. A dairy company in Lincoln, Nebraska has started to market A2 milk in the US. To say they are cagey about the exact health claims they are making for this premium priced product would be the understatement of the week.

“To say there is no controversy over this would not be correct,” said Timothy Thietje, CEO of The Original Foods Company, a Nebraska-based marketer of A2 Milk.

“But to say there’s a substantial body of evidence both in terms of science and the response from people who use the product is correct.”

Right.

All this started in New Zealand and Australia, where the milk is marketed without the approval of the milk boards; what would all those other farmers do? But could this, just possibly, be a case in which reducing diversity might be good for you?