3 ms·

“Until recently, science has basically ignored the fact that we are all walking around with two genomes in every cell,” Dowling says, “that of our own nuclear g

by pja 11y ago

“Until recently, science has basically ignored the fact that we are all walking around with two genomes in every cell,” Dowling says, “that of our own nuclear genome, and that of the mitochondria.” Really? I was taught about mitochondria in considerable detail as part of the biology part of my undergrad science degree & mitochondria have clearly been studied pretty intensively. That’s not to say that there aren’t gaps in our knowledge or new things to learn, but the idea that the mitochondria have just been ignored is clearly untrue. I guess some researchers feel it necessary to talk up their own research though - it’s a labrat eat labrat world out there.

debacle 11y ago
In my high school biology class, which I would assume is still the highest level of biology most people complete, mitochondrial DNA wasn't even mentioned. Many high school level science courses are rife with disinformation.
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  I definitely was taught quite a bit about mitochondria in grade 10 (Canadian) high school biology, in the early 90s. We were even told about at-the-time-speculative-now-accepted theories that mitochondria were the result of a primitive "capture" of a prokaryotic cell by the first early proto-eukaryotes.
ergothus 11y ago
It might depend on what you consider "ignored". Shortly after Dolly the Sheep became famous, Ian Wilmut (one of the main people of that project) visited my university for a talk, and I asked him if he was concerned about the impact of mitochondrial differences between the genetic donor and the host egg. He was quite dismissive, saying (IIRC) "mitochondria are responsible for at most 5% phenotypical expression". To me that sounded like a lot (and I had asked the question because I expected mitochondrial differences to really matter) but he did not share my view. So, yes, if Dr. Wilmut's reaction was typical, I think it's fair to call that "ignored". Not "unknown", but ignored.

by pja 11y ago

debacle 11y ago

In my high school biology class, which I would assume is still the highest level of biology most people complete, mitochondrial DNA wasn't even mentioned. Many high school level science courses are rife with disinformation.

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
I definitely was taught quite a bit about mitochondria in grade 10 (Canadian) high school biology, in the early 90s. We were even told about at-the-time-speculative-now-accepted theories that mitochondria were the result of a primitive "capture" of a prokaryotic cell by the first early proto-eukaryotes.

ergothus 11y ago

It might depend on what you consider "ignored". Shortly after Dolly the Sheep became famous, Ian Wilmut (one of the main people of that project) visited my university for a talk, and I asked him if he was concerned about the impact of mitochondrial differences between the genetic donor and the host egg. He was quite dismissive, saying (IIRC) "mitochondria are responsible for at most 5% phenotypical expression". To me that sounded like a lot (and I had asked the question because I expected mitochondrial differences to really matter) but he did not share my view. So, yes, if Dr. Wilmut's reaction was typical, I think it's fair to call that "ignored". Not "unknown", but ignored.