3 ms·

Is it not wasteful for each of our cells to contain genetic code for the whole of the organism? Any particular cell only expresses a tiny subset of that code. A

Is it not wasteful for each of our cells to contain genetic code for the whole of the organism? Any particular cell only expresses a tiny subset of that code. Are there any organisms that don't follow this approach? On the other hand, there is a satisfying romance to it all. That a cell is borne and joins into the system ready to grow into anything. It makes our 'self' feel like a co-operative experiment.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> That a cell is borne and joins into the system ready to grow into anything. That generally doesn't happen; a single-cell fertilized egg will grow into the whole organism, but the more usual birth of cells, from the division of an older already-specialized cell, preserves the older cell's existing epigenetic markings. > Is it not wasteful for each of our cells to contain genetic code for the whole of the organism? Depends on your point of view. From an evolutionary perspective, DNA is the part of you that replicates and so having more copies of it is its own reward.
Rury 4y ago
This is likely an open question. I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine the main reason (at least our) cells all contain genetic code for the whole organism, is largely because stem cells contain genetic code for the whole organism. If stem cells didn't have genetic code for say, both heart cells and lung cells, then it couldn't turn into those types of cells. And since all cells, stem from stem cells... then they also end up with the genetic code for the whole organism. Additionally, DNA is regularly used for creating proteins a cell needs for various purposes. Having extra genetic material than necessary, probably provides some benefits in terms of robustness. Like imaginably when a cell is exposed to a toxic substance, and has genetic code (recipe) for a protein that can neutralize it. Maybe 99% of the time it never needs that genetic code, nor is unnecessary to the cells particular function, but having it around can be beneficial in those rare circumstances. So is it wasteful and bad? Perhaps, but it likely also comes with some positive tradeoffs.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> That a cell is borne and joins into the system ready to grow into anything. That generally doesn't happen; a single-cell fertilized egg will grow into the whole organism, but the more usual birth of cells, from the division of an older already-specialized cell, preserves the older cell's existing epigenetic markings. > Is it not wasteful for each of our cells to contain genetic code for the whole of the organism? Depends on your point of view. From an evolutionary perspective, DNA is the part of you that replicates and so having more copies of it is its own reward.

Rury 4y ago

This is likely an open question. I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine the main reason (at least our) cells all contain genetic code for the whole organism, is largely because stem cells contain genetic code for the whole organism. If stem cells didn't have genetic code for say, both heart cells and lung cells, then it couldn't turn into those types of cells. And since all cells, stem from stem cells... then they also end up with the genetic code for the whole organism. Additionally, DNA is regularly used for creating proteins a cell needs for various purposes. Having extra genetic material than necessary, probably provides some benefits in terms of robustness. Like imaginably when a cell is exposed to a toxic substance, and has genetic code (recipe) for a protein that can neutralize it. Maybe 99% of the time it never needs that genetic code, nor is unnecessary to the cells particular function, but having it around can be beneficial in those rare circumstances. So is it wasteful and bad? Perhaps, but it likely also comes with some positive tradeoffs.