Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Cryptic sentence


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Spright

Spright

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

"Unlike most commonly studied eukaryotes, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is haploid, suggesting the efficacy of natural selection in this organism may be high".

(Taken from Jang and Emmerich, PLoS ONE, 2012).

Who would like to explain this declaration to me as if I were a (very smart) eight-year-old?

#2 ascacioc

ascacioc

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
44
Excellent

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:37 PM

As defined in the wiktionary: haploid = Of a cell having a single set of unpaired chromosomes; vs diploid which has a pair of each chromosome i.e. if you have 2 chromosomes of each, if you get a mutation that is deleterious in one chromosome it happens that this condenses (epigenetical deactivation) while the other chromosome becomes activated and the gene is used from the active/healthy chromosome. If an organism is haploid, it doesn't have a spare chromosome so if a deleterious mutation happens, it is more or less screwed --> natural selection.

Think in terms of X-linked diseases being abundant in males. Males have one X and one Y; if the X chromosome is screwed, he doesn't have a spare one so disease occurs; while in females: easy peasy, just activate the other X chromosome and deactivate the sick one. In females, to get a x-linked disease, both X's must be affected, which is unlikely.

Andreea

#3 Spright

Spright

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:03 AM

Thanks, great answer!

I would've figured it out myself if it weren't for the rather confusing phrasing, in my humble opinion, "high efficacy of natural selection". I've been reading lately several opinions by elderly, senior scientists, who publicly complain about the increasing "unreadability" of articles published nowadays. I wonder if this is what they meant. Or maybe I'm just dumb.

#4 Inbox

Inbox

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
21
Excellent

Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:42 AM

You/nature can not afford to due bad to haploid genome organism, as you play odd and it dies. Afterall who then will listen to Darwinian survival of fittest? so that may logic behind high efficacy of natural selection in Chlamydomonas.




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.