The Economist reports on some scientists that did some phylogenetic comparisons to see when certain genes arose. The scientists noticed that genes that appeared earlier in evolution are more likely to be disease genes than genes that arose later in evolution.
For some reason, the writer for the Economist suggests that older genes would have had more time to evolve any disease away. But, on the contrary, I suggest that older genes are more fundamental and therefore more prone to be involved in diseases. Though I am not sure sure why the scientist found that "genes specific to mammals, by contrast, barely ever carry diseases." Surely there are genetic diseases that revolve around brain genes foud in humans. But it could be even those genes go far back in time.
Nonehteless, the word "phylostratigraphy" is damn cool.
Link [via @preoccupations]: Genes, disease and evolution | Bad old genes | The Economist
As they reveal in a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, the researchers found that the majority of disease-causing genes were present in single-celled organisms and that most of the rest arose when multicellular creatures began to evolve. Genes specific to mammals, by contrast, barely ever carry diseases.
Image by Stephen Witherden
