From: Stuart LaForge (avantguardian2020@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 22:44:54 MDT
Greetings Extropians,
I for one would sequence the Galapagos tortoise Testudo elephantus or the ocean quahog Arctica islandica, a long-lived clam. Both species can live between 150 - 200 years. It may be helpful to compare their sequences with their less long-lived relatives' (another species in the same genus for example) genomic sequences to determine what precisely the genetic component to their longevity is as opposed to enviromental factors. (such as being endothermic or living in cold climates). This seems a bit more to the point than shotgun sequencing a whole bunch of microbes to find some "magic" enzyme that will lengthen life as that is a bit too much of a "fishing expedition". Not that "fishing expeditions" don't give rise to good science but often the answers one gets are not to the questions one asks.
The Avantguardian
"He stands…like some sort of…pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to…to stare out over…and it's evident…just by looking at him…that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."
Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
The following excerpt from an article in Science magazine
of 29th August suggests there could be opportunities for
some novel suggestions on which genomes could be most
usefully sequenced next.
-------------
Sequencers Examine Priorities
Jennifer Couzin
"Now that genomes can be decoded quickly, researchers are
debating how to choose which organisms to sequence next"
"...with all the "obvious" organisms--including the human, the
mouse, and the rat--now sequenced, or nearly so, the genetics
community and NHGRI, its principal funder, are weighing how
to proceed. The country's three massive sequencing centers,
fearful of becoming mere factories churning out base after base,
are lobbying to preserve influence in choosing which organisms
to sequence and analyzing the genetic data they produce.
Scientists who mobilized around beloved animals, from the
honeybee to the chicken, and won them a spot in the sequencing
queue are now wondering what they will target next.
The 30 to 40 prominent researchers who attended the meeting,
many of whom commented with surprise on its collegiality,
agreed that sequencing should now be driven by biological
unknowns rather than popularity contests. "We should turn
to using sequencing capacity to answer scientific questions
that are of seminal importance," wrote Princeton University
President Shirley Tilghman in an e-mail message. And if that
means sequencing an organism "that by biologists' standard is
obscure," she added, "so be it."
....
"Implicit in the choice of which genomes to sequence lies a
greater uncertainty: If genomes should be selected based on
the biological mysteries they could help solve, which mysteries
top the list? That was something last month's collegial meeting
steered clear of. "It delayed the hard issues," such as whether
to award one vertebrate at the expense of 40 Drosophila, with
their much smaller genomes, says Green. Which ones win out,
at least in the short term, will be a topic for another day."
-------
I used to have the view that sequencing whales and elephants,
animals with large numbers of cells, as cells are roughly the
same size in all organisms, and big beasts have more of them,
might tell us something useful about aging, dna repair and
cancer avoidance. I seem to recall that Aubrey de Grey was
not convinced that this would shed all that much light.
I wonder what folks interested in the aging process like Robert
and Aubrey would choose if they could get the genomes they
wanted sequenced soonest?
Regards,
Brett
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 22:56:34 MDT