DNA Mutations Discovered In the Children of Chernobyl Workers (sciencealert.com) 38
Researchers performed genome sequencing scans on 130 people whose fathers were Chernobyl cleanup workers. Comparing the scans to control groups, they found evidence for the first time for "a transgenerational effect" from the father's prolonged exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.
ScienceAlert reports: Rather than picking out new DNA mutations in the next generation, they looked for what are known as clustered de novo mutations (cDNMs): two or more mutations in close proximity, found in the children but not the parents. These would be mutations resulting from breaks in the parental DNA caused by radiation exposure. "We found a significant increase in the cDNM count in offspring of irradiated parents, and a potential association between the dose estimations and the number of cDNMs in the respective offspring," write the researchers in their published paper... This fits with the idea that radiation creates molecules known as reactive oxygen species, which are able to break DNA strands — breaks which can leave behind the clusters described in this study, if repaired imperfectly.
The good news is that the risk to health should be relatively small: children of exposed parents weren't found to have any higher risk of disease. This is partly because a lot of the cDNMs likely fall in 'non-coding' DNA, rather than in genes that directly encode proteins.
ScienceAlert reports: Rather than picking out new DNA mutations in the next generation, they looked for what are known as clustered de novo mutations (cDNMs): two or more mutations in close proximity, found in the children but not the parents. These would be mutations resulting from breaks in the parental DNA caused by radiation exposure. "We found a significant increase in the cDNM count in offspring of irradiated parents, and a potential association between the dose estimations and the number of cDNMs in the respective offspring," write the researchers in their published paper... This fits with the idea that radiation creates molecules known as reactive oxygen species, which are able to break DNA strands — breaks which can leave behind the clusters described in this study, if repaired imperfectly.
The good news is that the risk to health should be relatively small: children of exposed parents weren't found to have any higher risk of disease. This is partly because a lot of the cDNMs likely fall in 'non-coding' DNA, rather than in genes that directly encode proteins.
simpsons episode (Score:2)
Can't but help thinking about the 3-eyed fish in that Simpsons episode that blinked in echelon.
No "low dose" involved here. (Score:2)
>> father's prolonged exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.
Yeah nope. No "low dose" involved here. Chernobyl cleanup was no low dose affair, except perhaps on papers.
So no mutants with special powers (Score:2)
Darn it, another failed experiment
Redundant (Score:1)
Re: Redundant (Score:1)
"We found (thing). What's more, (same thing rephrased)."
Sure its not ... (Score:2)
This is how you get X-men (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the majority of the time mutation does nothing and even if present gets selected against unless on the Y gene. This is because our DNA is insanely redundant and protected against radiation damage at normal dosages.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, mutation simply just kills you most of the time, especially when it comes from radiation. You can have much faster mutation with a much lower (although still very high) risk of death by inbreeding, and yet we don't have comics about superpowered Alabamans.
Yet. Pardon me, I have some scripting to do. Incest has been in since Game of Thrones, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we shouldn't be allowing (Score:1, Insightful)
The entire SV ecosystem thrives because it can solve most problems by slamming out software patch over the weekend, or installing a few more server nodes. If things go totally b
Re:This is why we shouldn't be allowing (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot to that. A bunch of SV bros accustomed to moving fast and breaking things is the last thing you want handling things that kill people when they break.
Subvention scam (Score:2)
True. Most modern nuclear startups are just subventions scams anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
When something screws up badly in the nuclear world, the entire planet gets a measurable dose of radiation
It turns out we're really, really good at measuring radiation. Apparently Fukushima radiation was measurable on the California coast. Looking up the numbers it's a handful of disintegrations per second per cubic meter of seawater. We're talking about single digit numbers of atoms disintegrating and we can measure that. Way way way below the level of background radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways the not knowing is worse than the acute radiation sickness that resulted. People living for decades, not knowing if it is safe to have children, or if they are going to develop cancer later on.
I was up in Fukushima a few weeks ago. They still check radiation levels regularly and post the readings on signs by places like playgrounds. Just to give people a bit of confidence. Probably the same thing happens when there have been other types of industrial accidents that contaminate land.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just try and gloss over Chernobyl?
Re: (Score:2)
so the obvious conclusion is that nuclear accidents are nothing to worry abo*cough*CHERNOBYL*cough
Could you explain to me how avoiding nuclear power in the west will stop the soviets building wildly dangerous designs of the sort that have never been legal here?
Re: (Score:2)
My point about Chernobyl isnt a west-vs-east thing. It's a responsible-vs-reckless thing. Reckless+nuclear=Chernobyl. SV-types are re
Re: (Score:2)
My point about Chernobyl isnt a west-vs-east thing. It's a responsible-vs-reckless thing. Reckless+nuclear=Chernobyl. SV-types are reckless, because their entire ecosystem rewards the people who sprint forward with almost no consideration of safety, responsibility or the damage they might cause. Add nuclear into that mix, and things will end very, very badly.
Oh OK I completely misunderstood your point. The move fast and break things are about as well suited to nuclear power as the Soviets.
Nonfunctional only is usual (Score:4, Insightful)
When you damage functional DNA, the most common result is death rather than spider powers or hulk.
I think of DNA as instructions on how to do things and if you change the instructions for most things, it just dies.
Heart, lung, intenstines, veins, pancrease, etc. all matter a lot. Not to mention forgetting how to make bones, muscles, tendons, etc.
Yes, there is a 1 in a 100 case where you get a slow, drawn out death. And a 1 in a 1,000 where the change is minor enough to simply weaken you. And of course a 1 in 10,000 chance of a merely cosmetic difference and a 1 in 100,000 chance of minor improvement.
But all the other times, what you get is death.
Evolution is a cruel mistress. She makes the honey badger look empathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be interesting the fertility rates. Many mutations go un-noticed because the embryo fails early and just goes away. The potential mother just thinks she was a couple weeks late for some reason.
non coding != non functional (Score:2)
A lot of the non coding DNA is for controlling copying and some we just don't know what it does. Sure some might be ancient viral but that doesn't mean its all useless and mutations will have no effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Current evidence seems to be that a lot of it actually *is* junk...or more accurately "background noise". Sometimes the only significant part is the length, so you can chop out the right piece, and sometimes even that doesn't seem to matter. (Within limits, of course.)
Actually, that would make evolution make a lot more sense. There's a high background noise level, and what evolution does is amplify the useful signal. It used to be thought that the cost of establishing one mutation in a population was so
Known disease, maybe no... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the non-coding regions do seem to be metadata used to interpret and regulate genes, and the interpretation of genes is impacted by placement (the brain has no two neurons with the same genome - a completely pointless mechanism that is expensive on energy and carries high risk unless there's an actual benefit from it).
As a result, we cannot assume mutations in the non-coding regions are "safe". The best I'd feel comfortable with is "the effects don't appear to be harmful so far, and there doesn't seem to be any immediate health impact". Those with a better understanding of generics are welcome to correct me on this, but I think it wisest to be conservative on both optimism and pessimism.
Re: (Score:2)
There are very obvious benefits to repairing brain DNA, just as there are very obvious benefits to regrowing limbs. The fact that we do not does not mean there is not.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the researchers involved (I emailed them directly), the difference is due to retrotransponsons moving the genes into a different order rather than a simple mosaic effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Retrotransposition doesn't move any ol' gene- it only moves retrotransposons.
In the human genome- that means L1 (or bits and bobs of it, really).
Generally, that's very well regulated, because it obviously can fuck shit up really badly. Non-coding sequences inserted into semi-random places in the genome isn't usually good for business (causes cancer, usually).
But then again- neurons (generally) don't divide, so I suspect that's related to the lack of selective pressure f
Re: (Score:2)
I found a few that are more recent than the one I saw.
https://portlandpress.com/bioc... [portlandpress.com]
https://royalsocietypublishing... [royalsocie...ishing.org]
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729... [mdpi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In unrelated news... (Score:2)
It only takes 45 nucleotides to make self-replicating RNA.
The Universe is made of soup. Soup clouds form soup stars and planets where it rains soup from space forever.
Just statistics (Score:2)
Every child normally has about 50–100 de novo point mutations compared to their parents.
That’s just replication errors plus background DNA damage. Most are harmless.
Clustered de novo mutations, cDNMs, mean two or more new mutations sitting very close together on the chromosome. These are thought to arise from a single local DNA damage event, like a double-strand break that gets repaired imperfectly.
Are cDNMs normal in people without radiation exposure? Yes. They occur at baseline frequency in ev