Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth will open soon!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Would it be correct to add that mitochondrial DNA changes more slowly than cellular DNA? Rational Edevidence 13:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Checking round the web: It seems to be much smaller (lesser? fewer?) than nuclear DNA - the main thing is that it's only passed by females, being in the egg but not the sperm. Its smaller size might, I suppose, lead to less opportunity to mutate on a purely statistical basis. Short answer: I can't find anything to confirm or deny varying speeds of mutation. :-) SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:43, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Further checking Because mtDNA is not highly conserved and has a rapid mutation rate, it is useful for studying the evolutionary relationships - phylogeny - of organisms. Biologists can determine and then compare mtDNA sequences among different species and use the comparisons to build an evolutionary tree for the species examined.- wikipedia it seems that it changes FASTER! SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I just went to RW's article on Mitochondria and found that it does indeed change more slowly. Should have tried that in the first place. Shame on you for going to WP first. :-)Rational Edevidence 13:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Susan, I'm not sure that phrase makes sense: "which is only passed down the female line as it is outside the nucleus of ovum and any mitochondria in the sperm". Rational Edevidence 13:58, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Betterer? SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination. Such recombination would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates.- - it all seems rather an unknown quantity! SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:15, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
That's better! Rational Edevidence 17:21, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Am I also 99.9% Mohammed, and will that get me into trouble??--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just don't post a picture of your DNA.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)