MyKell

The Tre2 (USP6) oncogene is a hominoid-specific gene

Charles A. Paulding , Maryellen Ruvolo , and Daniel A. Haber
Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA 02129; and Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138



Edited by Roy J. Britten, California Institute of Technology, Corona Del Mar, CA, and approved January 2, 2003 (received for review November 18, 2002)

Gene duplication and domain accretion are thought to be the major mechanisms for the emergence of novel genes during evolution. Such events are thought to have occurred at early stages in the vertebrate lineage, but genomic sequencing has recently revealed extensive amplification events during the evolution of higher primates. We report here that the Tre2 (USP6) oncogene is derived from the chimeric fusion of two genes, USP32 (NY-REN-60), and TBC1D3. USP32 is an ancient, highly conserved gene, whereas TBC1D3 is derived from a recent segmental duplication, which is absent in most other mammals and shows rapid amplification and dispersal through the primate lineage. Remarkably, the chimeric gene Tre2 exists only in the hominoid lineage of primates. This hominoid-specific oncogene arose as recently as 21-33 million years ago, after proliferation of the TBC1D3 segmental duplication in the primate lineage. In contrast to the broad expression pattern of USP32 and TBC1D3, expression of Tre2 is testis-specific, a pattern proposed for novel genes implicated in the emergence of reproductive barriers. The sudden emergence of chimeric proteins, such as that encoded by Tre2, may have contributed to hominoid speciation.

Oolon Colluphid

Oh great! We find a gene unique to humans... and it's one that gives us cancer

DT

pz

So the true measure of our uniqueness lies not in our brains, but in our balls? That figures.

pz

No, no, no. Oncogenes give us cancer when they are defective or misexpressed -- normally, they are important regulators of the cell cycle or cell signalling. This is yet another example of that annoying tradition in genetics of naming genes after the disease caused when they are broken.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry, yes of course, quite right. Once again I've jumped in without thinking properly. My only excuse is that I did check very quickly to make sure I wasn’t talking cack, and the first result of my Google for ‘oncogene definition’ was this one:
But I have heard ‘your’ version too, and now I think about it, it is the one that ‘sounds’ right. Cheers for the correction.

DT

Edited to add: Should’ve tried the second Google offering, http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/oncogene.html, which gives:
Okay... so we find a uniquely human gene, and it's one that can give us cancer!

Jimmy Higgins

So that proves ID and that God created cancer for man.

Oolon Colluphid

Actually, I rather like that idea. Another one for my list of silly designs (like, wouldn’t an omniscient creator have realised this would be a problem and built in rather more safeguards?)

DT

lpetrich

And note that it said "hominoid" and not "human" -- the timescale suggests that the protein is shared not only with the great apes but also with the lesser apes, gibbons and siamangs.

So it's not uniquely human.

AndSo could its function be to sabotage the testicles of cross-species hybrid males so that they do not try to breed?

A sort of anti-mule adaptation.

MyKell

People people, oncogenes are not themselves cancerous. Only when they mutate do they cause cancer.
Examples: P53, Rb, Ras, etc... Those are essential for cellular function
Reminder: God created man on his own image. Were testicular gene expression part of the image?

MyKell

Definitely!!