DNA Mutations Discovered In the Children of Chernobyl Workers (sciencealert.com)
- Reference: 0180796630
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/02/15/1828227/dna-mutations-discovered-in-the-children-of-chernobyl-workers
- Source link: https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-mutations-discovered-in-the-children-of-chernobyl-workers
[1] ScienceAlert reports :
> Rather than picking out new DNA mutations in the next generation, they looked for what are known as [2]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," [3]write the researchers in their published paper... This fits with the idea that radiation creates molecules known as [4]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 [5]'non-coding' DNA , rather than in genes that directly encode proteins.
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-mutations-discovered-in-the-children-of-chernobyl-workers
[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006315
[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07030-5
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA
So no mutants with special powers (Score:2)
Darn it, another failed experiment
Redundant (Score:1)
"We found . What's more, ."
Re: Redundant (Score:1)
Stupid slashdot swallows angle braces....
"We found (thing). What's more, (same thing rephrased)."
Sure its not ... (Score:2)
... the vodka?
This is how you get X-men (Score:2)
They have to keep trying!
This is why we shouldn't be allowing (Score:2)
Silicon valley and cs-bro types to mess with anything nuclear. When something screws up badly in the nuclear world, the entire planet gets a measurable dose of radiation and worldwide cancer rates tick up, and a patch of the planet is rendered uninhabitable for a time frame that's basically "forever" from a practical perspective.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Nonfunctional only is usual (Score:3)
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:2)
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:2)
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
simpsons episode (Score:2)
Can't but help thinking about the 3-eyed fish in that Simpsons episode that blinked in echelon.