Skin color gene found!

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
58,563
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Well, it appears that a very tiny mutation in a single gene changes the baseline human skin color from dark to light. And it appears that humankind started out dark. Us white folks are the result of a recent mutation (perhaps a few score thousand years ago) that took place after humans left Africa.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3532365.html

WASHINGTON - Scientists said Thursday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife. The work suggests the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/New...B573283_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-SKIN-DC.XML

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A little striped fish has helped scientists begin to solve one of the biggest mysteries in biology -- which genes are responsible for differences in human skin, eye and hair color.

The large, international team of scientists reported on Thursday that they had found a gene that makes African zebrafish of a lighter-than-normal color -- and say the same gene helps explain the light-colored hair, skin and eyes of many Europeans.

While they stress that they have not found a genetic basis for race, they say just a tiny change in a single amino acid plays a major role in causing the distinctive light European coloring.

The gene is called SLC24A5, Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University and colleagues said.

"Our results suggest that SLC24A5 explains between 25 and 38 percent of the European-African difference in skin melanin index," they wrote in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Cheng's team was originally looking for genes involved in cancer. They were using zebrafish, a favored tool of genetic researchers because they are small, reproduce quickly and are well understood.

They found a gene that appeared to make some zebrafish "golden" -- with lighter-than-usual stripes. Under a microscope, the skin of these fish have smaller, fewer structures called melanophores.

In people of European descent, pigment granules called melanosomes are fewer, smaller, and lighter than those from people of West African ancestry. The melanosomes of East Asians fall in between.

This suggested gene variations may be responsible and may be similar in vertebrates -- which include fish, mice and people.

UNDERSTANDING MUTATIONS

Scientists know that more than 100 genes are involved in pigment production, so the process is complex. But most of the genes identified so far are found in unusual conditions such as albinism, which causes very light skin and eyes.

"...the genetic origin of the striking variations in human skin color is one of the remaining puzzles in biology," the researchers wrote.

But researchers have published several maps of the human genome and made them available to anyone. Cheng's team made use of them.

They zeroed on SLC24A5. Penn State pharmacologist Victor Canfield found that all vertebrates have a version of the gene.

They found that one version appears to be the "base" version and is found in most people of African and East Asian descent. Europeans have a mutant version that differs by only a few letters of the genetic alphabet.


Nearly all Africans and East Asians have an amino acid called alanine in that gene, while 98 percent of Europeans tested had an amino acid called threonine there. Amino acids are the building blocks of the proteins controlled by genes.

The researchers injected the base human version into "golden" zebrafish embryos and found it made them develop into normal dark-striped fish. This clinched the idea that the human gene was the equivalent of the fish gene.

Tests of African-Americans and African-Caribbeans found that the version a person carried of SLC24A5 correlated with their skin color.

But it alone cannot explain the great range of human coloring. "Our estimates of the effect of SLC24A5 on pigmentation are consistent with previous work indicating that multiple genes must be invoked to explain the skin pigmentation differences between Europeans and Africans," the researchers wrote.

Cheng said the work does more than answer curiosity about the concepts of race and skin tone.

"Working out the details of pigmentation with help from model systems like zebrafish is a great paradigm for seeking understanding of other complex diseases such as diabetes or heart disease," Cheng said in a statement.
Bolding mine.
 
Yeah, even though the cause of it is new the belief and theories are quite old. Yeah, I agree with the above poster in saying I would love to see the look on their faces:lol:

Oh and :woohoo:600 posts:D.
 
I think I read this on another forum.

Or so much deja vu that my mind actually composed an article the same as this one. :crazyeye:
 
Nice find, Bird.

The only problem I have with the Reuters article is that they called the Caucasian variant "mutant" and the African/East-Asian variant "base", not because it's strictly incorrect (it's not) but because I don't have enough faith in the average prole to understand what "mutant" means in this context. Racial groups have the optimum genes for the latitudes in which they historically evolved (it doesn't matter much anymore with Vitamin D fortified foods and clothing/sunblock - which negates the value of dark skin in Equatorial latitudes, i.e., that it reduces the risk of skin cancer).

Caucasians evolved white skin since at far Northern latitudes less sunlight reaches the surface since the atmosphere is "thicker" in the direction of the sun[1] (note that climate isn't important at all, Mongoloids likely evolved in a colder climate than Caucasians, but at a more Southern latitude - central Asia). White skin allows the formation of more Vitamin D in the skin which prevents rickets.

The chron.com article has all the hallmarks of someone writing about a subject they have no background in. This gene only accounts for 25-38% of the difference in skin color between whites and sub-Saharan Africans. It cannot be said that it "largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans" without more information. It may be that all Caucasians have this gene while different genes account for the even lighter skin of Northern Europeans vs. Southern Europeans and Iranians, etc. (all Caucasians).

It's also incorrect to assume that all humans were "brown-skinned" before this gene since a different "skin-whitening" gene may antedate this one (say, one that evolved before the Mongoloid/Caucasoid split).

1. It's actually thinner if you imagined a ray emanating from the center of the Earth, but since the sun is 93 million miles away, sunlight can be treated as though it always reaches the Earth parallel to the equator at an equinox, so sunlight does have to travel through more atmosphere to reach the surface in more polar regions. This subjects the light to more refraction which yields less light reaching the surface.
 
Maybe they start playing with that gene so we can be the benetton race soon.
 
I'm not surprised either but we should bear in mind bad_ronald's excellent post before we start going ga-ga over this news.

EDIT: And this is all one step closer to the tailored, race specific drugs that BiDil brought to light recently.
 
HAHA! The racist KKK and Nazis are all descended from black folk! HAHA!
 
HA-HA!

I remember full well a thread sometime ago in the History Forum where I argued alone that mankind started out black, and white skin is a mutation. I don't remember all of my adversaires, but I do remember one of them was Xen(and his argument that since chimps have white skin underneath the fur the first humans must have been white). Where are you now, Xen? :p
 
Imaginos said:
send this to stormfront or aryan nation or the kkk. let them read that they are actually descended from 'mutants', that their ancestry ain't so 'pure' after all. :lol:
Naaah, they'll just say that 'primitive' black people evolved into 'superior' white people. If we've all gotten used to the idea we descended from apes, Im sure the KKK guys could become comfortable with the idea they evolved from black people:crazyeye:
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Naaah, they'll just say that 'primitive' black people evolved into 'superior' white people. If we've all gotten used to the idea we descended from apes, Im sure the KKK guys could become comfortable with the idea they evolved from black people:crazyeye:
In fact this is not dissimilar to the rationale Europeans had about Africans when the theory of evolution raised it's head. I'm not entirely sure whether or not they perceived themselves to be descended or evolved from Black folk (I think they did have this notion). But regardless, they still perceived Africans to be less evolved and that was the justification needed to civilise, colonise, convert, maim, murder, pillage blah blah blah.
 
bad_ronald said:
The only problem I have with the Reuters article is that they called the Caucasian variant "mutant" and the African/East-Asian variant "base",...The chron.com article has all the hallmarks of someone writing about a subject they have no background in.
The articles were very different and that's why I posted both. I'd like to find and post the "common" source.
bad_ronald said:
It's also incorrect to assume that all humans were "brown-skinned" before this gene since a different "skin-whitening" gene may antedate this one (say, one that evolved before the Mongoloid/Caucasoid split).
I thought one of the articles said that the "base" gene was present in Africa and that the mutated version only outside of Africa, therefore the change took place after humans left Africa (ie recently).
 
Rambuchan said:
In fact this is not dissimilar to the rationale Europeans had about Africans when the theory of evolution raised it's head. I'm not entirely sure whether or not they perceived themselves to be descended or evolved from Black folk (I think they did have this notion). But regardless, they still perceived Africans to be less evolved and that was the justification needed to civilise, colonise, convert, maim, murder, pillage blah blah blah.
And now here we are again, everythings come full circle. This is just science, but you can rest assured it'll be perverted and turned into fuel for future racist screeds.
 
how come I have freckles (cute as they might be) am I a half ******** mutation trying to revert back?
 
I had a series of funny things to say, but they all look like flames. They would have been funny though!

I don't know much about racist organizations, but don't they discard most science anyway? Who cares what they'll do with this?

I'd also like to say that lactose tolerance is also a mutation, allowing us to drink milk into our middle age (or higher)
 
El, my natural inclination is also to say who cares what racist organizations say, but its in large part thanks to them that we live in such a charming little world.
 
Birdjaguar said:
bad_ronald said:
It's also incorrect to assume that all humans were "brown-skinned" before this gene since a different "skin-whitening" gene may antedate this one (say, one that evolved before the Mongoloid/Caucasoid split).
I thought one of the articles said that the "base" gene was present in Africa and that the mutated version only outside of Africa, therefore the change took place after humans left Africa (ie recently).
It is true that the variant first appeared outside of Africa, but Caucasians are just one such group. The article states that the variant is present in 98% of Europeans, but "nearly all" Africans and East Asians lack the variant. So, additional genes are likely responsible for the difference in say East Asian vs. sub-Saharan African skin tone. If such an additional variant occurred before the Mongoloid/Caucasoid split, then it would both explain some of the variance in East Asian vs. sub-Saharan African skin tone and explain more of the difference between Caucasian and sub-Saharan African skin tone (25-38% is not 100%).

Also, if one defines the beginning of humanity as the appearance of the first H. Sapiens Sapiens, then this isn't at all recent. If the variant only occurs in Caucasians and it occurs in 98% of Caucasians as the article states, then it likely came about when Caucasians split from Mongoloids 30,000-40,000 years ago (which is 15-20% of modern human evolutionary history).

skadistic said:
how come I have freckles (cute as they might be) am I a half ******** mutation trying to revert back?
This is why I was not pleased with the use of "mutant" in the article; people just don't understand what it means. Without mutations there could be no evolution, and without evolution there could be no species. Past mutations are what make you human.
 
Back
Top Bottom