Scishow news is my favorite Scishow segment. There’s nothing to keep you inspired like hearing about the latest breakthroughs every week! Thank you for doing the hard work of keeping up with the latest science news and breaking it down in a way that non-experts can understand :)
Been watching for 10 years or so (I think you've been around for around 10 years right?) thanks for everything you've taught me and all the mesmerising content :) love ya Hank!
Scientists declaring human genome decoding to be complete be like me doing homework back in the days: "It is now *COMPLETE* except for the parts that I didn't want to bother with of course."
Im so excited cause this actually concerns me a lot, I have HES (hypereosinophilic syndrome) and I have to take ciclosporin, and I’ve taken for more than 10 years prednisone… and with genetic medication on the way this could actually cure my disorder and give me a better life with no pain, a normal life.
Just want to let you know your comment has helped someone =) I've always measure about 3x more eosinophils than considered normal and checking the symptoms of HES hit close to home. Already in contact with a doctor to find a way to get properlly tested and check if it is the case. Thanks you!
@@RadeticDaniel so glad omg!!!, it took my doctors 10 years to actually give me the diagnosis cause it’s hard to diagnose (they always expect parasites, allergies or other stuff before HES) there are different types of HES, some people have a gene mutation, others like me it’s idiopathic and autoimmune, be careful and pressure your doctors cause it’s a very aggressive syndrome and it can be fatal if NOT treated (prednisone or other corticoids most likely, needs constant check ups and blood tests) treatment is ESSENTIAL for your survival, I’ve almost become an expert because of all the research I’ve done haha Also ps: don’t let the doctors dismiss you, the ONLY way to properly diagnose this disorder is with biopsies of affected organs, no MRI, no x rays, no nothing, cause it’s microscopic infiltration of cells invisible to the naked eye, needs to be tested on the lab
Very interesting video and especially pertinent for me. I found out last year that I'm missing 2 proteins in my DNA. Apparently, they're the ones that would make cancer show up on a scan. Because of the missing proteins, my oncologist is unable to figure out what kind of cancer it is and where it is in my body.. very frustrating and scary!
Whilst the drawbacks of antibiotic therapy are fairly obvious in dealing with metastasis, I wonder if we will see phage therapy get developed in this arena as well as in combating "superbugs"?
I know several labs currently trying to go this route, and a few that are hoping to apply for grants in the next couple of years! We will see in the future how viable this option is, and I'm looking forward to reading their publications.
@@sour_lemon2692 what ever happened to the idea of using CRISPR to target those superbugs? I remember reading about there being some progress made towards that a few years ago, but then never heard anything else about it
@@saaddagoat that’s what drives me nuts most about all these new things. We hear about the latest and greatest then never see them in play ever again like what? Was? The? Point? Lol why even share it
The beginning of this video makes it sound as if the big hurdle with sequencing heterochromatin is that it's tightly packed in the cell, but I don't think that matters? When you sequence DNA, the DNA isn't packed up in chromosomes anymore. It's been extracted from the cells and purified, and the proteins that the DNA was wound up around have been digested by enzymes and centrifuged out. I guess it's possible that heterochromatin would be harder to digest and might get filtered out, but I've never heard of that before and can't find any sources on it. Rather, I think the big hurdle to be overcome is that heterochromatin is incredibly repetitive, and therefore difficult to accurately reconstruct from the shortish bits of DNA sequence that you get from older sequencing techniques. This is why modern long-read sequencing makes reconstructing complete genomes so much easier.
You are completely correct. It is the repetitiveness, not the heterochromatic nature of the missing sequences that was prohibitive. Previously, scientists had to choose between accurate short read sequencing or inaccurate long read sequencing, neither of which was capable of assembling highly repetitive regions of the genome. Recently, it has become possible to sequence very long reads (tens of thousand of base pairs) with a very high degree of accuracy. Repetitive DNA can also be challenging to clone into BACs (They would chop up the human genome into mini chromosomes that would be stored in bacteria, called a BAC [Bacterial artificial chromosome]). The new approach bypasses this cloning step completely.
Me: Why did you take so long sequencing the whole genome? Scientist: These gaps don't contain many genes. Me: Have you ever been to a mall? There are lots of jeans at Gap.
I think I'm gonna need some painkillers for all of the head shaking you've just induced. I therefore must conclude, you're a "big pharma operative". They apparently know no depths not worthy of exploiting.
I think some of the comments misunderstood the part about bacteria. It is already quite known that certain bacteria or viruses cause cancer mostly through messing with checkpoints in mitosis or just causing destruction that leads a lot of regeneration which means more mutations. The part in the video is about how bacteria nest inside tumor cells and actually increase the probability of metastasis.
Cancer influence by the bacteria? I am not so surprised. I am expecting a lot of cancer cases in the future tbh. Single-cell RNA seq will open a lot of new things. So exciting!
This sounds so hopeful. My mom was born with Lynch Syndrome and she's on cancer #10. My sister and my niece have Lynch Syndrome as well and anything that science can do would do wonders for so many people.
"science" doesnt "do" anything. science is a method. a strategy. not a noun. a verb. science IS the "doing" it's not some monolith, it's not a vote, and it's not a consensus. it is a process of ruling out and predicting. it's not a religion. it's not the "truth" itself. only a vehicle for estimating truth.
@@fgvcosmic6752 God built all of this to work this way, science lets us discover how. It is not a "cause" of anything. Livestock, for example, were domesticated by the method of science long before the 'scientific method' was codified in Enlightenment Europe, and longer still before any idea of genetics or DNA were discovered. the universe is created to function in an orderly, predictable manner, that's why science works at all. God is the cause of all this, and the source of wonder. NOT man.
All right hear me out, I might be high as hell, but if there are bacteria that help cancer, they must be able to recognise the cancer. Give those bacteria some genetic alterations so they will attack the cancer instead of help it and BAM! Cancer solved... I expect my Nobel prize by next Tuesday
It sounds to me like the human genome project was like someone who compied down a book but left out the table of contents in the front and the glossary of terms in the back.
I think a fairly important question needs to be answered - one that I've never heard asked: Exactly what is meant by "human genome"? It should be fairly obvious to anyone who took biology in middle school that no single sequence is true and accurate for EVERY human. If there were no difference in genomes, we'd all be twins... and the same sex. Is this the sequence of ONE person's DNA? If so... isn't a sample size of 1 kinda small to be applying the results to over seven billion people?? Even if this is somehow the mathematically created output of over a thousand individuals, applying to an entire genus still seems inappropriate.
"Human genome" can mean different things. Sometimes it really is the genome of a single person (you can go and get your own genome done for a thousand dollars or so). In a research context, though, you're usually talking about a consensus sequence based on DNA samples from a bunch of people. The original Human Genome Project that wrapped in the early 2000s... well, that was actually two projects, one private and one public, but both were based on samples of multiple people. Since then, new and improved reference genomes based on larger and more representative samples of humanity have been coming out regularly. One thing to keep in mind is that even though there are as many human genomes as there are humans (not counting identical twins), if you compare any two people, fewer than 1% of the DNA letters in their genome will differ. Most of the genome looks pretty much the same for anyone. So what you'll have most of the time is what's called a reference genome - that's a single long text file with a single consensus value for each DNA letter - and then, depending on the application, you can combine that with a database that lists positions in the genome where there are multiple possible alleles in the population (e.g. "chromosome 9, DNA letter number 31244012: the reference genome says A here, but some people instead have a G"). This is usually more efficient than keeping files of every single letter in the genome for every single person you've sampled. That said, one problem that geneticists have been very actively working on in the past decade is sampling more widely and getting a better idea of the variation that's out there, especially considering that the first few reference genomes that came out were mostly based on people who were close at hand when and where the samples were being taken, i.e. white Americans.
@@OlleLindestad What you are saying is exactly my point. "The Human Genome" is treated as if it IS one definite thing - as if it applied to everyone. This is what the media seems to want everyone to believe - even this video makes no implication to the contrary.
There is a lot of anti-science sentiment out there. This kind of thing encourages the anti-science crowd. The problem is that the genome was declared “complete” long ago. Why? Why was it declared “complete” when it wasn’t? I follow science news and I had no idea we were being lied to until this week. It would be interesting to investigate how lies about science get through the media and become popular misconceptions, and how those lies are used by the anti-science crowd to discredit science.
"It would be interesting to investigate how lies about science get through the media and become popular misconceptions, and how those lies are used by the anti-science crowd to discredit science." A spokesperson for the Human Genome Project lied to get more public support. The real question is, do you believe they are telling the truth now? That would seem naive
I had breast cancer with some lymph node involvement, and don't tolerate the tamoxifen treatment well at all. I did get a massive dose of antibiotics post surgery, so hopefully that helped for anything that may have spread further.
sort of. But the problem isn't even "making" the tools, it's inventing them. Back then nobody had any idea what the "tool" was even going to be like It's only once you've actually made the new tool works that you can say, "look, we have a new tool now and we can do cool things". Before that you're just like, will this really work or should I just try something else?
Here we go again. Another great discovery that we'll never hear about after a few months. Remember the "stem cell gun," or "Higgs Boson" or "Femto-photography"? It may be YEARS before we hear about this again and its progress, but I hope that won't be the case.
I think it is important to make a clear distinction between sequencing and mapping. Sequencing determines the order of the code and is the relatively easy part. Mapping is determining what the code means, what is the specific function of each sequence. It's like finding an encyclopedia of an Alien civilization. We would have an ordered sequence of symbols describing something, but we would not know how to interpret it, as it was with Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Hello to the team of great scientist giving us so much valuable information on this channel. Thank you. Over the years I’ve been interested in learning the causes of conjoined twins. Why does that happen? Is it just by chance or caused my some kind of nutritional or chemical assault?. Do they separate fully in uterine and rejoin?? If it is an incomplete separation, why are there so many different form? From the head to the face to back to back to one behind the other both facing the same direction and all kinds of other combinations. Can you guys please explain this in the best possible way? I’m sure it can’t be done in one section. I would love to know. Thanks.
There are still a ton of misaligned contigs. You wouildn't belive the junk I've seen in the consensus genome purporting to be promoter regions. I'd say that "completely sequenced" twenty years ago meant "reasonable consensus on most of the coding regions, at least for the principal splice variant."
I remember hearing that the Genome could be encoded on the first generation iPod..... and Jurrasic Park hadn't ruined its rep... Jurrasic World included many scenes that were in the first book.... SIDE TRACKED!!!!
Consider for a minute that it is not the job of a public education to throw amusing video snippets a few minutes long into your face all day. Consider for a minute that were it not for the foundation your schooling laid down for you, you wouldn't even be able to understand the science videos you currently enjoy. But it seems that your education did fail you in that you do not recognize this. Or it's because you were a poor student and failed your education. Yes, lots to consider.
You know it's funny, I remember all of the complaints back in 1990 about how long it would take, such as 30 years. In 2020,. I'm glad they still started lol
We finished! What about those bits? It's junk, so we ignored it! How do you know it's junk if you ignored it? I'mma need you to get ALLLL the way off my back about this! Oh, I'm sorry, let me get off of that thing for a couple of decades.
So if the bacteria help the rogue traveling cancer cells survive, would a targeted, as opposed to broad spectrum, antibiotic be able to wipe out those particular bacteria and further reduce chances of cancer spreading throughout the body?
2:00 ""The result of the research team’s efforts is the 3.055 billion base-pair sequence published in the team’s new paper."" Wow! A 3.055 billion base-pair sequence sounds like exciting reading!
Unfortunately it's a multifactorial disease, so even if we find a way to alter the genes associated with it, it's still not going to solve depression entirely
about the new cancer info in this video: i have a theory on how the bacteria can spread c: so there are two types of tumor: benign and malignant benign tumors dont spread because they cant break of pieces of themselves to put into the bloodstream. in contrast, malignant tumours can spread in this way.. the reason why benign tumours cant spread is because they have this sticky adhesive substance that surrounds them, which prevents pieces breaking off and entering the blood. so my theory is that, the bacteria mentioned in the video could produce an enzyme which breaks down this adhesive substance, or the enzyme could also convert the substance into something else that isnt adhesive/sticky... therefore if the bacteria live on a benign tumour, they can produce the enzymes which will get rid of this adhesive substance over time, and therefore it converts the benign tumour into a malignant one (by definition) bc there is no more adhesive substance, so the pieces of tumour can break off and spread in the blood ofc theyve probably already thought of this, so they would need lots more research to confirm if this is true, then, if it is true, and they identify the enzyme, they could make an "inhibitor" substance which essentially stops the enzyme from working, so if they put the inhibitor into a drug, the patient can take that drug and the inhibitor will reduce the spread of cancer for context, i am an a-level biology student so by no means am i a scholar or expert on this topic, feel free to share your thoughts on this in a reply under this comment c:
I thing the scientists also have ignored this dna because heterochromatin (the condensed one) is, well, very condensed so it is almost impossible to reach for the dna there and transcribe it, so if the cell doesn’t really transcribe this part of the dna, it really barely uses it at all. Again, this is what I figure happened, not a fact or something
Preventing the spread of cancer would still be massively beneficial to people fighting with cancer, my mother has had cancer for years and it just keeps popping up again and again, if it didnt spread it would be so much easier to deal with.
One thing I've never understood about the human genome project (I suppose could look it up but I've never gotten around to it), is how do they control for variables in gene expression across different populations? Are they using a holotype or are they sampling from a wide range of people from across the world?
People already share 99 to 98% (depending on which type of mutations you count as a difference, two random humans would share about ~99.9% at max and ~98.4% at min of their DNA on average) of their genes, so there's not a lot of diversity between different humans/human populations. I'm not sure what they did about the remaining 1 to 2%
I like this guy. There's people who seemingly pursue higher/formal education for bragging rights and to simply do "more" for the sake of doing "more." When you know them personally, you find out they are doing it to prove a point to someone in their family. Haha! Reciting information is nothing brag-worthy. Their manner of speech gives off such a vibe. Such people end up becoming sellouts, if they are researchers. Haha! This guy seems like a Bill Nye in his own way. Bill gives off a no-bs-allowed vibe. He stands up to that BS and isn't interested in "friendly" info, rather true info even if painful. This is my view of things. Right now in medicine, we are looking at pleasure-seeking as a disease that must be treated! 😂 In medicine, we are successfully doing what we have tried to do with other tools out there (guns). We are blaming the tool, and not negligence from the user. All tools can be used with purpose, or for recreation. It's not up to debate to decide what someone can or can't do if only the one choosing such activities is affected. There's extreme sports, risky sports, and safe sports. Should we ban them? "People can get hurt." That's what you hear in medicine. If a concept doesn't make sense in similar situations, it holds no real merit. I have no respect for anyone who blames inanimate tools, and not the people behind the tools. Guns don't kill. Drugs don't kill. Vehicles don't kill. Manufacturing defects can be blamed in certain instances for damage, yes, of course. So it's the faulty tool to blame, like antipsychotics. Haha! Pathetic drugs. Risk is inherent to life itself. So just because there's risk, doesn't mean it's an issue. All great modern tools are never going to be safe in the hands of any fool. That's the truth. So we ought to address the real root issue, and that's human nature itself. But we won't be doing that anytime soon so long as we keep thinking everyone holds the right to life. There are tons of demon spawns out there. Greater power, greater responsibility. Drugs/medicine are not seen as the life changing tools they are. Addiction of all sorts takes things from you, it doesn't help you live a much more fulfilling life. It doesn't enhance performance. It doesn't help you achieve any goals. We see someone who has no longterm goals in life, and no interest in the wellbeing of others, much less himself. This person not only seeks instant gratification (even the very risky kind) in all aspects of his life, but has shown interest in dying while high. This person doesn't use stimulants for enhancement. This person doesn't even use proper stimulants. He smokes crack without a break, and stays up for days! Does he actually have a substance use disorder at the root? Or is he fed up with life and doesn't care anymore? A lot of people have had the displeasure of growing up in miserable homes, made miserable by parents who shouldn't hold the right to bear children. There's a study showing that when life is unfullfilling, people turn to pleasure inducing substances. Strong habits form. If no substance existed, they would turn to other forms of pleasure, like gluttony, which we see a lot! 😂 Then along comes someone using psychedelics in a healthy manner to self-treat various issues. This can be trips or microdosing. This person gives it the respect its due, this person is also a "drug abuser" with a substance use disorder according to dma55 clinicians with no experience with drugs. All they do is recite what they were told to recite. Haha! Old farts working in medicine have emotional attachment to their education. You poke various holes in their arguments, and they accuse you of being a know-it-all. Interestingly, you are using new clinical data out there. And they're unaware. Maybe in 30 years they'll know it, too, when it's made popular. It's funny, because it actually takes a true know-it-all to deny new information when presented with it. That's the real definition of a know-it-all. There's a lot of such people working in the medicine industry. Sometimes, certain people are better off treating themselves.
Funny that the study cited involving bacteria's relationship to many forms of cancer was so recent, yet the involvement of microorganisms was theorized by Italian doctor Tullio Simoncini several years ago. his theory was in a broad sense fairly sound and should have led to more testing, which would have led to this discovery far earlier, as well as the flaws in his theory and treatment methods. sadly due to a lack in financial incentives, and skepticism from the medical community these flaws were not revealed before he caused the death of a patient by treating them with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). theories should not be dismissed out of skepticism, they should be tested BECAUSE of skepticism. you never really know if something will work unless you give it a fair shake.
It might be counterintuitive but using probiotics to keep good bacteria healthy and strong might be the best treatment to prevent cancer spreading in the body/
Now I want to know more about _viruses,_ and DNA and cancer. Can viruses play any role in causing or spreading cancer? Can genetically modified viruses help fight cancer? What about those bits of viruses that have become part of our DNA? Do they have any part in causing, or resisting, cancer or autoimmune diseases? Or maybe even, in having made some of the changes that took us from chimp to human?
Treating the bacteria with phages may well be worth trying with aggressive tumours even before testing moves on from mice. Low risk from the phages and patients with few options left
No, this is still not the complete human genome, males are human too! To quote from the original paper: "CHM13 lacks a Y chromosome, and homozygous Y-bearing CHMs are nonviable, so a different sample type will be required to complete this last remaining chromosome. However, given its haploid nature, it should be possible to assemble the Y chromosome from a male sample using the same methods described here and supplement the T2T-CHM13 reference assembly with a Y chromosome as needed." (CHM13 is the name of the "complete 3.055 billion-base pair sequence of a human genome" the authors present.)
When he talked about bacteria i thought oh good another use for antibiotics....of course its never that simple. Seems like we are doing work for those a few hundred years down the road to benefit from. Lets hope they cure the plagues we also leave behind such as facebook and tiktok.
So did they find now that we have 12% longer DNA so we actual can be so much more like chimps? I had read despite this difference that men are more like chimps than human females are like the male of our species. So all men are 98% similar to one another while still being 96% similar to chimps, but the human female is 94% similar to human men? It is amazing that women can even speak, or how about even being doctors, lawyers, etc., considering how dreadful our genome looks. If the number of chromosomes don’t match, hybrids don’t survive. So how then are we related to apes at all? Just must be to make women feel themselves inferior. That inferiority is graduating more women from universities for a good number of years. Maybe being more like chimps is not any sort of asset at all. I think some people who reported this just hate women. I certainly don’t want someone who ignores the 12% longer chimp genome making the same mistake on say, ignoring the same percentage on taxes! Perhaps they do Biden’s taxes but ignore even more. Or maybe that the superiority of chimp over human females, are doing Biden’s taxes. Are women good enough to be “mothers” again like the men never losing their designation as “fathers”? Or have they figured out that female chimps can incubate fertilized human eggs so that the chimp can be the “birthing parent”?
@@user-qn9ku2fl2b I think it depends, right? If you’re someone who doesn’t work in or around the field, then chances are, if you knew that the genome had been sequenced, you probably heard about junk DNA - and I know it was still being taught in intro classes up through the 20teens. So that’s a lot of potential viewers who’ve heard of a term, even if it’s not one in as frequent use anymore. (And I say that because the press release for the paper 100% used the term junk DNA. Check out “study 1 secondary source,” the EurekAlert article in the description box.) 🤷🏼♀️ The challenge of scicomm, right? You have to figure out the language familiar to the broadest audience, and that frequently means the more specialized audience rolls their eyes.
Next time I'm given a tough job at work, I'm just going to ignore all the hard stuff and say it's "essentially complete".
😂😂
How’d your surgery go today?
Oh, it’s essentially complete.
In the industry, this has a name - "technical debt" 😂😭
Haha...yeah...next time...I absolutely don't do that already...
heterochromawork
Scishow news is my favorite Scishow segment. There’s nothing to keep you inspired like hearing about the latest breakthroughs every week! Thank you for doing the hard work of keeping up with the latest science news and breaking it down in a way that non-experts can understand :)
Sci Sci Man Dan and Joe Scott?
Been watching for 10 years or so (I think you've been around for around 10 years right?) thanks for everything you've taught me and all the mesmerising content :) love ya Hank!
I agree 100%
Likewise, right on~👍
Exactly 10 years
I second this
I third this +1
Scientists declaring human genome decoding to be complete be like me doing homework back in the days:
"It is now *COMPLETE* except for the parts that I didn't want to bother with of course."
now you can say to those teachers "If the scientists who sequenced the human genome can do it, so can I".
92% is still an A, after all.
@@UrLeingod guess so, but calling it complete...
@@sizanogreen9900 technically something is complete when declared complete, because you can infinitely improve something
@@SioxerNikita well, I guess it depends on your set target, but it still feels wrong.
Im so excited cause this actually concerns me a lot, I have HES (hypereosinophilic syndrome) and I have to take ciclosporin, and I’ve taken for more than 10 years prednisone… and with genetic medication on the way this could actually cure my disorder and give me a better life with no pain, a normal life.
awesome!
That would be cool af. But that suckss
Just want to let you know your comment has helped someone =)
I've always measure about 3x more eosinophils than considered normal and checking the symptoms of HES hit close to home.
Already in contact with a doctor to find a way to get properlly tested and check if it is the case.
Thanks you!
Get rid of the sugar!!
@@RadeticDaniel so glad omg!!!, it took my doctors 10 years to actually give me the diagnosis cause it’s hard to diagnose (they always expect parasites, allergies or other stuff before HES) there are different types of HES, some people have a gene mutation, others like me it’s idiopathic and autoimmune, be careful and pressure your doctors cause it’s a very aggressive syndrome and it can be fatal if NOT treated (prednisone or other corticoids most likely, needs constant check ups and blood tests) treatment is ESSENTIAL for your survival, I’ve almost become an expert because of all the research I’ve done haha
Also ps: don’t let the doctors dismiss you, the ONLY way to properly diagnose this disorder is with biopsies of affected organs, no MRI, no x rays, no nothing, cause it’s microscopic infiltration of cells invisible to the naked eye, needs to be tested on the lab
Very interesting video and especially pertinent for me. I found out last year that I'm missing 2 proteins in my DNA. Apparently, they're the ones that would make cancer show up on a scan. Because of the missing proteins, my oncologist is unable to figure out what kind of cancer it is and where it is in my body.. very frustrating and scary!
Oh my, thats terrible. I hope they could detect it even though you lack those 2 proteins.
Take care and stay safe.
Whilst the drawbacks of antibiotic therapy are fairly obvious in dealing with metastasis, I wonder if we will see phage therapy get developed in this arena as well as in combating "superbugs"?
I know several labs currently trying to go this route, and a few that are hoping to apply for grants in the next couple of years! We will see in the future how viable this option is, and I'm looking forward to reading their publications.
@@sour_lemon2692 what ever happened to the idea of using CRISPR to target those superbugs? I remember reading about there being some progress made towards that a few years ago, but then never heard anything else about it
@@saaddagoat I would assume that site delivery and specificity is still the obstacle regarding most CRISPR treatments
The way to slow or prevent the evolution of "superbugs" is to use combination therapy.
@@saaddagoat that’s what drives me nuts most about all these new things. We hear about the latest and greatest then never see them in play ever again like what? Was? The? Point? Lol why even share it
The beginning of this video makes it sound as if the big hurdle with sequencing heterochromatin is that it's tightly packed in the cell, but I don't think that matters? When you sequence DNA, the DNA isn't packed up in chromosomes anymore. It's been extracted from the cells and purified, and the proteins that the DNA was wound up around have been digested by enzymes and centrifuged out. I guess it's possible that heterochromatin would be harder to digest and might get filtered out, but I've never heard of that before and can't find any sources on it.
Rather, I think the big hurdle to be overcome is that heterochromatin is incredibly repetitive, and therefore difficult to accurately reconstruct from the shortish bits of DNA sequence that you get from older sequencing techniques. This is why modern long-read sequencing makes reconstructing complete genomes so much easier.
You are completely correct. It is the repetitiveness, not the heterochromatic nature of the missing sequences that was prohibitive. Previously, scientists had to choose between accurate short read sequencing or inaccurate long read sequencing, neither of which was capable of assembling highly repetitive regions of the genome. Recently, it has become possible to sequence very long reads (tens of thousand of base pairs) with a very high degree of accuracy.
Repetitive DNA can also be challenging to clone into BACs (They would chop up the human genome into mini chromosomes that would be stored in bacteria, called a BAC [Bacterial artificial chromosome]). The new approach bypasses this cloning step completely.
He was explaining the difference between them.
Me: Why did you take so long sequencing the whole genome?
Scientist: These gaps don't contain many genes.
Me: Have you ever been to a mall? There are lots of jeans at Gap.
That's... terrible. Well done!
I think I'm gonna need some painkillers for all of the head shaking you've just induced.
I therefore must conclude, you're a "big pharma operative". They apparently know no depths not worthy of exploiting.
I love and hate this
You get an angry upvote. 😆
Adds rim shot
I think some of the comments misunderstood the part about bacteria. It is already quite known that certain bacteria or viruses cause cancer mostly through messing with checkpoints in mitosis or just causing destruction that leads a lot of regeneration which means more mutations.
The part in the video is about how bacteria nest inside tumor cells and actually increase the probability of metastasis.
"Junk dna" was my family nickname when I was a kid.
I thought I had something wise to say about this but the junk in Da trunk....
20yrs ago “we’ve sequenced the human genome” Today, “no we really have this time”
2040- Scientists have finally sequenced 100% of the human genome.
This sounds incredible! Thanks, Hank. My pharmacy tech class has watched a few of your videos in class, and everyone loves you!
Cancer influence by the bacteria? I am not so surprised. I am expecting a lot of cancer cases in the future tbh. Single-cell RNA seq will open a lot of new things. So exciting!
Especially since so many got the mutagen accelerant fakecine shot
Look up Sv40 cancer virus
@@Rysdad1 your misunderstanding of vaccines and science are sad
I believe there's a lot more that bacteria is influencing too, we are so much more intertwined with our body's bacterial fauna than we realize.
@@Rysdad1 Grow up
It's not every day that you get to here a sentence as undeniably positive as "that's not the only good news for cancer research this week!"
This sounds so hopeful. My mom was born with Lynch Syndrome and she's on cancer #10. My sister and my niece have Lynch Syndrome as well and anything that science can do would do wonders for so many people.
"science" doesnt "do" anything. science is a method. a strategy. not a noun. a verb. science IS the "doing" it's not some monolith, it's not a vote, and it's not a consensus. it is a process of ruling out and predicting. it's not a religion. it's not the "truth" itself. only a vehicle for estimating truth.
@@billyumbraskey8135 fine, whatever, but then its great that the scientific _method_ can cause such wonders.
@@fgvcosmic6752 God built all of this to work this way, science lets us discover how. It is not a "cause" of anything. Livestock, for example, were domesticated by the method of science long before the 'scientific method' was codified in Enlightenment Europe, and longer still before any idea of genetics or DNA were discovered. the universe is created to function in an orderly, predictable manner, that's why science works at all. God is the cause of all this, and the source of wonder. NOT man.
@@billyumbraskey8135 that's so pedantic. We all knew what she meant.
@@scillaburton7160 Eventually, you will get it.
All right hear me out, I might be high as hell, but if there are bacteria that help cancer, they must be able to recognise the cancer. Give those bacteria some genetic alterations so they will attack the cancer instead of help it and BAM! Cancer solved... I expect my Nobel prize by next Tuesday
Love you dude thank you for teaching the world. U r doing a greater kindness than you'll ever know. Thanks again. 😊
It sounds to me like the human genome project was like someone who compied down a book but left out the table of contents in the front and the glossary of terms in the back.
I think a fairly important question needs to be answered - one that I've never heard asked: Exactly what is meant by "human genome"? It should be fairly obvious to anyone who took biology in middle school that no single sequence is true and accurate for EVERY human. If there were no difference in genomes, we'd all be twins... and the same sex. Is this the sequence of ONE person's DNA? If so... isn't a sample size of 1 kinda small to be applying the results to over seven billion people?? Even if this is somehow the mathematically created output of over a thousand individuals, applying to an entire genus still seems inappropriate.
"Human genome" can mean different things. Sometimes it really is the genome of a single person (you can go and get your own genome done for a thousand dollars or so). In a research context, though, you're usually talking about a consensus sequence based on DNA samples from a bunch of people. The original Human Genome Project that wrapped in the early 2000s... well, that was actually two projects, one private and one public, but both were based on samples of multiple people. Since then, new and improved reference genomes based on larger and more representative samples of humanity have been coming out regularly.
One thing to keep in mind is that even though there are as many human genomes as there are humans (not counting identical twins), if you compare any two people, fewer than 1% of the DNA letters in their genome will differ. Most of the genome looks pretty much the same for anyone. So what you'll have most of the time is what's called a reference genome - that's a single long text file with a single consensus value for each DNA letter - and then, depending on the application, you can combine that with a database that lists positions in the genome where there are multiple possible alleles in the population (e.g. "chromosome 9, DNA letter number 31244012: the reference genome says A here, but some people instead have a G"). This is usually more efficient than keeping files of every single letter in the genome for every single person you've sampled.
That said, one problem that geneticists have been very actively working on in the past decade is sampling more widely and getting a better idea of the variation that's out there, especially considering that the first few reference genomes that came out were mostly based on people who were close at hand when and where the samples were being taken, i.e. white Americans.
@@OlleLindestad What you are saying is exactly my point. "The Human Genome" is treated as if it IS one definite thing - as if it applied to everyone. This is what the media seems to want everyone to believe - even this video makes no implication to the contrary.
@@OlleLindestad thanks
careful, you are tiptoeing up to the sacred dogmas of woke bolshevism.
@@billyumbraskey8135 I have no idea what "woke bolshevism" is... but if it is (as I suspect) intelligent conversation, that was my intent.
This is quite an interesting news segment! Nice to know the whole genome is done now, and interesting study about the bacteria and cancer! Thanks. 🙂
There is a lot of anti-science sentiment out there. This kind of thing encourages the anti-science crowd. The problem is that the genome was declared “complete” long ago. Why? Why was it declared “complete” when it wasn’t? I follow science news and I had no idea we were being lied to until this week. It would be interesting to investigate how lies about science get through the media and become popular misconceptions, and how those lies are used by the anti-science crowd to discredit science.
"It would be interesting to investigate how lies about science get through the media and become popular misconceptions, and how those lies are used by the anti-science crowd to discredit science."
A spokesperson for the Human Genome Project lied to get more public support. The real question is, do you believe they are telling the truth now? That would seem naive
I had breast cancer with some lymph node involvement, and don't tolerate the tamoxifen treatment well at all. I did get a massive dose of antibiotics post surgery, so hopefully that helped for anything that may have spread further.
So they practically postponed it bc it was too difficult to make the tools?
sort of. But the problem isn't even "making" the tools, it's inventing them. Back then nobody had any idea what the "tool" was even going to be like
It's only once you've actually made the new tool works that you can say, "look, we have a new tool now and we can do cool things". Before that you're just like, will this really work or should I just try something else?
Here we go again. Another great discovery that we'll never hear about after a few months. Remember the "stem cell gun," or "Higgs Boson" or "Femto-photography"? It may be YEARS before we hear about this again and its progress, but I hope that won't be the case.
Sci Sci Man Dan and Joe Scott?
I think it is important to make a clear distinction between sequencing and mapping. Sequencing determines the order of the code and is the relatively easy part. Mapping is determining what the code means, what is the specific function of each sequence. It's like finding an encyclopedia of an Alien civilization. We would have an ordered sequence of symbols describing something, but we would not know how to interpret it, as it was with Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Fascinating. A step forward indeed.
Sci Sci Man Dan and Joe Scott?
This is the kind of SciShow I like
now, i'm wary of the adjective 'essentially...'
Wow that’s crazy, I remember back in 2012 (middle school) we were so far off from being complete but now we have it. That’s insane.
So Junk sequences aren't junk. They perform auxiliary functions for coding strands.
FINALLY. I never liked the term "Junk DNA"
Hello to the team of great scientist giving us so much valuable information on this channel.
Thank you.
Over the years I’ve been interested in learning the causes of conjoined twins.
Why does that happen? Is it just by chance or caused my some kind of nutritional or chemical assault?. Do they separate fully in uterine and rejoin?? If it is an incomplete separation, why are there so many different form? From the head to the face to back to back to one behind the other both facing the same direction and all kinds of other combinations. Can you guys please explain this in the best possible way? I’m sure it can’t be done in one section. I would love to know. Thanks.
There are still a ton of misaligned contigs. You wouildn't belive the junk I've seen in the consensus genome purporting to be promoter regions. I'd say that "completely sequenced" twenty years ago meant "reasonable consensus on most of the coding regions, at least for the principal splice variant."
I remember hearing that the Genome could be encoded on the first generation iPod..... and Jurrasic Park hadn't ruined its rep... Jurrasic World included many scenes that were in the first book.... SIDE TRACKED!!!!
The whiplash strained my neck. Thanks.
I love the puzzle pieces of knowledge!
I've been waiting a week to see those video! Thanks
Respect to the science, that will help sustain the future.
BX STAND UP!!!
Thank you
I love the babysteps of science. So much hope.
Been learning more here than in school. Consider that for a minute. Thanks for the support.
Consider for a minute that it is not the job of a public education to throw amusing video snippets a few minutes long into your face all day.
Consider for a minute that were it not for the foundation your schooling laid down for you, you wouldn't even be able to understand the science videos you currently enjoy.
But it seems that your education did fail you in that you do not recognize this. Or it's because you were a poor student and failed your education. Yes, lots to consider.
You know it's funny, I remember all of the complaints back in 1990 about how long it would take, such as 30 years. In 2020,. I'm glad they still started lol
We finished!
What about those bits?
It's junk, so we ignored it!
How do you know it's junk if you ignored it?
I'mma need you to get ALLLL the way off my back about this!
Oh, I'm sorry, let me get off of that thing for a couple of decades.
@Nicholas That seemed super easy, barely an inconvenience.
I read that second paper at work before hearing about it here!
So if the bacteria help the rogue traveling cancer cells survive, would a targeted, as opposed to broad spectrum, antibiotic be able to wipe out those particular bacteria and further reduce chances of cancer spreading throughout the body?
Ray Kurzweil: "Wait, what?"
2:00 ""The result of the research team’s efforts is the 3.055 billion base-pair sequence published in the team’s new paper."" Wow! A 3.055 billion base-pair sequence sounds like exciting reading!
I will always be in awe of the human curiosity and determination
Please do a video on the crooked forest
As time goes on, and scientists discover more of the unfathomable complexities of life, how can anyone think there was no creator?
Complex is the key word bro. Proves design. Preach it xxx
I hope you can find a way to genetically remove depression
Unfortunately it's a multifactorial disease, so even if we find a way to alter the genes associated with it, it's still not going to solve depression entirely
There’s no such thing a gene depression. That’s dumb.
This was one of the best SciHow videos
Always great content!
Good news for future generations!
Okay this is the most interesting episode I think I have ever seen on here!
Can you please link the research papers that you are referring to in the show.
Are they missing from the description?
Amazing
This can lead to a major breakthrough in anti aging technology which also just recently made headlines as well
about the new cancer info in this video:
i have a theory on how the bacteria can spread c:
so there are two types of tumor: benign and malignant
benign tumors dont spread because they cant break of pieces of themselves to put into the bloodstream. in contrast, malignant tumours can spread in this way..
the reason why benign tumours cant spread is because they have this sticky adhesive substance that surrounds them, which prevents pieces breaking off and entering the blood.
so my theory is that, the bacteria mentioned in the video could produce an enzyme which breaks down this adhesive substance, or the enzyme could also convert the substance into something else that isnt adhesive/sticky...
therefore if the bacteria live on a benign tumour, they can produce the enzymes which will get rid of this adhesive substance over time, and therefore it converts the benign tumour into a malignant one (by definition) bc there is no more adhesive substance, so the pieces of tumour can break off and spread in the blood
ofc theyve probably already thought of this, so they would need lots more research to confirm if this is true,
then, if it is true, and they identify the enzyme, they could make an "inhibitor" substance which essentially stops the enzyme from working, so if they put the inhibitor into a drug, the patient can take that drug and the inhibitor will reduce the spread of cancer
for context, i am an a-level biology student so by no means am i a scholar or expert on this topic,
feel free to share your thoughts on this in a reply under this comment c:
I thing the scientists also have ignored this dna because heterochromatin (the condensed one) is, well, very condensed so it is almost impossible to reach for the dna there and transcribe it, so if the cell doesn’t really transcribe this part of the dna, it really barely uses it at all. Again, this is what I figure happened, not a fact or something
Been waiting for this
Preventing the spread of cancer would still be massively beneficial to people fighting with cancer, my mother has had cancer for years and it just keeps popping up again and again, if it didnt spread it would be so much easier to deal with.
One thing I've never understood about the human genome project (I suppose could look it up but I've never gotten around to it), is how do they control for variables in gene expression across different populations? Are they using a holotype or are they sampling from a wide range of people from across the world?
People already share 99 to 98% (depending on which type of mutations you count as a difference, two random humans would share about ~99.9% at max and ~98.4% at min of their DNA on average) of their genes, so there's not a lot of diversity between different humans/human populations. I'm not sure what they did about the remaining 1 to 2%
Still fascinating material
I like this guy.
There's people who seemingly pursue higher/formal education for bragging rights and to simply do "more" for the sake of doing "more."
When you know them personally, you find out they are doing it to prove a point to someone in their family. Haha! Reciting information is nothing brag-worthy.
Their manner of speech gives off such a vibe.
Such people end up becoming sellouts, if they are researchers. Haha!
This guy seems like a Bill Nye in his own way.
Bill gives off a no-bs-allowed vibe. He stands up to that BS and isn't interested in "friendly" info, rather true info even if painful. This is my view of things.
Right now in medicine, we are looking at pleasure-seeking as a disease that must be treated! 😂
In medicine, we are successfully doing what we have tried to do with other tools out there (guns). We are blaming the tool, and not negligence from the user.
All tools can be used with purpose, or for recreation. It's not up to debate to decide what someone can or can't do if only the one choosing such activities is affected.
There's extreme sports, risky sports, and safe sports. Should we ban them?
"People can get hurt." That's what you hear in medicine.
If a concept doesn't make sense in similar situations, it holds no real merit.
I have no respect for anyone who blames inanimate tools, and not the people behind the tools.
Guns don't kill.
Drugs don't kill.
Vehicles don't kill.
Manufacturing defects can be blamed in certain instances for damage, yes, of course. So it's the faulty tool to blame, like antipsychotics. Haha! Pathetic drugs.
Risk is inherent to life itself. So just because there's risk, doesn't mean it's an issue. All great modern tools are never going to be safe in the hands of any fool. That's the truth. So we ought to address the real root issue, and that's human nature itself. But we won't be doing that anytime soon so long as we keep thinking everyone holds the right to life. There are tons of demon spawns out there.
Greater power, greater responsibility.
Drugs/medicine are not seen as the life changing tools they are.
Addiction of all sorts takes things from you, it doesn't help you live a much more fulfilling life. It doesn't enhance performance. It doesn't help you achieve any goals.
We see someone who has no longterm goals in life, and no interest in the wellbeing of others, much less himself.
This person not only seeks instant gratification (even the very risky kind) in all aspects of his life, but has shown interest in dying while high. This person doesn't use stimulants for enhancement. This person doesn't even use proper stimulants. He smokes crack without a break, and stays up for days!
Does he actually have a substance use disorder at the root? Or is he fed up with life and doesn't care anymore? A lot of people have had the displeasure of growing up in miserable homes, made miserable by parents who shouldn't hold the right to bear children.
There's a study showing that when life is unfullfilling, people turn to pleasure inducing substances. Strong habits form.
If no substance existed, they would turn to other forms of pleasure, like gluttony, which we see a lot! 😂
Then along comes someone using psychedelics in a healthy manner to self-treat various issues. This can be trips or microdosing.
This person gives it the respect its due, this person is also a "drug abuser" with a substance use disorder according to dma55 clinicians with no experience with drugs. All they do is recite what they were told to recite.
Haha!
Old farts working in medicine have emotional attachment to their education. You poke various holes in their arguments, and they accuse you of being a know-it-all. Interestingly, you are using new clinical data out there. And they're unaware. Maybe in 30 years they'll know it, too, when it's made popular.
It's funny, because it actually takes a true know-it-all to deny new information when presented with it. That's the real definition of a know-it-all. There's a lot of such people working in the medicine industry.
Sometimes, certain people are better off treating themselves.
L
You guys really need to do an episode on phage therapy it’s wildly cool
Nice. Time for editing
Hope this will make things more understandable...
Nice, now we can play around it.
We've done it! It is Complete! ...."what about that stuff in the back?"....oh....that's just "junk in the trunk" lol
Buen video están avanzando mucho con el cáncer.
Funny that the study cited involving bacteria's relationship to many forms of cancer was so recent, yet the involvement of microorganisms was theorized by Italian doctor Tullio Simoncini several years ago. his theory was in a broad sense fairly sound and should have led to more testing, which would have led to this discovery far earlier, as well as the flaws in his theory and treatment methods. sadly due to a lack in financial incentives, and skepticism from the medical community these flaws were not revealed before he caused the death of a patient by treating them with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). theories should not be dismissed out of skepticism, they should be tested BECAUSE of skepticism. you never really know if something will work unless you give it a fair shake.
Anton covered this 9 months ago
I want some fish tacos. That sounds really good. Oh yeah and cool video.
I'm not so sure....
When the first phone call from the lab goes to the PR-department.
It might be counterintuitive but using probiotics to keep good bacteria healthy and strong might be the best treatment to prevent cancer spreading in the body/
Now I want to know more about _viruses,_ and DNA and cancer.
Can viruses play any role in causing or spreading cancer? Can genetically modified viruses help fight cancer? What about those bits of viruses that have become part of our DNA? Do they have any part in causing, or resisting, cancer or autoimmune diseases?
Or maybe even, in having made some of the changes that took us from chimp to human?
I hope this research can lead the way to cure hypertension and diabetes too.
Very interesting video
Hello could you answer this question - "Are there any treatment that work in human but not in mice?" reverse of usual?
Are there still gaps now that we finished sequencing these types? Or is it for sure 100% done?
I've always doubted there was ever a "useless" part on DNA. If it is still there, is because it has some sort of function.
Treating the bacteria with phages may well be worth trying with aggressive tumours even before testing moves on from mice. Low risk from the phages and patients with few options left
Looks like the keyboard has Candy Keys.
Hi, can i ask, if And when this could help in neurology? ALS pacient, thx.
Meanwhile I'm just over here dreading having to update all my data from the current reference genome when it is inevitably updated because of this
This isn’t the entire human genomes, this is “an entire human genome”…
A higher power must have designed the DNA. It couldn't have been a random event.
No, this is still not the complete human genome, males are human too! To quote from the original paper: "CHM13 lacks a Y chromosome, and homozygous Y-bearing CHMs are nonviable, so a different sample type will be required to complete this last remaining chromosome. However, given its haploid nature, it should be possible to assemble the Y chromosome from a male sample using the same methods described here and supplement the T2T-CHM13 reference assembly with a Y chromosome as needed." (CHM13 is the name of the "complete 3.055 billion-base pair sequence of a human genome" the authors present.)
When he talked about bacteria i thought oh good another use for antibiotics....of course its never that simple. Seems like we are doing work for those a few hundred years down the road to benefit from. Lets hope they cure the plagues we also leave behind such as facebook and tiktok.
Hank green dances well🤣🤣🤣
So did they find now that we have 12% longer DNA so we actual can be so much more like chimps? I had read despite this difference that men are more like chimps than human females are like the male of our species. So all men are 98% similar to one another while still being 96% similar to chimps, but the human female is 94% similar to human men? It is amazing that women can even speak, or how about even being doctors, lawyers, etc., considering how dreadful our genome looks. If the number of chromosomes don’t match, hybrids don’t survive. So how then are we related to apes at all? Just must be to make women feel themselves inferior. That inferiority is graduating more women from universities for a good number of years. Maybe being more like chimps is not any sort of asset at all.
I think some people who reported this just hate women. I certainly don’t want someone who ignores the 12% longer chimp genome making the same mistake on say, ignoring the same percentage on taxes! Perhaps they do Biden’s taxes but ignore even more. Or maybe that the superiority of chimp over human females, are doing Biden’s taxes.
Are women good enough to be “mothers” again like the men never losing their designation as “fathers”? Or have they figured out that female chimps can incubate fertilized human eggs so that the chimp can be the “birthing parent”?
My dude, can you speak on prions? That shit’s wild.
Wow!
I have seen “human genome fully sequenced” for years! Are you SURE this time?!
What was the technology used to read the hard to read before section? Was it BNGO equipment used?
Cool, now where's the code for lightning hands and beehive arms?
Look at new human lung discovery!! New stuff!! Like Stem Cell new stuff!
As an insider, "junk" sounds obsolete. People have moved on, I hadn't heard the term it in a while
Well, yeah. But back in the early 00s, it was definitely one of NHGRIs favorite phrases.
@@khills yeah, it's not completely wrong, but not very helpful either
@@user-qn9ku2fl2b I think it depends, right? If you’re someone who doesn’t work in or around the field, then chances are, if you knew that the genome had been sequenced, you probably heard about junk DNA - and I know it was still being taught in intro classes up through the 20teens. So that’s a lot of potential viewers who’ve heard of a term, even if it’s not one in as frequent use anymore. (And I say that because the press release for the paper 100% used the term junk DNA. Check out “study 1 secondary source,” the EurekAlert article in the description box.) 🤷🏼♀️ The challenge of scicomm, right? You have to figure out the language familiar to the broadest audience, and that frequently means the more specialized audience rolls their eyes.
@@khills Absolutely
Didn't really expect cancer to interact with bacteria very much. But looks like it has a lot to do with cancer biology.