You've probably heard widely varying estimates for the number of protein-coding genes in the human genome. Back before the genome sequence came out, many scientists guessed that the number was around 100,000. When scientists first looked at the newly completed human genome sequence in 2001, they found about 27,000 genes, and ever since then I have seen estimates ranging from 20,000 to 30,000. The lowest estimate I've ever seen is on the first page of Carl Zimmer's new book, Microcosm , where he states that we have 18,000 protein-coding genes. So what is the answer? The current gold standard is a highly curated set of genes called the RefSeq genes which this moment includes 26,322 genes (you can check this at the UCSC Genome Browser), although that is probably a bit of an overestimate, since it's generally easier to get a gene into a database like this than it is to remove one. A better way to get a good number is to ask a someone who looks for genes in genomes. According to one of the best recent estimates, we have about 20,500 genes. Why does this number vary so much? Before we had the human genome sequence, people were just guessing, and thus you got estimates of 100,000 protein coding genes. With DNA sequence in hand, we can systematically search for genes. But genes are broken into pieces called exons, and it can sometimes be hard to tell which set of exons make up one gene. It's also hard to weed out non-functional pseudogenes which no longer produce any protein. The estimates are settling down though, so don't expect as much variation in the future. Zimmer's 18,000 is surely too low, but it's not as far off as other estimates that are casually tossed out in scientific papers. Unfortunately, just as we're settling on a number protein-coding genes, we're finding many new non-protein genes, which means a new debate is just getting started.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Humanities Scholars Overturn Biology, Discover Trait-Based Politics In Fear Response
- Lower Test Scores Linked To Non-Concussion Head Impacts In Contact Sports
- Sorry Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Corn Oil Is Better For Lowering Cholesterol
- Perovskite Oxides: New Material For Solar Panels Could Make Them Cost-Effective And Efficient
- The Problem For 23andMe And The FDA: People Don't Understand Genetic Test Results Or Their Implications
- Big Crunch Beta Functions: The End Of The Universe Is Closer Than You Think
- Worm Eggs, Hot Baths - Two Ideas For Treating High-Functioning Autism
- "For General Relativity, light is observed to be bent from Earth observers due to mass bending Time..."
- "Yes, yes, American education sucks. The self-loathing fix has been in for decades - but when anyone..."
- "Do tests adequately predict academic success? Not really. When American students took the first..."
- "The Science 2.0 audience is not Mother Jones or USA Today, they understand the nature of traits..."
- "A study is not a study when the people behind it take survey results, place the respondents on..."
- Entropy and sodium intakes, the wicked problems of health sciences
- The Physical Origin of Evolution.
- Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND) & (ALS)
- 40 really awful writing prompts that no writer should use
- Learning Should Not Be Easy
- Shaken not stirred? Maybe you have alcohol-induced tremors
- Should your surname carry a health warning?
- Is laughter really the best medicine?
- How Wagner's operas held secrets of his disabling migraines and headaches
- Younger, early breast cancer patients often undergo unnecessary staging, imaging procedures at time