I read the article that theorized about how genetically similar the children of two pairs of identical twins would be. Using what we know now, these cousins would genetically be siblings, since their parents have the same dna. However, environmental conditions, like whether the mother smoked or not, can alter how the babies express the genes. The babies would not be twins because of genetic recombination. While this is fascinating, I wonder what would happen if the babies somehow got switched or confused with each other. The question that is raised in this scenario is whether or not genetic or paternity tests would be able to determine what baby belonged to what parents. In conclusion, if identical twins marry identical twins, their kids dna would appear like they were conceived by one couple, not two.
The articles I read this week were "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" and "Scientists Finally Crack Wheat's Absurdly Complex Genome". These articles interested me because, in the case of the identical twins, I expected the children to be exactly identical. Also, in the case of the genome of wheat, I did not expect such a simple plan would have more DNA letters than a human genome-16 billion to be exact. In the first article, I expected that the children would be like quadruplets, same genotype and phenotype. However, as I learned from the article, they would be more like siblings rather than cousins. This is because they would have a similar set of chromosomes than they would have if they were just regular cousins. The second article introduced the full decoding of the wheat genome. I was quite shocked when I found out that wheat had the potential to be heat resistant and drought resistant. In addition, the estimate that we had to grow more than 60% percent more that wheat that we were growing right now as of 2025 really showed me the massive overpopulation of humanity and made me wonder what this might mean for other species.
I read the article titled “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. Although much is already known about how genes of parents are distributed in their offspring, I think that the scenario of comparing the children of two sets of identical twins could still be interesting for scientists to study. When a child is born, half if their DNA is from their mother and the other half is from their father. Siblings do not necessarily get the same DNA as their are not set halves from each parent that they will receive. Because of this, siblings typically share half their DNA. This concept can be applied to the identical twins’ children. They are expected to share half their DNA with their cousins as though they were siblings, but they could always share more or less. Additionally, environmental factors or small differences in the womb could cause different expressions of inherited genes. All in all, the children of the identical twins could be extremely different or very similar in terms of genetics.
The article that chose today was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The headline of this article got me intrigued because it was a question that I had always wondered. Recently, I have seen several cases of twins marry another set of twins in the news. It makes me curious to know if their children would look alike or different. In the article, it mentioned Brittany and Briana Deane marrying to Josh and Jeremy Slayers. A professor at UPenn had stated that they would be as genetically similar as siblings would be due to sharing half the genes of one parents and half of the other. Also, differences in the genes of the twin parents might have minor differences in the womb or other environmental factors which could cause differences in the babies. Due to random mating of the zygotes, cross fertilization and etc causes random genetics in the children. I had always though that if identical twins married identical twins, they would produce identical children. Overall, this article had taught me something new.
This week I read the article titled “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. The article discussed the idea that if two identical twin siblings had kids how genetically related they would be. Obviously the kids would be much more related that typically cousins but the article stated that basically the children would be siblings because they are getting the genes from the same gene pool. However, the characteristics the kids could receive could vary due to the twins having different traits than their sibling due to environmental factors or differences that could have occurred in the womb. So, it is hard to tell if the kids would be almost identical siblings or if they would be like typically cousins.
This week I read the article "How Human Smart Evolved." It was very intriguing to read about the reasons behind human dominance and how our brain factors into it. The article mentions neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Hazel and her quest to count the number of cells in the human brain. Prior to her methods, scientists painstakingly cut brain tissues into ultra-thin slices that were viewed under microscopes. Even with the machines, it was often difficult to identify where one cell ended and the other started, making the task nearly impossible. Herculano-Hazel solved this with a very simple answer. She knew that each cell would only have one nucleus, and thus all she had to do was count the number of nuclei. After countless experiments. Heculano-Hazel chose a procedure which hardened the brain tissue with formaldehyde and then mashed it with detergent to turn it into "brain soup". She then diluted the solution and observed it under a microscope. Heculano-Hazel had stained the nuclei with another dye that clung to specialized nerve proteins, causing the nuclei to stand out. By using a ratio of the number of nuclei to sample size, she was able to calculate the number of cells in a human brain. Heculano-Hazel wasn't the first to study relations between brain size and the number of neurons it contained. Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois created a formula called allometric scaling. It stated that bigger brains had more neurons and any deviations from that linear line explained an animal's intelligence. Species with brains bigger than predicted where smarter and species with brains smaller than predicted would be dumber. This concept became the staple and even Heculano-Hazel believed in it. After determining the number of neurons in the human brain, Heculano-Hazel started counting cells in other animal brains. She discovered that the larger a rodent's brain gets, the neurons grow more slowly. Later, when looking at a primate brain, she was shocked to find more neurons than expected. Unlike rodents, as primate brains grew in size the neurons grew quickly as well. It seemed that the previous concept that all brains were made the same way was false. Herculano-Hazel found her answer while studying white matter in five rodent and nine primate species. White matter is the fat-coated axons which are used by cortical neurons for long-distance communication. As rodent brains increase in size, the amount of white matter must also increase and therefore there is less space for neurons to grow. However, primates are able to adapt to this change. Primates adapted by using only 1% of their neurons for long-distance connections. These axons are only used for time-sensitive information and less-urgent information travels through slower, smaller axons. This enables primates to have less white matter so they can grow more neurons. Eventually, this allowed the primate brain to become more compartmentalized. Primate brains have a larger amount of "cortical areas", or compartments than mammals like rodents. Primates also have a higher concentration of neurons in its cerebral cortex. This is part of the brain which focuses on cognitive functions. The increased amount of neurons in the cerebral cortex give primates a higher intelligence. This is what makes humans different from other animals. All of this started with a subtle tweak in how neurons are connected. Yet its impact is profound among primates, especially humans.
This week, the article titled, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" immediately sparked an interest in me because I remember watching a video about a set of identical twins that had married another set of identical twins and each had children that looked alike. Since that video, I have always wondered just how genetically similar the lookalike children of the different couples were, and this article provided the answer. In short, the children of the different couples would share about half of their DNA as typical siblings would, which came as a surprise to me because I thought a higher portion (maybe about 75%) of their DNA would be shared. However, there are several factors that could alter this, one of them being that the amount of genes shared with each child can differ and another being slight genetic differences between the twin parents themselves. Other factors, such as a history of smoking in one or both parents can also play a part. With this information in mind, I think it is fair to conclude that the children of the couples of fraternal twins would probably share an even smaller portion of their DNA, if any at all, because fraternal twins are not as genetically similar as identical twins. Identical twins form when a single embryo splits, whereas fraternal twins form when two eggs are fertilized at the same time. Nevertheless, it is truly fascinating to see the wonders of genetics when the children of two sets of identical twins end up looking very similar, and if two sets of identical triplets or quadruplets married and have kids, the amount of DNA shared between them would most likely be about half as well.
Of the articles posted this week, I was most enthralled by the article, "How Human Smarts Evolved". The article focuses on the relationship between brain size and intelligence and how scientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel's seemingly-implausible quest to count the number of cells in the brains of dozens of mammals enabled her to make a conjecture regarding the evolution of the human mind. The beginning of the article describes the work of Dutch anatomist Eugène Dubois. In 1891 in Java, Indonesia, Dubois unearthed the fossils of the very first Homo erectus to have ever been discovered. Dubois wanted to determine the intelligence of the early hominin, which had garnered the name, "Java man". Upon measuring the brain and body weights of dozens of animal species and using them to compute the mathematical rate at which the brain enlarges in proportion to body size, he made the claim that the brain does indeed expand as body size increases. His computations further led him to infer that the Java man had been an intelligent individual. Although the general method he utilized in making his claims continued to be used by scientists, eventually becoming known as "allometric scaling", scientists developed a new tactic called "encephalization quotient (EQ)". EQ is the ratio of a species' legitimate brain mass to its projected brain mass, and the higher the numbers involved in the ratio, the more intelligent the species. For instance, humans lead the way with an EQ of 7.4 to 7.8, followed by dolphins with an EQ of approximately 5, and so on and so forth. EQ essentially promoted the idea that, the larger the brain mass, the more intelligent the species. The article then transitions into Herculano-Houzel's work and the tactic she utilized to count the number of neurons in brain tissue. In doing so, she was consequently able to observe the brains of different types of rodents and retrieve results that showed that, from the brains of one rodent species to the next, the neurons grow slower than the masses of the brains. For instance, although the brain of the largest rodent in the world, the capybara, is 190 times bigger than that of a mouse, it contains 22 times as many neurons. However, upon later examining the brains of six different species of primates, Herculano-Houzel observed that, from the brains of one primate species to the next, the number of neurons do, In fact, stay consistent with the growth of the sizes of the brains- the reason being that, unlike in the brains of rodents, the neurons in the brains of primates do not consume as much space and are rather close together. Herculano-Houzel thus reached the understanding that the brains of rodents and primates evolved differently depending on the capacities of their neurons. The article then proceeds to cover Herculano-Houzel's subsequent finding : that the most significant factor in determining the depth of an animal's cognitive abilities, or, more simply put, its intelligence, is the number of neurons present in its cortex...
...Finally, the remainder of the article is spent refocusing on primate evolution. Most information in the brains of primates is sent locally, hence why the axons of primates' nerve cells do not increase in thickness from one species to the next and allowing the nerve cells to be closer together. This not only enabled the brains of primates to fit in more neurons, but it additionally altered -according to the belief of another scientist mentioned in the article, Kaas- the way the primate brain works. Because most cells communicated solely with those within close proximity, neurons essentially grouped together with other neurons within close proximity of them and formed "local neighborhoods" in which they narrowed in on a particular task of which the ultimate result was relayed to other far-away regions. This revelation shocked me the most of everything I had come across in the article- mostly because of how much sense it made. I believe it provides a reasonable and sturdy explanation as to why our nervous system is organized the way it is today, with each part carrying out a unique task that, in the long run, contributes to the functioning of our bodies as wholes. I had always been interested in the evolution of each and every individual part of our bodies, not just us as a species, and this article provided insightful and thought-provoking information that brought me a step closer to just that.
The article I chose for this week was "How Human Smarts Evolved" by Douglas Fox. The reason I chose this article was because I have always been fascinated by the intelligence of our species. How is it that only humans were able to reach this level of intelligence and no other species could? The article begins talking about a scientist named Suzana Herculano-Houzel, who had completed her PhD in neuroscience. Herculano-Houzel wanted to do something no scientist had done before- count the number of cells in a brain of any species. She hoped her research would help her study the evolution of the brain, and answer questions regarding how some large brains enhanced intelligence and others produced no effect at all on it. Questions such as hers dated back way farther than 100 years ago, when scientists first studied the correlation between brain size and smartness. In August 1891 on the island of Java, Indonesia, a Dutch anatomist named Eugene Dubois found the first example of an early hominid, "Homo erectus", which eventually evolved into the modern human. Dubois then made it his mission to infer the level of intelligence this early human (who lived about a million years ago) had. Dubois first reasoned based off what other zoologists noticed, that brain size corresponds to the body size of the organism. He found that there is a similar mathematical ratio which governs the brain mass of an organism according to its body mass. However, the size of the brain didn't seem to cause an effect on the intelligence of the organism. For example, the brain of a cow is about 200 times larger than that of a rat. However, there is not that big of a change of intelligence. Dubois then concluded that intelligence has to do with the fact that if the brain is larger than what the ratio predicts the organism has, that organism is more intelligent than species with a brain that is smaller than predicted or the same size as the predicted size. In other words, humans have a bigger brain than what the ratio (which governs brain mass according to body mass) states. If humans had the same size of the brain which the ratio concluded, we would not be nearly as smart. This approach, which came to be known as "allometric scaling", stated that mammalian brain mass increases by an exponent of two-thirds compared to body mass. So a dachshund which weighed 27 times more than a squirrel would have a brain 9 times larger than that of a squirrel, which is true because 27 to the two-thirds power is 9...
...A new ratio was then developed called the encephalization quotient (EQ), which is the ratio of a species' actual brain mass compared to its predicted brain mass. Those with an EQ less than 1 are less intelligent than they should be, and those with an EQ greater than one are smarter than they should be. Humans have an EQ of 7.5, which means that we have brains 7.5 times larger than the predicted size, making us that many times smarter than predicted, which is also higher than that any other species. Back to what Herculano-Houzel's mission was, counting neurons to estimate exact intelligence was very time consuming, difficult, and time-consuming because it was hard to determine exactly where a neuron started and finished. Herculano-Houzel discovered a method to dissolve the brain tissue keeping the nuclei of the cells intact. Since each cell would only have one nuclei, she could just count the number of nuclei to determine who many neurons were in the brain. She also found that primates had far more neurons according to their brain size than any other species. For example, if you double the size of a primate's brain, there would twice as many neurons, but if you double the size of a rat's brain, there would only be 20-30% more neurons, which is why their intelligence is far less than those of primates. Primates are so much more smarter than other species because they have more neurons according to their brain mass than any other species, since the neurons are able to function so compacted. The rest of the article goes on to talk about primate evolution, and how they faced different evolutionary constraints than for example, a rodent. The reason why primates' neurons are able to be some closely packed together is because when their brains grow larger, the axons, or neuron communication wires, don't grow larger. If they did grow larger, like those in rodents, they would leave less space for more neurons to be packed together, which makes sense because their brain mass would be smaller due to this also. Having smaller axons, also makes neuron communication easier, and allows for the existence of local neighborhoods of neurons close together, which together have one task. The result of this task could be then communicated to other regions of the brain. This method is more efficient as many tasks could be performed at once by groups of neurons, and the information could be easily communicated. This enabled our species to have more efficient brains performing multiple tasks at once, which proves why we are also more intelligent than any other species. In conclusion, by reading this article, I was able to finally understand why our species was able to develop highly intelligent brains. I was also able to understand why our nervous systems are very efficient, enabling us to think deeper and comprehend reality better than any other species that ever existed. And in one way, I'm thankful for that.
Out of the three articles this week I found "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" very interesting. The title of this article had me wondering if the two couples children would be genetically similar or not. I began to think whether the kids would be genetically similar or different and I thought they would be genetically similar but not be genetically identical. In this article a pair of identical twins got married to another pair of identical twins. However their kids would be genetically similar to each other but not as cousins, they would be as genetically similar as siblings. The kids would not be completely genetically similar since the parents might have certain small differences from their sibling. Additionally, environmental factors and other events that occur in the womb such as genetic recombination can cause the children to not be fully genetically similar. These children are cousins but will be as genetically similar as siblings.
This week I read the article, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The title alone engrossed me and made me wonder about the genotypes of the children. The article focuses on identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane and their husbands who are also identical twins, Josh and Jeremy Salyers. Laury Almsay, a professor of genetics at the University of Pennsylvania believes that theoretically their children would be genetically as similar as full siblings are to each other as their parents share the same DNA. So, the children would share half their DNA, like siblings; their DNA would show the children are siblings instead of cousins because their parents are identical twins. However, the way the genes may be expressed may be different because of environmental factors. For instance, if one of the mothers smoked and the other did not both of the babies could receive the same gene, but would express it differently. Environmental factors such as the smoking factor would reduce the similarities between the children. In addition, the children would most likely not be identical because of genetic recombination.
“Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” was a bit surprising to me. I had no idea that wheat’s genome was about 5 times the size of the human genome. I often catch myself thinking that plants are somehow simpler organisms than animals as a whole, but then I remember that not all organisms have the same evolutionary path, and plants are simply specialized to their own niches. In any case, the amount of DNA letters in wheat’s genome is staggering. I can remember reading something similar about ferns as well. Some species of fern have over 1000 chromosomes, compared to the pitiful 46 of humans. This is due to mutations causing redundancy in DNA, and the genome slowly grew over generations. The complexity of the wheat genome comes from the fact that modern bread wheat is a combination of three different wild species, each leaving its mark in the form of a chromosome in the plant. However, as 85% of the wheat genome is redundant, perhaps ferns and wheat underwent a similar process, causing both of their ridiculous genomes. It is a concept that I may look into when I have some more free time. Something that disturbed me in this article was the idea that bureaucracy would stand in the way of progress once more. By labelling CRISPR edited organisms GMOs, a lengthy approval process will be imposed on the product before it can be sold. GMOs could have a number of benefits, but due to the slow nature of the approval process, it may take years to see them on the markets. An increase in food supply will be necessary to maintain the growing world population, but legality seems to get in the way quite often. “How Human Smarts Evolved” gave me a greater appreciation for the intelligence of man. It is plain to see that humans are in a league of their own when it comes to cognitive ability, but the reason is less clear. There are several animals who have displayed impressive intelligence, such as dolphins, octopi, and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are primates, just like ourselves. Just like us, they have evolved to have axons with connections to many more neurons, meaning that less axons are needed and more space is available to neurons. This means that they can more densely pack their brains than other mammals. A connection has been made between the number of neurons in a brain that the thinking ability of an organism, so another piece of the puzzle has been decoded. One reason humans are so intelligent is because they are able to make use of the space in their head more efficiently and have more neurons as a result. This mutation likely occurred in one of the earliest primates, giving this advantage to many of our closest relatives, including gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees. While this information is incredibly valuable, it does not fully solve the issue of our intelligence. There must have been other factors that contributed to our brain power. Other primates are not as intelligent as ourselves. The search must continue. An important question that I would like answered, is why are birds so intelligent? In MacLean’s study, some birds had done better than certain primates. As it turns out, birds also have incredibly dense brains. How did they solve the problem of neurons taking up more space as brains get longer. They are not primates, so their solution could be different from ours. I am quite curious, and believe it could give us some insight on our own brains.
The first article I read was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. I was enthralled by the article because it was a question I had wondered myself a long time ago when I learned about what being an identical twin means in terms of DNA and genetics, in relation to the other twin. Recently, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married another set of identical twins, Josh and Jeremy Salyers. This caused the question of how genetically similar their children would be to arise. As it turn out, the occurrence of a pair of identical twins marrying another set of identical twins is not uncommon. The Deane-Salyers kids would be as genetically similar as full siblings would be. Full siblings share about 50% of their DNA. However, every set is different, so more or less of these genes can be shared between siblings. Despite the Deane-Salyers kids being cousins, they would be about 50% genetically similar to one another because of how genetically similar their parents are to one another. Though other components, such as environmental factors and how a gene is expressed, play a role into how genetically similar their offspring will be, the basis will be that they will be as similar to one another as full siblings are to each other, which I find quite intriguing. The analogy the article made of the children picking genes from two separate yet identical set of jars made perfect sense to me, and I found it very interesting that these genetic similarities do indeed happen in real life. The second article I read was “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” by Ed Yong. This article was about how scientists finally mapped the genome of wheat, just as the title says. Though the genome of rice was decoded in 2002, the genome of soybean was decoded in 2008, and the genome of maize was mapped in 2009, the genome of wheat was not completely cracked until recently. This is because the decoding of wheat comes with many hurdles. The genome of bread wheat consists of 16 billion DNA letters, which has many more letters in comparison to the human genome, which has 3 billion DNA letters. Additionally, the actual process of decoding a genome takes a while to do even with modern technology. The process takes place by breaking the DNA into smaller segments. Each segment is read separately, and then the pieces are assembled together. In addition, the genome of wheat takes a longer time to read than most because each chromosome occurs six times. Each chromosome occurs six times because about 500,000 years ago, two species of wild grass hybridized with each other which resulted in emmer wheat. Then, a third grass species joined once humans started to domesticate emmer wheat. This caused modern bread to have three pairs of each chromosome, each pair originating from each ancestral species. These obstacles prevented scientists from decoding wheat’s genome for a while now, but they have finally cracked the case. Knowing wheat’s genome will aid us with breeding, for the genes for certain traits can be identified. We can make wheat more resistant to insect pests and drought, and work with the genes responsible for particular allergies that lead to disorders, such as celiac disease and baker’s asthma. Currently scientists are trying to figure out when specific genes are turned on and off as wheat grows and matures. The genome will aid breeders to produce and grow wheat that is more beneficial to us. I found that fact very interesting because wheat plays such a huge role in my life. Being a vegetarian, my diet is restricted to mainly grains, fruits, and vegetables. I eat wheat on a daily basis, so to know that new knowledge could help grow better wheat is important to me. However, before any of the benefits of decoding wheat’s genome are put to use, there are other bridges to cross, such as public approval and regulatory restrictions. Only time will tell where knowing this new information will lead us.
The article that I read was called “ If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be? “ by Yasemin Saplakoglu. This piece certainly brought up a thought provoking and intellectual question, which is mentioned in the title. I was always curious to know if two sets of identical twins would produce children that would be exactly the same. Based on what I took away from this article, I realized that the children of the two parents of identical twins would be identical on the outside, but not on the inside. Even though they may look very similar in appearance, they will never be identical genetically. The parents would have the same genetic pool, but it gets remixed whenever they conceive a chid ( or two twins in this case.) Each parent has two sets of genes, and the child eventually gets half of each. However, there are factors ( such as recombination, gene crossovers, appearance of the parents, and the environment ) that could create an infinite number of combinations of genes that could be passed on. With these multiple combinations, there is a very slim chance that two identical twins could ever be alike genetically.
The article I read this week were "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" and finally found the answer I've been looking for. I had the mindset that many others did and believed that all the babies would look identical, almost as if there's quadruplets. I learned from the article that they would be more like siblings rather than cousins due to environmental conditions during the mothers pregnancy. The identical twin parents may not have completely identical DNA; instead, there may also be slight differences in their genes that could have occurred in the womb. So in conclusion, they wouldn't be exactly identical, it would've been really cool if they did though.
The article I read this week is “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” I chose this article because I have heard about identical twins marrying other identical twins and have wondered if their kids will be genetically similar. You would think that the children from each couple would look similar because of their parents' genetical similarities. However, the children from the different couples would only share half their DNA like normal siblings. In addition, just because the kids' parents are identical twins, doesn't mean they have the same genes. The twins could have small differences that were developed in the womb or from environmental factors which could influence the ways the babies look. Also, if one twin smokes and the other doesn't, their children could have the same gene but it could act out more dramatically in one child.
This week I read the two articles, "Charting the evolution of human intelligence", and If identical twins married identical twins, how genetically similar would their children be?". To begin, the latter article intrigued me greatly, as I would have thought that the children would be very similar, as the genes of their parents are identical. While the article began with this same point of view, stating that "the children of the two sets of parents would be drawing from two separate, but identical jars." However, this short article also states that there are many possibilities which would cause the children to be different, one being that any particular pair of individuals could "share more or less' of those genes". Additionally, the nature of the gene could affect the child's genotypes as well, as there is a possibility that some genes in one twin could have been turned off, or on, due to environmental conditions. The article uses the example of a mother who smokes, which may cause her genes to be different than her 'other half'. In this case, while both children get the same genes, the expression differs, causing their genotypes to differ as well. The other article about human intelligence interested me greatly as well, as it began to talk about not only human brain development but how it is limited, as well as how primate evolution differs from other species. In this article, Herculano-Houzel talks about her findings with the counting of neurons and how this expands our knowledge of our brain. With her help, scientists created an equation called the EQ, which is the ratio of a species actual brain mass to its predicted brain mass. The EQ then became widely used to rank intelligence, with a rabbit at .4, dolphin and 5.3 and a human, at the top, with 7.5 EQ. She then began to find an easier way to count neurons-and did just that. Instead of counting the cells, Herculano-Houzel figured, why not count the nucleus, as there must be only one in each cell. Doing just this, she is able to count the number of cells in a brain, just like counting the boxes on a checkerboard, while simultaneously breaking the roof on possible connections and brain discoveries. With this very technology, this scientist found a very important flaw in brain research- mammalian brains are VERY different from each other, as primates were different than rodents. This discovery really caught my attention, as rodents are used for many biological tests, before being tested on humans. Additionally, while this didn't allow her to see the evolution of HUMAN brains, per se, this information allowed Herculano-Henzel to study the diversity and design principles, ranging from small to big animals. One of the facts she found was that while the brain size increases as the body increases, for neural housekeeping, the neurons do not necessarily increase at the same rate- preventing evolution. As neurons fuel intelligence, the more neurons an animal has, the smarter it gets. However, for a rat to have the same amount of neurons as a human would be biologically implausible, as it would approximately be 35 kilograms or nine gallons of water! With this information, Herculano-Henzel allowed scientists to discover that a subtle tweak happened in human ancestors brains- a tweak that was essential to humanity's presence on earth. This article shocked me as it went into great depths of the human and other animal brains, as well as how important neurons are, not only to our intelligence, but it essentially was the reason humans walked the earth!
The article that I read today was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" written by Yasemin Saplakoglu. I think this is a really interesting topic, especially because I have never read about anything like this before, and provoked many questions. When a baby is born, it gets half its genes from each parent. Cousins normally don't share genes with one another, but because their parents are identical twins, the two babies will share half their genes with one another. Yet, there may be differences in the identical twin parents's genes. This is due to occurrences in the womb or environmental factors throughout their life that may have caused altercations in their DNA. Overall, this article was very interesting and a good read.
This week I read the article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" I found this article very interesting because it was something that I have never thought about before. This article explained how their kids will be probably have the same genes as full siblings even though they are cousins. It also explained how the environment or things that happened in the womb can change the genes of the baby. Like if one of the mothers smoked, their baby's genes might be different because of it. Therefore, this article explained a new topic.
The first article that I chose to read was, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" by Yasemin Saplakgla. It has been occurring through increasing popularity where identical twins are marrying each other. This is partly due to events such as the Twin Day Festival in Ohio where they are able to meet each other. However, it seems to be an enthralling mystery as to how their children will turn out. A child's genes are like "drawing a handful of genes from a jar." In this case it would be like drawing from two identical jars. There would be no difference between the "identical cousins" and full siblings as they would only share half of their DNA give or take. The identical twins parents' DNA will not be 100% the same either due to things such as environmental factors which can "change how an inherited gene is expressed." Also, because of factors such as crossing over during meiosis, independent assortment, and random fertilization the children have the same chance of being identical as two siblings do. The second article was titled, "How Human Smarts Evolved" by Douglas Fox. Suzana Herculano-Houzel wanted to find the number of cells in the brains of many different organisms. The catch however was that she had extremely limited funding and resources. She conducted experiments where she, "soaked it in formaldehyde and then mashed it in detergent, yielding a smooth, pink slurry" and " froze the jiggly tissue in liquid nitrogen, and then she liquefied it in a blender." She studied the amount of neurons in the brain/cell. To answer her questions she went back to research from over 100 years ago which was conducted to find the correlation between brain size and intelligence. The first example of Homo erectus was found but the only information they had based of the remains was the brain size, stature, and body weight. Zoologists noticed a pattern where bigger bodies meant bigger brains. It was then concluded that the larger the brain the higher the intelligence in that organism. In relation to that discovery, an anatomist named Eugene Dubois came up with allometric scaling which was a mathematical formula. This was also believed by Hercualano-Houzel when she studied rodents and primates. She saw that the neurons grew at a slower rate when a rodents brain expanded but that they grew more rapidly in a primate's brain. This discovery proved that the previous conception that all brains are made the same way is wrong.
This week’s article centered around the theoretical question of genetics in the offspring of two sets of identical twins marrying each other. One would assume that they would be extremely similar, more so than even genetic siblings, based on the fact that identical twins are, well, identical. This is untrue for several reasons. This assumption is flawed at its core because the name identical is deceiving. It refers only to the method by which two embryos develop in utero. Identical twins develop when a single egg is fertilized and then splits into two. Therefore the popular sentiment that identical twins are genetically identical is not necessarily true. Additionally twins develop separate from one another in the womb and during life and can undergo different mutations due to their environments throughout their life times, as the article points out. I can personally attest to this because I can taste PTC paper while my identical twin brother cannot. Another factor is the difference between phenotype and genotype. It is possible for the female set of twins mentioned in the article to be carriers of a recessive trait while the male twins possess only the dominant genes. In this scenario is is not unlikely for the children of the pair to be dominant-dominant and dominant-recessive, resulting in both children physically expressing the same trait, but not being genetically identical. In conclusion, the proposed scenario of twins marrying twins, seems like the resulting offspring would be extremely similar, but this is not entirely true. Multiple factors can change this, but the children will most likely be as similar as normal siblings, which is more similar than cousins are on average.
Out of all the articles given, I found the article,"If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" the most interesting. The first article that I have mentioned above focuses on the genetic similarity between the offspring of two twin couples. By this I mean, one set of identical twins would marry another set of identical twins. While reading this article, I was amazed when I found out that the offspring of both couples would be so genetically alike that they would resemble the genetic similarity between siblings rather then what they actually are: cousins. This is because the parents of the offspring have similar DNA and so when the offspring share half the DNA of their parents, they end up getting most of the same genes, just like any typical siblings would. However, sometimes the DNA between two twins are not completely identical due to slight differences in their genes which could lead to the offspring being less similar to one another. Also, the environment plays a role in the expression of a gene too. Depending on the environment an offspring is raised in can also influence the baby differently. This, however, does not mean that the genes are inherited from the parents are different. It means that these inherited genes could have been changed to express differently.
I found the article, "Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome" surprisingly interesting. This is because I did not know how important this accomplishment was to science and agriculture. According to the article, by 2050, we will need to grow 60 percent more wheat than we are today. Plus, the fact that they could decode the wheat genome is more incredible than you might think. This is because the wheat genome is extremely large, for example the human genome has 3 billion DNA letters, whereas the wheat genome has 16 million. Now that the genome is solved scientists are uncovering what different genes affect different aspects of the plant. This will help it make it easier for breeders to grow these plants. Using the knowledge of the genome they can us CRISPR, a gene-editing technique, to make wheat have more yeild, tolerate the cold, or even resist diseases. Overall, this discovery will help with global food security.
This weeks article was about identical twins. The article focuses on identical twins that got married to another pair of identical twins, and if their children would look like twins. When a child is conceived, he/she get half their genes from their mom and the other half from their dad. This happens through meiosis. Meiosis is when chromosomes are copied and divided to form new daughter cells. Laura Almasy, a professor of genetics, believe that they would look like full siblings. Each couple's children would get half their genes from their mom and half from dad. The child of couple #1 could (for example) get blue eyes from their mom. The child from couple #2 could get brown eyes from their dad, even though their mom has blue eyes.
I choose to respond to the article “Scientists Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” because this is the first time that I began to read one of the articles and had experienced a negative initial response. I couldn’t help but think why people are wasting not only their time, but money ( $75 million to be exact ) on uncovering the genome sequence of wheat. Of all things this seemed to be so pointless to me at first glance. However, as I continued to read I learned the importance of learning the sequence in order to create more variety of wheat and thus provide the ability for people to reproduce it more successfully. In turn this will provide millions of people with a staple product in their diet. With the population increasing rapidly people are constantly in search of new ways to meet the growing demands of food such as wheat. What amazes me even more is that understanding the full genome can allow scientists to cater to allergies by identifying certain proteins. Reading this article has reminded me that knowledge truly is power. The more that scientists are able to uncover with the wheat genome the more they are able to experiment with the different varieties of wheat. Although this does bring up the concern that it would be considered a genetically modified organism. While the article only mentions the issue of the approval process, I have always been fascinated with the dangers of modifying organisms. It would be amazing if scientists were able to change the wheat industry in the sense that there would be more production of wheat, however it makes me wonder what this means for the quality of the wheat. Nevertheless, the complexity of this genome is a wonder to the scientific world and its understanding it in its entirety would be a true breakthrough.
This week I read ""If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?". I found this article interesting because it poses a question which people may not have thought about. This article explains how if two sets of identical twins got married and had kids, their kids would be as genetically similar as normal siblings usually are, but in their case they are only cousins. The article also highlights that there may be slight differences in the genes because of "environmental factors". The environment around the parents is important because it helps determine how a gene is expressed in the offspring.
This week, I had read the article “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” by Ed Yong. Wheat, one of our largest caloric intake crops in the world, ironically, has one of the most complex genomes known to science. One of wheat’s chromosomes are known to be bigger than the entire soybean genome which only makes it more difficult for scientists to analyze the components of this complex genetic makeup. To make things even harder on the scientist, bread-wheat genome is actually three genomes in one which consists of different hybridizations and different domestications done by humans. By mixing genomes of different species it only made it more difficult for scientists on one of the most grown crops in the world. According to the article, the chromosomes demonstrate repitition by each occuring six times and even if each piece is analyzed correctly it is still difficult to determine where exactly the chromosomes should be placed. This is important because order actually matters in the reproduction of these crops because different variations of the crop variety can actually occur. By paying attention to sequence it can actually affect the outcomes for growers so that, for example, the maximum yield for the plant can be achieved while still gaining the correct amount of nutrition. On the other hand, a different gene makeup may have made these crops more exposed to allergens especially when pertaining to the temperature of when these crops are treated. With this in mind, it is crucial to understand that analyzing chromosomes should not be something that can be taken lightly and it is a task that involves fastidious work. To end the article, the author had argued that regulations need to be met and approved in order for more wide range use of crop genomes. Considering it is a new topic that has been introduced recently in human history, it is difficult to say how scientists may perceive this in the future.
This week I read "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" that tells of what would happen if identical twins married another set of identical twins and had children. In the article, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane met identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers at a Festival in Ohio. The couples married and left many wondering what would happen if they were to have kids. Would the kids look the same? Laura Almasy, a professor of genetics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that in theory the children would be expected to be genetically as similar as full siblings are to each other. Since half of your DNA is received from mom and the other half is from dad, the children of the two couples would share half their DNA like full siblings would. However, there may be slight differences in their genes that could have occurred because of environmental factors that occurred throughout their parents' lives. These slight differences can influence how similar the babies are. For example, a mother smoking throughout her life could affect her baby's genes. So the children may or may not end up looking similar. All in all, this article intrigued me because of the interesting scenario it presented. It is not everyday that we get to study the genes of the children of identical twin couples. I hope to learn more about genetics, DNA, and the inheritance of traits in the future. - Karan Nayak
The article that caught my complete attention and really reeled me in was most definitely, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The topic of twins has always amazed me and I’ve been fascinated by the idea of identical twins- twins who share identical DNA. So, when I saw the article title, identical twins marrying identical twins, I was immediately intrigued and wondered how similar their children would be, as genetically, it's almost like they have exact same parents! In this article, the author discusses how Brittany and Briana Deane-identical twins- married Josh and Jeremy Salyer. A professor of genetics at UPENN- Laura Almassy- says that theoretically the children would be genetically similar to one another as full siblings are to each other, because of the fact that both sets of parents have identical DNA (mom & mom have the same DNA; dad & dad have the same DNA), therefore causing the children to be conceived from the same genes- half of mom’s and half of dad’s. So even though the children of the identical twins would be cousins, their genetic makeup would be those of siblings. This really intrigued me as this was the first time I had ever thought of or even realized this! However, the author goes on to write that the DNA of the identical twins (the parents in this case) may not be 100% identical, due to the fact that there could be slight changes in the genes from environmental factors, and the ways the parents were affected in the environments they lived in. This would cause different expression of certain genes, leading to slight differences in the babies of the two couple. For example, if one mother drank (alcohol) and the other did not, then the two babies could possibly have the same gene but it would be expressed very differently as drinking alcohol versus not, effects your body in a significant way. Also, due to genetic recombination, it's a 100% chance that the offspring wouldn’t be genetically identical unless they turn out to be identical twins as well! After reading this article, it really caused me to think more about this topic. I’m really fascinated by the fact that the couples children will be more like siblings instead of cousins. In the future, I want to find out how genetically similar the children of identical twins who marry identical twins turn out to be!
The article that intrigued me the most was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” Because it was a perplexing question that I have always thought about. This article talked about how two identical twin brothers and two identical twin sisters married one of each other. This brought up the question that if both twin couples had an offspring, then how genetically similar would an offspring be to the other couple’s offspring. The offspring produced by both couples would most likely have the same genetic similarity as full siblings do. This is because siblings born to the same set of parents share about half their genes with one another and the cousins from the twin couples will have the same set of genes to be reproduced from since the two mothers and two fathers are identical. However, slight differences in the identical twin’s genes might have occurred in the womb or because of environmental factors throughout their lives. Also, lifestyle choices that could have impacted the genes of one twin and not the other can also influence how similar the babies would be to one another. For example, if one twin smoked throughout their lives and the other one did not, then it could have impacted how the gene is expressed and influenced in the baby differently than the other.
I chose the article "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be." It is actually very interesting to think about, because I have discussed this topic in the past. It would seem reasonable for both families' offsprings to look similar: it's almost like having duplicates. But after reading the article and realizing certain genes from each set of parents may or may not be selected in reproduction, it can be concluded that the offspring may not look the same. But, they may very well look the same. It is hard to tell, especially when environmental factors that differ between parents could alter the genes. We will never for sure know until those couples that recently got married both have kids!
The article I enjoyed this week was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” This article discussed how the children would not be exactly identical as if they are quadruplets. This would be due to environmental conditions and possible mutations and other changes in DNA that would have them not look exactly like each other. Just because twins look alike does not mean they have the same genes, and so the children of pairs of twins would be different from each other genetically. I would have guessed that they would be very similar but since I have previous bio knowledge of DNA and passing it to offspring, I knew they would not be exactly the same as people would think. -Akshith Macherla
The first article I read was called “If identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. This article intrigued me because it made me think that if identical twins married identical twins, the offspring of one couple would probably be extremely similar to the offspring of the other couple. As a result, I had thought that the cousins might as well be siblings that look alike, much like twins, except from different parents. However, after reading this article, I realized that just because the parents are exactly alike, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the offspring have to be alike too. As taught in biology, the way genes are expressed and altered can be affected by their environment and the hazards around them. Like stated in the article, what happens to the mother can also affect the child in the future as well, which I hadn’t thought of. On top of that, a child inherits half of the father’s genetic information and half of the mother’s. This can also result in each offspring getting different halves. In other words, the offspring of one couple could get one half of the father and another half of the mother’s genetic information. The other offspring of the other twin couple could get the genetic material of their parents that is different from what the first child had inherited, causing the cousins to look different despite the similarities between the parents. After reading this article, I also realized that another factor can cause the offspring to be different when born: the fact that the genetic makeup of the fathers and mothers may not be the same just because they are identical twins. As a result, from reading this article, I realized that even though there is a chance that the offspring may look extremely similar, due to the many factors, they may not be similar at all in when born. The fact that genetic makeup and small differences in it can cause major differences or major similarities in appearances is very interesting. Another article I had also read is called, “Scientists Fonally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome”. I found this article interesting because it was about how after a long time and a lot of money, the wheat’s genome was able to be mapped out, thus helping in breeding and cultivation of the world’s most important food crop.
This week I read the article, “ If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. The article discussed what would happen if two identical sets of twins had kids, and how genetically similar the kids would be. They will be more related than cousins but according to the article the children could be considered siblings since all of their genes are coming from the same gene pool. They won’t be exactly the same though, this is due to the identical twin parents having different traits or various alterations in genes because of environmental factors or differences that happened while in the womb. In the end, it is unclear whether the children will be more like cousins or siblings.
This week I read the article “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” because I once heard about the marriage between identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane and identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers, and I immediately asked myself the same question that the article is asking. While I knew that typical cousins don’t share the same DNA and standard siblings only share half of the same genes, I thought that the children of identical twins would have the same DNA as each other. However, as the article stated, the children could share either more or less of those genes. In addition, environmental factors plays a role in the inheriting of the genes, which makes sense, as I’ve learned before that environment can greatly affect genetics. The environment in which the parents grew up could change how an inherited gene is expressed, and even though identical twins typically live in the same environment, there can be differences such as one smoking and the other not smoking. Thus, their children might receive the same gene, but it’s expressed differently. Overall, the article taught me that these children would be more than just cousins, but not exactly identical. However, I think it is important that more research should be done on this topic to fully answer the question.
The article that caught my attention was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be,” because I recently watched a video of twin brothers who proposed to a set of twin sisters, and I found it interesting because the two families would look exactly alike. To my surprise, the twins I watched in the video were the exact same in the article: Brittany and Briana Deane and Josh and Jeremy Salyers. Prior to reading the article, one including myself would assume that the children of identical parents would be identical to one another. However, the article suggests that cousins would share half their DNA like full siblings would or maybe more or less the same genes. Alterations in genes could be a result of environmental factors such as how the parents lifestyle is expressed. In addition, I found the article “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” interesting. The article highlighted the critical value of wheat, which i had previously underestimated. Specifically, wheat is the most complex genome with 16 billion DNA letters while the human genome is only 3 billion. In my opinion, this statement was shocking and contradictory to my previous beliefs of the human being the most complex aspect of science. In fact, it took 14 years, and $75 million to produce the Chinese Spring, the completed wheat genome. By accomplishing this complex puzzle, scientists advanced the breeding of wheat by identifying a long elusive gene which affects the structure of wheat stems, such as if they are solid or hollow. Solid stems provide an advantage by making the resistant to droughts and insect pests. Furthermore, by studying the wheat genome, scientists are able to identify the specific proteins responsible for disorders such as celiac disease, baker’s asthma, and non-celiac wheat sensitivity. While reading, a quote that caught my eye was the fact that baked goods could potentially be more allergenic as the world warms because wheat produces more allergens responsible for celiac disease when grown in high temperatures.
I found the article named "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" very interesting. This is because of the rarity that this topic presents, and because I would want to find the outcome of this experiment. When identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married Josh and Jeremy Salyers, who were also identical twins. This caused others to think how genetically similar their children would be. The article states that siblings born to the same set of parents share about half their genes with one another. What's funny is that cousins don't receive Dna from the same set of genes, but in this case, the babies will be receiving Dna from separate yet identical sets of genes. This is a very rare occurrence, which makes it so precious for scientists to observe it as if it were an experiment. I would like to dig more into this story because I also want to know what their babies would be like. What's more is that the twin parents may not have completely identical dna. If the environment they grew up in changed the way an inherited gene is expressed though, the children could receive the same gene but have it influence them very differently. The reason I found this article was so interesting is because inheritance was my favorite topic in honors biology, and this case right here could prove to make a worthy argument to Mendelian genetics.
This week I chose to read the article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be." I found it to very interesting in the sense that identical twins married identical twins. Its fascinating to think about how genetically similar the offspring of both couples since the two couples are identical. Initially, as I began to read, I believed that the babies of the twin couples would be close to the same, genetically. Although, that is not the case when it comes to the offspring. The babies would be as similar as the couples are to their twin sibling. This occurs because when twins are born, they share about half of the same genes. In theory, the offspring of these twin couples would share about half the uniform DNA as the other. Even though this is the belief, some of the baby's genes may slightly differ from the other due to many potential factors. The genes could be influenced by various environmental occurrences that happen in the womb. Both babies would inherit the same gene from their parents, but they could serve entirely different purposes.
The article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be," intrigued me because not only was it something that I had never thought of before, but it was thought-provoking and something that I wanted to know more about. Before reading the article, I thought that their children would also be genetically identical. However, I soon learned that their offspring would not be genetically identical, but as genetically similar as any set of siblings would be. This made sense because all siblings have some genetical diversity from each other, and while the children of two sets of identical twins would be cousins, their parents are genetically the same, so the genetical makeup of these offspring would have greater similarity that more resembles siblings, rather than cousins. However, environmental factors could also change how certain genes are expressed in the children. While, both babies may receive the same gene, how they're expressed could influence the baby in different ways. As more and more identical twins are marrying one another, this trend of seeing their children will hopefully help us answer more questions on the genetical similarity of identical twin offsprings.
Out of this week's articles, the one that stood out to me the most was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" It caught my attention right off the bat because it was interesting to think about something that I hadn't ever thought about before. The article explained that the children from each couple would share about half their genes with one another since the genetic makeup of each couple is similar. It was also interesting to learn that environmental factors could play a role in differences in their genes. The environment wouldn't affect which genes the babies get, but rather how a gene is expressed. For example, If one of the mothers smoked, the chid could express the gene differently than the other. I guess this scientific theory will be put to the test if identical twin couples decide to have babies!
Out of all the various options given this week, “If Identical Twins Married Indentical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”, caught my eye. Two sets of identical twins marrying each other brings up a very interesting question: How genetically similar would the children of two sets of identical twins be? In theory, it would be expected that the cousins would be as genetically similar to each other as full siblings. In the same sense, the children could get more or less of the genes. I found it cool that environmental factors play a huge part in how similar the babies would be to each other even though they share the same genes.
The article, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” stood out to me because this is not something that usually occurs. In the article, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers. If these couples had children, their children would have similar DNA. Instead of just being cousins, their children would share half their DNA, like siblings would. Also, the identical twin parents may not necessarily have the exact same DNA. There can be slight differences in their genes due to environmental factors, or occurrences in the womb. These small differences influence the similarity of their offspring. The environment in which the parent grew can alter the way a gene is expressed. Even if both children inherit the same gene from their parents, it may be portrayed differently. Overall, it is out of the ordinary for identical twins to marry identical twins. It is fascinating how their children will look.
44 comments:
I read the article that theorized about how genetically similar the children of two pairs of identical twins would be. Using what we know now, these cousins would genetically be siblings, since their parents have the same dna. However, environmental conditions, like whether the mother smoked or not, can alter how the babies express the genes. The babies would not be twins because of genetic recombination. While this is fascinating, I wonder what would happen if the babies somehow got switched or confused with each other. The question that is raised in this scenario is whether or not genetic or paternity tests would be able to determine what baby belonged to what parents. In conclusion, if identical twins marry identical twins, their kids dna would appear like they were conceived by one couple, not two.
The articles I read this week were "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" and "Scientists Finally Crack Wheat's Absurdly Complex Genome". These articles interested me because, in the case of the identical twins, I expected the children to be exactly identical. Also, in the case of the genome of wheat, I did not expect such a simple plan would have more DNA letters than a human genome-16 billion to be exact.
In the first article, I expected that the children would be like quadruplets, same genotype and phenotype. However, as I learned from the article, they would be more like siblings rather than cousins. This is because they would have a similar set of chromosomes than they would have if they were just regular cousins.
The second article introduced the full decoding of the wheat genome. I was quite shocked when I found out that wheat had the potential to be heat resistant and drought resistant. In addition, the estimate that we had to grow more than 60% percent more that wheat that we were growing right now as of 2025 really showed me the massive overpopulation of humanity and made me wonder what this might mean for other species.
I read the article titled “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. Although much is already known about how genes of parents are distributed in their offspring, I think that the scenario of comparing the children of two sets of identical twins could still be interesting for scientists to study. When a child is born, half if their DNA is from their mother and the other half is from their father. Siblings do not necessarily get the same DNA as their are not set halves from each parent that they will receive. Because of this, siblings typically share half their DNA. This concept can be applied to the identical twins’ children. They are expected to share half their DNA with their cousins as though they were siblings, but they could always share more or less. Additionally, environmental factors or small differences in the womb could cause different expressions of inherited genes. All in all, the children of the identical twins could be extremely different or very similar in terms of genetics.
The article that chose today was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The headline of this article got me intrigued because it was a question that I had always wondered. Recently, I have seen several cases of twins marry another set of twins in the news. It makes me curious to know if their children would look alike or different. In the article, it mentioned Brittany and Briana Deane marrying to Josh and Jeremy Slayers. A professor at UPenn had stated that they would be as genetically similar as siblings would be due to sharing half the genes of one parents and half of the other. Also, differences in the genes of the twin parents might have minor differences in the womb or other environmental factors which could cause differences in the babies. Due to random mating of the zygotes, cross fertilization and etc causes random genetics in the children. I had always though that if identical twins married identical twins, they would produce identical children. Overall, this article had taught me something new.
This week I read the article titled “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. The article discussed the idea that if two identical twin siblings had kids how genetically related they would be. Obviously the kids would be much more related that typically cousins but the article stated that basically the children would be siblings because they are getting the genes from the same gene pool. However, the characteristics the kids could receive could vary due to the twins having different traits than their sibling due to environmental factors or differences that could have occurred in the womb. So, it is hard to tell if the kids would be almost identical siblings or if they would be like typically cousins.
This week I read the article "How Human Smart Evolved." It was very intriguing to read about the reasons behind human dominance and how our brain factors into it. The article mentions neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Hazel and her quest to count the number of cells in the human brain. Prior to her methods, scientists painstakingly cut brain tissues into ultra-thin slices that were viewed under microscopes. Even with the machines, it was often difficult to identify where one cell ended and the other started, making the task nearly impossible. Herculano-Hazel solved this with a very simple answer. She knew that each cell would only have one nucleus, and thus all she had to do was count the number of nuclei. After countless experiments. Heculano-Hazel chose a procedure which hardened the brain tissue with formaldehyde and then mashed it with detergent to turn it into "brain soup". She then diluted the solution and observed it under a microscope. Heculano-Hazel had stained the nuclei with another dye that clung to specialized nerve proteins, causing the nuclei to stand out. By using a ratio of the number of nuclei to sample size, she was able to calculate the number of cells in a human brain. Heculano-Hazel wasn't the first to study relations between brain size and the number of neurons it contained. Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois created a formula called allometric scaling. It stated that bigger brains had more neurons and any deviations from that linear line explained an animal's intelligence. Species with brains bigger than predicted where smarter and species with brains smaller than predicted would be dumber. This concept became the staple and even Heculano-Hazel believed in it. After determining the number of neurons in the human brain, Heculano-Hazel started counting cells in other animal brains. She discovered that the larger a rodent's brain gets, the neurons grow more slowly. Later, when looking at a primate brain, she was shocked to find more neurons than expected. Unlike rodents, as primate brains grew in size the neurons grew quickly as well. It seemed that the previous concept that all brains were made the same way was false. Herculano-Hazel found her answer while studying white matter in five rodent and nine primate species. White matter is the fat-coated axons which are used by cortical neurons for long-distance communication. As rodent brains increase in size, the amount of white matter must also increase and therefore there is less space for neurons to grow. However, primates are able to adapt to this change. Primates adapted by using only 1% of their neurons for long-distance connections. These axons are only used for time-sensitive information and less-urgent information travels through slower, smaller axons. This enables primates to have less white matter so they can grow more neurons. Eventually, this allowed the primate brain to become more compartmentalized. Primate brains have a larger amount of "cortical areas", or compartments than mammals like rodents. Primates also have a higher concentration of neurons in its cerebral cortex. This is part of the brain which focuses on cognitive functions. The increased amount of neurons in the cerebral cortex give primates a higher intelligence. This is what makes humans different from other animals. All of this started with a subtle tweak in how neurons are connected. Yet its impact is profound among primates, especially humans.
This week, the article titled, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" immediately sparked an interest in me because I remember watching a video about a set of identical twins that had married another set of identical twins and each had children that looked alike. Since that video, I have always wondered just how genetically similar the lookalike children of the different couples were, and this article provided the answer. In short, the children of the different couples would share about half of their DNA as typical siblings would, which came as a surprise to me because I thought a higher portion (maybe about 75%) of their DNA would be shared. However, there are several factors that could alter this, one of them being that the amount of genes shared with each child can differ and another being slight genetic differences between the twin parents themselves. Other factors, such as a history of smoking in one or both parents can also play a part. With this information in mind, I think it is fair to conclude that the children of the couples of fraternal twins would probably share an even smaller portion of their DNA, if any at all, because fraternal twins are not as genetically similar as identical twins. Identical twins form when a single embryo splits, whereas fraternal twins form when two eggs are fertilized at the same time. Nevertheless, it is truly fascinating to see the wonders of genetics when the children of two sets of identical twins end up looking very similar, and if two sets of identical triplets or quadruplets married and have kids, the amount of DNA shared between them would most likely be about half as well.
Of the articles posted this week, I was most enthralled by the article, "How Human Smarts Evolved". The article focuses on the relationship between brain size and intelligence and how scientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel's seemingly-implausible quest to count the number of cells in the brains of dozens of mammals enabled her to make a conjecture regarding the evolution of the human mind. The beginning of the article describes the work of Dutch anatomist Eugène Dubois. In 1891 in Java, Indonesia, Dubois unearthed the fossils of the very first Homo erectus to have ever been discovered. Dubois wanted to determine the intelligence of the early hominin, which had garnered the name, "Java man". Upon measuring the brain and body weights of dozens of animal species and using them to compute the mathematical rate at which the brain enlarges in proportion to body size, he made the claim that the brain does indeed expand as body size increases. His computations further led him to infer that the Java man had been an intelligent individual. Although the general method he utilized in making his claims continued to be used by scientists, eventually becoming known as "allometric scaling", scientists developed a new tactic called "encephalization quotient (EQ)". EQ is the ratio of a species' legitimate brain mass to its projected brain mass, and the higher the numbers involved in the ratio, the more intelligent the species. For instance, humans lead the way with an EQ of 7.4 to 7.8, followed by dolphins with an EQ of approximately 5, and so on and so forth. EQ essentially promoted the idea that, the larger the brain mass, the more intelligent the species. The article then transitions into Herculano-Houzel's work and the tactic she utilized to count the number of neurons in brain tissue. In doing so, she was consequently able to observe the brains of different types of rodents and retrieve results that showed that, from the brains of one rodent species to the next, the neurons grow slower than the masses of the brains. For instance, although the brain of the largest rodent in the world, the capybara, is 190 times bigger than that of a mouse, it contains 22 times as many neurons. However, upon later examining the brains of six different species of primates, Herculano-Houzel observed that, from the brains of one primate species to the next, the number of neurons do, In fact, stay consistent with the growth of the sizes of the brains- the reason being that, unlike in the brains of rodents, the neurons in the brains of primates do not consume as much space and are rather close together. Herculano-Houzel thus reached the understanding that the brains of rodents and primates evolved differently depending on the capacities of their neurons. The article then proceeds to cover Herculano-Houzel's subsequent finding : that the most significant factor in determining the depth of an animal's cognitive abilities, or, more simply put, its intelligence, is the number of neurons present in its cortex...
...Finally, the remainder of the article is spent refocusing on primate evolution. Most information in the brains of primates is sent locally, hence why the axons of primates' nerve cells do not increase in thickness from one species to the next and allowing the nerve cells to be closer together. This not only enabled the brains of primates to fit in more neurons, but it additionally altered -according to the belief of another scientist mentioned in the article, Kaas- the way the primate brain works. Because most cells communicated solely with those within close proximity, neurons essentially grouped together with other neurons within close proximity of them and formed "local neighborhoods" in which they narrowed in on a particular task of which the ultimate result was relayed to other far-away regions. This revelation shocked me the most of everything I had come across in the article- mostly because of how much sense it made. I believe it provides a reasonable and sturdy explanation as to why our nervous system is organized the way it is today, with each part carrying out a unique task that, in the long run, contributes to the functioning of our bodies as wholes. I had always been interested in the evolution of each and every individual part of our bodies, not just us as a species, and this article provided insightful and thought-provoking information that brought me a step closer to just that.
The article I chose for this week was "How Human Smarts Evolved" by Douglas Fox. The reason I chose this article was because I have always been fascinated by the intelligence of our species. How is it that only humans were able to reach this level of intelligence and no other species could? The article begins talking about a scientist named Suzana Herculano-Houzel, who had completed her PhD in neuroscience. Herculano-Houzel wanted to do something no scientist had done before- count the number of cells in a brain of any species. She hoped her research would help her study the evolution of the brain, and answer questions regarding how some large brains enhanced intelligence and others produced no effect at all on it. Questions such as hers dated back way farther than 100 years ago, when scientists first studied the correlation between brain size and smartness. In August 1891 on the island of Java, Indonesia, a Dutch anatomist named Eugene Dubois found the first example of an early hominid, "Homo erectus", which eventually evolved into the modern human. Dubois then made it his mission to infer the level of intelligence this early human (who lived about a million years ago) had. Dubois first reasoned based off what other zoologists noticed, that brain size corresponds to the body size of the organism. He found that there is a similar mathematical ratio which governs the brain mass of an organism according to its body mass. However, the size of the brain didn't seem to cause an effect on the intelligence of the organism. For example, the brain of a cow is about 200 times larger than that of a rat. However, there is not that big of a change of intelligence. Dubois then concluded that intelligence has to do with the fact that if the brain is larger than what the ratio predicts the organism has, that organism is more intelligent than species with a brain that is smaller than predicted or the same size as the predicted size. In other words, humans have a bigger brain than what the ratio (which governs brain mass according to body mass) states. If humans had the same size of the brain which the ratio concluded, we would not be nearly as smart. This approach, which came to be known as "allometric scaling", stated that mammalian brain mass increases by an exponent of two-thirds compared to body mass. So a dachshund which weighed 27 times more than a squirrel would have a brain 9 times larger than that of a squirrel, which is true because 27 to the two-thirds power is 9...
...A new ratio was then developed called the encephalization quotient (EQ), which is the ratio of a species' actual brain mass compared to its predicted brain mass. Those with an EQ less than 1 are less intelligent than they should be, and those with an EQ greater than one are smarter than they should be. Humans have an EQ of 7.5, which means that we have brains 7.5 times larger than the predicted size, making us that many times smarter than predicted, which is also higher than that any other species. Back to what Herculano-Houzel's mission was, counting neurons to estimate exact intelligence was very time consuming, difficult, and time-consuming because it was hard to determine exactly where a neuron started and finished. Herculano-Houzel discovered a method to dissolve the brain tissue keeping the nuclei of the cells intact. Since each cell would only have one nuclei, she could just count the number of nuclei to determine who many neurons were in the brain. She also found that primates had far more neurons according to their brain size than any other species. For example, if you double the size of a primate's brain, there would twice as many neurons, but if you double the size of a rat's brain, there would only be 20-30% more neurons, which is why their intelligence is far less than those of primates. Primates are so much more smarter than other species because they have more neurons according to their brain mass than any other species, since the neurons are able to function so compacted. The rest of the article goes on to talk about primate evolution, and how they faced different evolutionary constraints than for example, a rodent. The reason why primates' neurons are able to be some closely packed together is because when their brains grow larger, the axons, or neuron communication wires, don't grow larger. If they did grow larger, like those in rodents, they would leave less space for more neurons to be packed together, which makes sense because their brain mass would be smaller due to this also. Having smaller axons, also makes neuron communication easier, and allows for the existence of local neighborhoods of neurons close together, which together have one task. The result of this task could be then communicated to other regions of the brain. This method is more efficient as many tasks could be performed at once by groups of neurons, and the information could be easily communicated. This enabled our species to have more efficient brains performing multiple tasks at once, which proves why we are also more intelligent than any other species. In conclusion, by reading this article, I was able to finally understand why our species was able to develop highly intelligent brains. I was also able to understand why our nervous systems are very efficient, enabling us to think deeper and comprehend reality better than any other species that ever existed. And in one way, I'm thankful for that.
Out of the three articles this week I found "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" very interesting. The title of this article had me wondering if the two couples children would be genetically similar or not. I began to think whether the kids would be genetically similar or different and I thought they would be genetically similar but not be genetically identical. In this article a pair of identical twins got married to another pair of identical twins. However their kids would be genetically similar to each other but not as cousins, they would be as genetically similar as siblings. The kids would not be completely genetically similar since the parents might have certain small differences from their sibling. Additionally, environmental factors and other events that occur in the womb such as genetic recombination can cause the children to not be fully genetically similar. These children are cousins but will be as genetically similar as siblings.
This week I read the article, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The title alone engrossed me and made me wonder about the genotypes of the children. The article focuses on identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane and their husbands who are also identical twins, Josh and Jeremy Salyers. Laury Almsay, a professor of genetics at the University of Pennsylvania believes that theoretically their children would be genetically as similar as full siblings are to each other as their parents share the same DNA. So, the children would share half their DNA, like siblings; their DNA would show the children are siblings instead of cousins because their parents are identical twins. However, the way the genes may be expressed may be different because of environmental factors. For instance, if one of the mothers smoked and the other did not both of the babies could receive the same gene, but would express it differently. Environmental factors such as the smoking factor would reduce the similarities between the children. In addition, the children would most likely not be identical because of genetic recombination.
“Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” was a bit surprising to me. I had no idea that wheat’s genome was about 5 times the size of the human genome. I often catch myself thinking that plants are somehow simpler organisms than animals as a whole, but then I remember that not all organisms have the same evolutionary path, and plants are simply specialized to their own niches. In any case, the amount of DNA letters in wheat’s genome is staggering. I can remember reading something similar about ferns as well. Some species of fern have over 1000 chromosomes, compared to the pitiful 46 of humans. This is due to mutations causing redundancy in DNA, and the genome slowly grew over generations. The complexity of the wheat genome comes from the fact that modern bread wheat is a combination of three different wild species, each leaving its mark in the form of a chromosome in the plant. However, as 85% of the wheat genome is redundant, perhaps ferns and wheat underwent a similar process, causing both of their ridiculous genomes. It is a concept that I may look into when I have some more free time. Something that disturbed me in this article was the idea that bureaucracy would stand in the way of progress once more. By labelling CRISPR edited organisms GMOs, a lengthy approval process will be imposed on the product before it can be sold. GMOs could have a number of benefits, but due to the slow nature of the approval process, it may take years to see them on the markets. An increase in food supply will be necessary to maintain the growing world population, but legality seems to get in the way quite often.
“How Human Smarts Evolved” gave me a greater appreciation for the intelligence of man. It is plain to see that humans are in a league of their own when it comes to cognitive ability, but the reason is less clear. There are several animals who have displayed impressive intelligence, such as dolphins, octopi, and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are primates, just like ourselves. Just like us, they have evolved to have axons with connections to many more neurons, meaning that less axons are needed and more space is available to neurons. This means that they can more densely pack their brains than other mammals. A connection has been made between the number of neurons in a brain that the thinking ability of an organism, so another piece of the puzzle has been decoded. One reason humans are so intelligent is because they are able to make use of the space in their head more efficiently and have more neurons as a result. This mutation likely occurred in one of the earliest primates, giving this advantage to many of our closest relatives, including gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees. While this information is incredibly valuable, it does not fully solve the issue of our intelligence. There must have been other factors that contributed to our brain power. Other primates are not as intelligent as ourselves. The search must continue. An important question that I would like answered, is why are birds so intelligent? In MacLean’s study, some birds had done better than certain primates. As it turns out, birds also have incredibly dense brains. How did they solve the problem of neurons taking up more space as brains get longer. They are not primates, so their solution could be different from ours. I am quite curious, and believe it could give us some insight on our own brains.
The first article I read was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. I was enthralled by the article because it was a question I had wondered myself a long time ago when I learned about what being an identical twin means in terms of DNA and genetics, in relation to the other twin. Recently, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married another set of identical twins, Josh and Jeremy Salyers. This caused the question of how genetically similar their children would be to arise. As it turn out, the occurrence of a pair of identical twins marrying another set of identical twins is not uncommon. The Deane-Salyers kids would be as genetically similar as full siblings would be. Full siblings share about 50% of their DNA. However, every set is different, so more or less of these genes can be shared between siblings. Despite the Deane-Salyers kids being cousins, they would be about 50% genetically similar to one another because of how genetically similar their parents are to one another. Though other components, such as environmental factors and how a gene is expressed, play a role into how genetically similar their offspring will be, the basis will be that they will be as similar to one another as full siblings are to each other, which I find quite intriguing. The analogy the article made of the children picking genes from two separate yet identical set of jars made perfect sense to me, and I found it very interesting that these genetic similarities do indeed happen in real life.
The second article I read was “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” by Ed Yong. This article was about how scientists finally mapped the genome of wheat, just as the title says. Though the genome of rice was decoded in 2002, the genome of soybean was decoded in 2008, and the genome of maize was mapped in 2009, the genome of wheat was not completely cracked until recently. This is because the decoding of wheat comes with many hurdles. The genome of bread wheat consists of 16 billion DNA letters, which has many more letters in comparison to the human genome, which has 3 billion DNA letters. Additionally, the actual process of decoding a genome takes a while to do even with modern technology. The process takes place by breaking the DNA into smaller segments. Each segment is read separately, and then the pieces are assembled together. In addition, the genome of wheat takes a longer time to read than most because each chromosome occurs six times. Each chromosome occurs six times because about 500,000 years ago, two species of wild grass hybridized with each other which resulted in emmer wheat. Then, a third grass species joined once humans started to domesticate emmer wheat. This caused modern bread to have three pairs of each chromosome, each pair originating from each ancestral species. These obstacles prevented scientists from decoding wheat’s genome for a while now, but they have finally cracked the case. Knowing wheat’s genome will aid us with breeding, for the genes for certain traits can be identified. We can make wheat more resistant to insect pests and drought, and work with the genes responsible for particular allergies that lead to disorders, such as celiac disease and baker’s asthma. Currently scientists are trying to figure out when specific genes are turned on and off as wheat grows and matures. The genome will aid breeders to produce and grow wheat that is more beneficial to us. I found that fact very interesting because wheat plays such a huge role in my life. Being a vegetarian, my diet is restricted to mainly grains, fruits, and vegetables. I eat wheat on a daily basis, so to know that new knowledge could help grow better wheat is important to me. However, before any of the benefits of decoding wheat’s genome are put to use, there are other bridges to cross, such as public approval and regulatory restrictions. Only time will tell where knowing this new information will lead us.
The article that I read was called “ If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be? “ by Yasemin Saplakoglu. This piece certainly brought up a thought provoking and intellectual question, which is mentioned in the title. I was always curious to know if two sets of identical twins would produce children that would be exactly the same. Based on what I took away from this article, I realized that the children of the two parents of identical twins would be identical on the outside, but not on the inside. Even though they may look very similar in appearance, they will never be identical genetically. The parents would have the same genetic pool, but it gets remixed whenever they conceive a chid ( or two twins in this case.) Each parent has two sets of genes, and the child eventually gets half of each. However, there are factors ( such as recombination, gene crossovers, appearance of the parents, and the environment ) that could create an infinite number of combinations of genes that could be passed on. With these multiple combinations, there is a very slim chance that two identical twins could ever be alike genetically.
The article I read this week were "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" and finally found the answer I've been looking for. I had the mindset that many others did and believed that all the babies would look identical, almost as if there's quadruplets. I learned from the article that they would be more like siblings rather than cousins due to environmental conditions during the mothers pregnancy. The identical twin parents may not have completely identical DNA; instead, there may also be slight differences in their genes that could have occurred in the womb. So in conclusion, they wouldn't be exactly identical, it would've been really cool if they did though.
The article I read this week is “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” I chose this article because I have heard about identical twins marrying other identical twins and have wondered if their kids will be genetically similar. You would think that the children from each couple would look similar because of their parents' genetical similarities. However, the children from the different couples would only share half their DNA like normal siblings. In addition, just because the kids' parents are identical twins, doesn't mean they have the same genes. The twins could have small differences that were developed in the womb or from environmental factors which could influence the ways the babies look. Also, if one twin smokes and the other doesn't, their children could have the same gene but it could act out more dramatically in one child.
This week I read the two articles, "Charting the evolution of human intelligence", and If identical twins married identical twins, how genetically similar would their children be?". To begin, the latter article intrigued me greatly, as I would have thought that the children would be very similar, as the genes of their parents are identical. While the article began with this same point of view, stating that "the children of the two sets of parents would be drawing from two separate, but identical jars." However, this short article also states that there are many possibilities which would cause the children to be different, one being that any particular pair of individuals could "share more or less' of those genes". Additionally, the nature of the gene could affect the child's genotypes as well, as there is a possibility that some genes in one twin could have been turned off, or on, due to environmental conditions. The article uses the example of a mother who smokes, which may cause her genes to be different than her 'other half'. In this case, while both children get the same genes, the expression differs, causing their genotypes to differ as well. The other article about human intelligence interested me greatly as well, as it began to talk about not only human brain development but how it is limited, as well as how primate evolution differs from other species. In this article, Herculano-Houzel talks about her findings with the counting of neurons and how this expands our knowledge of our brain. With her help, scientists created an equation called the EQ, which is the ratio of a species actual brain mass to its predicted brain mass. The EQ then became widely used to rank intelligence, with a rabbit at .4, dolphin and 5.3 and a human, at the top, with 7.5 EQ. She then began to find an easier way to count neurons-and did just that. Instead of counting the cells, Herculano-Houzel figured, why not count the nucleus, as there must be only one in each cell. Doing just this, she is able to count the number of cells in a brain, just like counting the boxes on a checkerboard, while simultaneously breaking the roof on possible connections and brain discoveries. With this very technology, this scientist found a very important flaw in brain research- mammalian brains are VERY different from each other, as primates were different than rodents. This discovery really caught my attention, as rodents are used for many biological tests, before being tested on humans. Additionally, while this didn't allow her to see the evolution of HUMAN brains, per se, this information allowed Herculano-Henzel to study the diversity and design principles, ranging from small to big animals. One of the facts she found was that while the brain size increases as the body increases, for neural housekeeping, the neurons do not necessarily increase at the same rate- preventing evolution. As neurons fuel intelligence, the more neurons an animal has, the smarter it gets. However, for a rat to have the same amount of neurons as a human would be biologically implausible, as it would approximately be 35 kilograms or nine gallons of water! With this information, Herculano-Henzel allowed scientists to discover that a subtle tweak happened in human ancestors brains- a tweak that was essential to humanity's presence on earth. This article shocked me as it went into great depths of the human and other animal brains, as well as how important neurons are, not only to our intelligence, but it essentially was the reason humans walked the earth!
The article that I read today was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" written by Yasemin Saplakoglu. I think this is a really interesting topic, especially because I have never read about anything like this before, and provoked many questions. When a baby is born, it gets half its genes from each parent. Cousins normally don't share genes with one another, but because their parents are identical twins, the two babies will share half their genes with one another. Yet, there may be differences in the identical twin parents's genes. This is due to occurrences in the womb or environmental factors throughout their life that may have caused altercations in their DNA. Overall, this article was very interesting and a good read.
This week I read the article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" I found this article very interesting because it was something that I have never thought about before. This article explained how their kids will be probably have the same genes as full siblings even though they are cousins. It also explained how the environment or things that happened in the womb can change the genes of the baby. Like if one of the mothers smoked, their baby's genes might be different because of it. Therefore, this article explained a new topic.
The first article that I chose to read was, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" by Yasemin Saplakgla. It has been occurring through increasing popularity where identical twins are marrying each other. This is partly due to events such as the Twin Day Festival in Ohio where they are able to meet each other. However, it seems to be an enthralling mystery as to how their children will turn out. A child's genes are like "drawing a handful of genes from a jar." In this case it would be like drawing from two identical jars. There would be no difference between the "identical cousins" and full siblings as they would only share half of their DNA give or take. The identical twins parents' DNA will not be 100% the same either due to things such as environmental factors which can "change how an inherited gene is expressed." Also, because of factors such as crossing over during meiosis, independent assortment, and random fertilization the children have the same chance of being identical as two siblings do. The second article was titled, "How Human Smarts Evolved" by Douglas Fox. Suzana Herculano-Houzel wanted to find the number of cells in the brains of many different organisms. The catch however was that she had extremely limited funding and resources. She conducted experiments where she, "soaked it in formaldehyde and then mashed it in detergent, yielding a smooth, pink slurry" and " froze the jiggly tissue in liquid nitrogen, and then she liquefied it in a blender." She studied the amount of neurons in the brain/cell. To answer her questions she went back to research from over 100 years ago which was conducted to find the correlation between brain size and intelligence. The first example of Homo erectus was found but the only information they had based of the remains was the brain size, stature, and body weight. Zoologists noticed a pattern where bigger bodies meant bigger brains. It was then concluded that the larger the brain the higher the intelligence in that organism. In relation to that discovery, an anatomist named Eugene Dubois came up with allometric scaling which was a mathematical formula. This was also believed by Hercualano-Houzel when she studied rodents and primates. She saw that the neurons grew at a slower rate when a rodents brain expanded but that they grew more rapidly in a primate's brain. This discovery proved that the previous conception that all brains are made the same way is wrong.
This week’s article centered around the theoretical question of genetics in the offspring of two sets of identical twins marrying each other. One would assume that they would be extremely similar, more so than even genetic siblings, based on the fact that identical twins are, well, identical. This is untrue for several reasons. This assumption is flawed at its core because the name identical is deceiving. It refers only to the method by which two embryos develop in utero. Identical twins develop when a single egg is fertilized and then splits into two. Therefore the popular sentiment that identical twins are genetically identical is not necessarily true. Additionally twins develop separate from one another in the womb and during life and can undergo different mutations due to their environments throughout their life times, as the article points out. I can personally attest to this because I can taste PTC paper while my identical twin brother cannot. Another factor is the difference between phenotype and genotype. It is possible for the female set of twins mentioned in the article to be carriers of a recessive trait while the male twins possess only the dominant genes. In this scenario is is not unlikely for the children of the pair to be dominant-dominant and dominant-recessive, resulting in both children physically expressing the same trait, but not being genetically identical. In conclusion, the proposed scenario of twins marrying twins, seems like the resulting offspring would be extremely similar, but this is not entirely true. Multiple factors can change this, but the children will most likely be as similar as normal siblings, which is more similar than cousins are on average.
Out of all the articles given, I found the article,"If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" the most interesting. The first article that I have mentioned above focuses on the genetic similarity between the offspring of two twin couples. By this I mean, one set of identical twins would marry another set of identical twins. While reading this article, I was amazed when I found out that the offspring of both couples would be so genetically alike that they would resemble the genetic similarity between siblings rather then what they actually are: cousins. This is because the parents of the offspring have similar DNA and so when the offspring share half the DNA of their parents, they end up getting most of the same genes, just like any typical siblings would. However, sometimes the DNA between two twins are not completely identical due to slight differences in their genes which could lead to the offspring being less similar to one another. Also, the environment plays a role in the expression of a gene too. Depending on the environment an offspring is raised in can also influence the baby differently. This, however, does not mean that the genes are inherited from the parents are different. It means that these inherited genes could have been changed to express differently.
I found the article, "Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome" surprisingly interesting. This is because I did not know how important this accomplishment was to science and agriculture. According to the article, by 2050, we will need to grow 60 percent more wheat than we are today. Plus, the fact that they could decode the wheat genome is more incredible than you might think. This is because the wheat genome is extremely large, for example the human genome has 3 billion DNA letters, whereas the wheat genome has 16 million. Now that the genome is solved scientists are uncovering what different genes affect different aspects of the plant. This will help it make it easier for breeders to grow these plants. Using the knowledge of the genome they can us CRISPR, a gene-editing technique, to make wheat have more yeild, tolerate the cold, or even resist diseases. Overall, this discovery will help with global food security.
This weeks article was about identical twins. The article focuses on identical twins that got married to another pair of identical twins, and if their children would look like twins. When a child is conceived, he/she get half their genes from their mom and the other half from their dad. This happens through meiosis. Meiosis is when chromosomes are copied and divided to form new daughter cells. Laura Almasy, a professor of genetics, believe that they would look like full siblings. Each couple's children would get half their genes from their mom and half from dad. The child of couple #1 could (for example) get blue eyes from their mom. The child from couple #2 could get brown eyes from their dad, even though their mom has blue eyes.
I choose to respond to the article “Scientists Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” because this is the first time that I began to read one of the articles and had experienced a negative initial response. I couldn’t help but think why people are wasting not only their time, but money ( $75 million to be exact ) on uncovering the genome sequence of wheat. Of all things this seemed to be so pointless to me at first glance. However, as I continued to read I learned the importance of learning the sequence in order to create more variety of wheat and thus provide the ability for people to reproduce it more successfully. In turn this will provide millions of people with a staple product in their diet. With the population increasing rapidly people are constantly in search of new ways to meet the growing demands of food such as wheat. What amazes me even more is that understanding the full genome can allow scientists to cater to allergies by identifying certain proteins. Reading this article has reminded me that knowledge truly is power. The more that scientists are able to uncover with the wheat genome the more they are able to experiment with the different varieties of wheat. Although this does bring up the concern that it would be considered a genetically modified organism. While the article only mentions the issue of the approval process, I have always been fascinated with the dangers of modifying organisms. It would be amazing if scientists were able to change the wheat industry in the sense that there would be more production of wheat, however it makes me wonder what this means for the quality of the wheat. Nevertheless, the complexity of this genome is a wonder to the scientific world and its understanding it in its entirety would be a true breakthrough.
This week I read ""If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?". I found this article interesting because it poses a question which people may not have thought about. This article explains how if two sets of identical twins got married and had kids, their kids would be as genetically similar as normal siblings usually are, but in their case they are only cousins. The article also highlights that there may be slight differences in the genes because of "environmental factors". The environment around the parents is important because it helps determine how a gene is expressed in the offspring.
This week, I had read the article “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” by Ed Yong. Wheat, one of our largest caloric intake crops in the world, ironically, has one of the most complex genomes known to science. One of wheat’s chromosomes are known to be bigger than the entire soybean genome which only makes it more difficult for scientists to analyze the components of this complex genetic makeup. To make things even harder on the scientist, bread-wheat genome is actually three genomes in one which consists of different hybridizations and different domestications done by humans. By mixing genomes of different species it only made it more difficult for scientists on one of the most grown crops in the world. According to the article, the chromosomes demonstrate repitition by each occuring six times and even if each piece is analyzed correctly it is still difficult to determine where exactly the chromosomes should be placed. This is important because order actually matters in the reproduction of these crops because different variations of the crop variety can actually occur. By paying attention to sequence it can actually affect the outcomes for growers so that, for example, the maximum yield for the plant can be achieved while still gaining the correct amount of nutrition. On the other hand, a different gene makeup may have made these crops more exposed to allergens especially when pertaining to the temperature of when these crops are treated. With this in mind, it is crucial to understand that analyzing chromosomes should not be something that can be taken lightly and it is a task that involves fastidious work. To end the article, the author had argued that regulations need to be met and approved in order for more wide range use of crop genomes. Considering it is a new topic that has been introduced recently in human history, it is difficult to say how scientists may perceive this in the future.
This week I read "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" that tells of what would happen if identical twins married another set of identical twins and had children. In the article, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane met identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers at a Festival in Ohio. The couples married and left many wondering what would happen if they were to have kids. Would the kids look the same? Laura Almasy, a professor of genetics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that in theory the children would be expected to be genetically as similar as full siblings are to each other. Since half of your DNA is received from mom and the other half is from dad, the children of the two couples would share half their DNA like full siblings would. However, there may be slight differences in their genes that could have occurred because of environmental factors that occurred throughout their parents' lives. These slight differences can influence how similar the babies are. For example, a mother smoking throughout her life could affect her baby's genes. So the children may or may not end up looking similar. All in all, this article intrigued me because of the interesting scenario it presented. It is not everyday that we get to study the genes of the children of identical twin couples. I hope to learn more about genetics, DNA, and the inheritance of traits in the future. - Karan Nayak
The article that caught my complete attention and really reeled me in was most definitely, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” by Yasemin Saplakoglu. The topic of twins has always amazed me and I’ve been fascinated by the idea of identical twins- twins who share identical DNA. So, when I saw the article title, identical twins marrying identical twins, I was immediately intrigued and wondered how similar their children would be, as genetically, it's almost like they have exact same parents! In this article, the author discusses how Brittany and Briana Deane-identical twins- married Josh and Jeremy Salyer. A professor of genetics at UPENN- Laura Almassy- says that theoretically the children would be genetically similar to one another as full siblings are to each other, because of the fact that both sets of parents have identical DNA (mom & mom have the same DNA; dad & dad have the same DNA), therefore causing the children to be conceived from the same genes- half of mom’s and half of dad’s. So even though the children of the identical twins would be cousins, their genetic makeup would be those of siblings. This really intrigued me as this was the first time I had ever thought of or even realized this! However, the author goes on to write that the DNA of the identical twins (the parents in this case) may not be 100% identical, due to the fact that there could be slight changes in the genes from environmental factors, and the ways the parents were affected in the environments they lived in. This would cause different expression of certain genes, leading to slight differences in the babies of the two couple. For example, if one mother drank (alcohol) and the other did not, then the two babies could possibly have the same gene but it would be expressed very differently as drinking alcohol versus not, effects your body in a significant way. Also, due to genetic recombination, it's a 100% chance that the offspring wouldn’t be genetically identical unless they turn out to be identical twins as well! After reading this article, it really caused me to think more about this topic. I’m really fascinated by the fact that the couples children will be more like siblings instead of cousins. In the future, I want to find out how genetically similar the children of identical twins who marry identical twins turn out to be!
The article that intrigued me the most was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” Because it was a perplexing question that I have always thought about. This article talked about how two identical twin brothers and two identical twin sisters married one of each other. This brought up the question that if both twin couples had an offspring, then how genetically similar would an offspring be to the other couple’s offspring. The offspring produced by both couples would most likely have the same genetic similarity as full siblings do. This is because siblings born to the same set of parents share about half their genes with one another and the cousins from the twin couples will have the same set of genes to be reproduced from since the two mothers and two fathers are identical. However, slight differences in the identical twin’s genes might have occurred in the womb or because of environmental factors throughout their lives. Also, lifestyle choices that could have impacted the genes of one twin and not the other can also influence how similar the babies would be to one another. For example, if one twin smoked throughout their lives and the other one did not, then it could have impacted how the gene is expressed and influenced in the baby differently than the other.
I chose the article "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be." It is actually very interesting to think about, because I have discussed this topic in the past. It would seem reasonable for both families' offsprings to look similar: it's almost like having duplicates. But after reading the article and realizing certain genes from each set of parents may or may not be selected in reproduction, it can be concluded that the offspring may not look the same. But, they may very well look the same. It is hard to tell, especially when environmental factors that differ between parents could alter the genes. We will never for sure know until those couples that recently got married both have kids!
The article I enjoyed this week was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” This article discussed how the children would not be exactly identical as if they are quadruplets. This would be due to environmental conditions and possible mutations and other changes in DNA that would have them not look exactly like each other. Just because twins look alike does not mean they have the same genes, and so the children of pairs of twins would be different from each other genetically. I would have guessed that they would be very similar but since I have previous bio knowledge of DNA and passing it to offspring, I knew they would not be exactly the same as people would think.
-Akshith Macherla
The first article I read was called “If identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. This article intrigued me because it made me think that if identical twins married identical twins, the offspring of one couple would probably be extremely similar to the offspring of the other couple. As a result, I had thought that the cousins might as well be siblings that look alike, much like twins, except from different parents. However, after reading this article, I realized that just because the parents are exactly alike, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the offspring have to be alike too. As taught in biology, the way genes are expressed and altered can be affected by their environment and the hazards around them. Like stated in the article, what happens to the mother can also affect the child in the future as well, which I hadn’t thought of. On top of that, a child inherits half of the father’s genetic information and half of the mother’s. This can also result in each offspring getting different halves. In other words, the offspring of one couple could get one half of the father and another half of the mother’s genetic information. The other offspring of the other twin couple could get the genetic material of their parents that is different from what the first child had inherited, causing the cousins to look different despite the similarities between the parents. After reading this article, I also realized that another factor can cause the offspring to be different when born: the fact that the genetic makeup of the fathers and mothers may not be the same just because they are identical twins. As a result, from reading this article, I realized that even though there is a chance that the offspring may look extremely similar, due to the many factors, they may not be similar at all in when born. The fact that genetic makeup and small differences in it can cause major differences or major similarities in appearances is very interesting. Another article I had also read is called, “Scientists Fonally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome”. I found this article interesting because it was about how after a long time and a lot of money, the wheat’s genome was able to be mapped out, thus helping in breeding and cultivation of the world’s most important food crop.
This week I read the article, “ If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”. The article discussed what would happen if two identical sets of twins had kids, and how genetically similar the kids would be. They will be more related than cousins but according to the article the children could be considered siblings since all of their genes are coming from the same gene pool. They won’t be exactly the same though, this is due to the identical twin parents having different traits or various alterations in genes because of environmental factors or differences that happened while in the womb. In the end, it is unclear whether the children will be more like cousins or siblings.
This week I read the article “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” because I once heard about the marriage between identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane and identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers, and I immediately asked myself the same question that the article is asking. While I knew that typical cousins don’t share the same DNA and standard siblings only share half of the same genes, I thought that the children of identical twins would have the same DNA as each other. However, as the article stated, the children could share either more or less of those genes. In addition, environmental factors plays a role in the inheriting of the genes, which makes sense, as I’ve learned before that environment can greatly affect genetics. The environment in which the parents grew up could change how an inherited gene is expressed, and even though identical twins typically live in the same environment, there can be differences such as one smoking and the other not smoking. Thus, their children might receive the same gene, but it’s expressed differently. Overall, the article taught me that these children would be more than just cousins, but not exactly identical. However, I think it is important that more research should be done on this topic to fully answer the question.
The article that caught my attention was “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be,” because I recently watched a video of twin brothers who proposed to a set of twin sisters, and I found it interesting because the two families would look exactly alike. To my surprise, the twins I watched in the video were the exact same in the article: Brittany and Briana Deane and Josh and Jeremy Salyers. Prior to reading the article, one including myself would assume that the children of identical parents would be identical to one another. However, the article suggests that cousins would share half their DNA like full siblings would or maybe more or less the same genes. Alterations in genes could be a result of environmental factors such as how the parents lifestyle is expressed. In addition, I found the article “Scientists Finally Crack Wheat’s Absurdly Complex Genome” interesting. The article highlighted the critical value of wheat, which i had previously underestimated. Specifically, wheat is the most complex genome with 16 billion DNA letters while the human genome is only 3 billion. In my opinion, this statement was shocking and contradictory to my previous beliefs of the human being the most complex aspect of science. In fact, it took 14 years, and $75 million to produce the Chinese Spring, the completed wheat genome. By accomplishing this complex puzzle, scientists advanced the breeding of wheat by identifying a long elusive gene which affects the structure of wheat stems, such as if they are solid or hollow. Solid stems provide an advantage by making the resistant to droughts and insect pests. Furthermore, by studying the wheat genome, scientists are able to identify the specific proteins responsible for disorders such as celiac disease, baker’s asthma, and non-celiac wheat sensitivity. While reading, a quote that caught my eye was the fact that baked goods could potentially be more allergenic as the world warms because wheat produces more allergens responsible for celiac disease when grown in high temperatures.
I found the article named "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" very interesting. This is because of the rarity that this topic presents, and because I would want to find the outcome of this experiment. When identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married Josh and Jeremy Salyers, who were also identical twins. This caused others to think how genetically similar their children would be. The article states that siblings born to the same set of parents share about half their genes with one another. What's funny is that cousins don't receive Dna from the same set of genes, but in this case, the babies will be receiving Dna from separate yet identical sets of genes. This is a very rare occurrence, which makes it so precious for scientists to observe it as if it were an experiment. I would like to dig more into this story because I also want to know what their babies would be like. What's more is that the twin parents may not have completely identical dna. If the environment they grew up in changed the way an inherited gene is expressed though, the children could receive the same gene but have it influence them very differently. The reason I found this article was so interesting is because inheritance was my favorite topic in honors biology, and this case right here could prove to make a worthy argument to Mendelian genetics.
This week I chose to read the article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be." I found it to very interesting in the sense that identical twins married identical twins. Its fascinating to think about how genetically similar the offspring of both couples since the two couples are identical. Initially, as I began to read, I believed that the babies of the twin couples would be close to the same, genetically. Although, that is not the case when it comes to the offspring. The babies would be as similar as the couples are to their twin sibling. This occurs because when twins are born, they share about half of the same genes. In theory, the offspring of these twin couples would share about half the uniform DNA as the other. Even though this is the belief, some of the baby's genes may slightly differ from the other due to many potential factors. The genes could be influenced by various environmental occurrences that happen in the womb. Both babies would inherit the same gene from their parents, but they could serve entirely different purposes.
The article, "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be," intrigued me because not only was it something that I had never thought of before, but it was thought-provoking and something that I wanted to know more about. Before reading the article, I thought that their children would also be genetically identical. However, I soon learned that their offspring would not be genetically identical, but as genetically similar as any set of siblings would be. This made sense because all siblings have some genetical diversity from each other, and while the children of two sets of identical twins would be cousins, their parents are genetically the same, so the genetical makeup of these offspring would have greater similarity that more resembles siblings, rather than cousins. However, environmental factors could also change how certain genes are expressed in the children. While, both babies may receive the same gene, how they're expressed could influence the baby in different ways. As more and more identical twins are marrying one another, this trend of seeing their children will hopefully help us answer more questions on the genetical similarity of identical twin offsprings.
Out of this week's articles, the one that stood out to me the most was "If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?" It caught my attention right off the bat because it was interesting to think about something that I hadn't ever thought about before. The article explained that the children from each couple would share about half their genes with one another since the genetic makeup of each couple is similar. It was also interesting to learn that environmental factors could play a role in differences in their genes. The environment wouldn't affect which genes the babies get, but rather how a gene is expressed. For example, If one of the mothers smoked, the chid could express the gene differently than the other. I guess this scientific theory will be put to the test if identical twin couples decide to have babies!
Out of all the various options given this week, “If Identical Twins Married Indentical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?”, caught my eye. Two sets of identical twins marrying each other brings up a very interesting question: How genetically similar would the children of two sets of identical twins be? In theory, it would be expected that the cousins would be as genetically similar to each other as full siblings. In the same sense, the children could get more or less of the genes. I found it cool that environmental factors play a huge part in how similar the babies would be to each other even though they share the same genes.
The article, “If Identical Twins Married Identical Twins, How Genetically Similar Would Their Children Be?” stood out to me because this is not something that usually occurs. In the article, identical twins Brittany and Briana Deane married identical twins Josh and Jeremy Salyers. If these couples had children, their children would have similar DNA. Instead of just being cousins, their children would share half their DNA, like siblings would. Also, the identical twin parents may not necessarily have the exact same DNA. There can be slight differences in their genes due to environmental factors, or occurrences in the womb. These small differences influence the similarity of their offspring. The environment in which the parent grew can alter the way a gene is expressed. Even if both children inherit the same gene from their parents, it may be portrayed differently. Overall, it is out of the ordinary for identical twins to marry identical twins. It is fascinating how their children will look.
Post a Comment