HUMAN MUTATION 1:434 (1993)
Communicated by Victor A. McKusick
To the Editor: The statement, “It was more than 30 years ago (Ingram, 1961; Smithies et al., 1962; Ohno, 1970) when gene duplication was first suggested to play a role in organism evolution” (Hu and Worton, 1992), is incorrect, as I am sure Smithies and many others would readily point out. Hear Muller in 1936: “We consider the point of chief interest in the Bar case to be its illustration of the manner of origination of extra geneYin evolution. Bar had for a long time offered the best case yet known for the idea that genes could arise de novo. Its interpretation as some sort of duplication met with difficulties, in our ignorance of the real existence of a ‘position effect’ on non-allelomorphic genes upon one another. Now these difficulties are resolved and there remains no reason to doubt the application of the dictum ‘all life from pre-existing life’ and ‘every cell from a pre-existing
cell’ to the gene: ‘every gene from a pre-existing gene.’ We need at present make an exception here only of those very special conditions under which life itself, as a naked gene, originates” (Carlson,
1966), A rather long bibliography of works advancing this idea before 1961 could be produced with a minimum of research. REFERENCES Carlson EA (1966) The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, p. 116. Hu X, Worton RG (1992) Partial gene duplication as a cause of human disease. Hum Mutat 1:3-12. Muller HJ (1936) Bar duplication. Science 83528-530.
Robert C. Baumiller College of Health Sciences University of Detroit Mercy Detroit, Michigan 4821 9-0900
The Authors9Reply To the Editor: Dr. Baumiller is quite correct in pointing out that considerable work prior to 1961 advanced the idea of genes being derived from pre-existing genes. Although these insightful early studies recognized a role for gene duplication in evolution, full appreciation of its importance awaited elucidation of the genetic code, since this allowed evolutionary change to be understood as physical change in the protein products of duplicated genes. In our review the statement, “It was more than 30 years ago . . ,” recognized these earlier studies, while our reference to the papers of Ingram (1961) and Smithies et al. (1962) emphasized the direct evidence for gene duplication from the amino acid
.
0 1993 WILEY-LISS. INC.
sequence of the proteins encoded by duplicated genes. We regret that our unfortunate choice of words left the impression that the idea of gene duplication was conceived only in 1961.
Xiuyuan Hu Ronald G. Worton Genetics Department and Research Institue The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Ontario M5G 1x8,Canada (X.H.); and Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics Uniuersity of Toronto Toronto, Canada Received August 20, 1992
Communicated by Victor A. McKusick
To the Editor: The statement, “It was more than 30 years ago (Ingram, 1961; Smithies et al., 1962; Ohno, 1970) when gene duplication was first suggested to play a role in organism evolution” (Hu and Worton, 1992), is incorrect, as I am sure Smithies and many others would readily point out. Hear Muller in 1936: “We consider the point of chief interest in the Bar case to be its illustration of the manner of origination of extra geneYin evolution. Bar had for a long time offered the best case yet known for the idea that genes could arise de novo. Its interpretation as some sort of duplication met with difficulties, in our ignorance of the real existence of a ‘position effect’ on non-allelomorphic genes upon one another. Now these difficulties are resolved and there remains no reason to doubt the application of the dictum ‘all life from pre-existing life’ and ‘every cell from a pre-existing
cell’ to the gene: ‘every gene from a pre-existing gene.’ We need at present make an exception here only of those very special conditions under which life itself, as a naked gene, originates” (Carlson,
1966), A rather long bibliography of works advancing this idea before 1961 could be produced with a minimum of research. REFERENCES Carlson EA (1966) The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, p. 116. Hu X, Worton RG (1992) Partial gene duplication as a cause of human disease. Hum Mutat 1:3-12. Muller HJ (1936) Bar duplication. Science 83528-530.
Robert C. Baumiller College of Health Sciences University of Detroit Mercy Detroit, Michigan 4821 9-0900
The Authors9Reply To the Editor: Dr. Baumiller is quite correct in pointing out that considerable work prior to 1961 advanced the idea of genes being derived from pre-existing genes. Although these insightful early studies recognized a role for gene duplication in evolution, full appreciation of its importance awaited elucidation of the genetic code, since this allowed evolutionary change to be understood as physical change in the protein products of duplicated genes. In our review the statement, “It was more than 30 years ago . . ,” recognized these earlier studies, while our reference to the papers of Ingram (1961) and Smithies et al. (1962) emphasized the direct evidence for gene duplication from the amino acid
.
0 1993 WILEY-LISS. INC.
sequence of the proteins encoded by duplicated genes. We regret that our unfortunate choice of words left the impression that the idea of gene duplication was conceived only in 1961.
Xiuyuan Hu Ronald G. Worton Genetics Department and Research Institue The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Ontario M5G 1x8,Canada (X.H.); and Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics Uniuersity of Toronto Toronto, Canada Received August 20, 1992
