Why did scientists think humans had 100,000 genes (before the Human Genome Project)?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












One of the major results of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was that humans have far fewer separate genes than previously thought. From a 2004 article about the HGP:




Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), said, "Only a decade ago, most scientists thought humans had about 100,000 genes. When we analyzed the working draft of the human genome sequence three years ago, we estimated there were about 30,000 to 35,000 genes, which surprised many. This new analysis reduces that number even further [to 20,000-25,000] and provides us with the clearest picture yet of our genome."




What was the old estimate of 100,000 based on? I assume that in 1994 no one had sequenced the entire proteome...



Edit:



As Remi.b points out, the 100,000 gene estimate is probably based on the One gene–one enzyme hypothesis. But that raises another question (which I guess is what I was really trying to ask originally): pre-HGP, did people think that there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities? If so, what experiments/data were used to establish that number?










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    One of the major results of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was that humans have far fewer separate genes than previously thought. From a 2004 article about the HGP:




    Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), said, "Only a decade ago, most scientists thought humans had about 100,000 genes. When we analyzed the working draft of the human genome sequence three years ago, we estimated there were about 30,000 to 35,000 genes, which surprised many. This new analysis reduces that number even further [to 20,000-25,000] and provides us with the clearest picture yet of our genome."




    What was the old estimate of 100,000 based on? I assume that in 1994 no one had sequenced the entire proteome...



    Edit:



    As Remi.b points out, the 100,000 gene estimate is probably based on the One gene–one enzyme hypothesis. But that raises another question (which I guess is what I was really trying to ask originally): pre-HGP, did people think that there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities? If so, what experiments/data were used to establish that number?










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      One of the major results of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was that humans have far fewer separate genes than previously thought. From a 2004 article about the HGP:




      Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), said, "Only a decade ago, most scientists thought humans had about 100,000 genes. When we analyzed the working draft of the human genome sequence three years ago, we estimated there were about 30,000 to 35,000 genes, which surprised many. This new analysis reduces that number even further [to 20,000-25,000] and provides us with the clearest picture yet of our genome."




      What was the old estimate of 100,000 based on? I assume that in 1994 no one had sequenced the entire proteome...



      Edit:



      As Remi.b points out, the 100,000 gene estimate is probably based on the One gene–one enzyme hypothesis. But that raises another question (which I guess is what I was really trying to ask originally): pre-HGP, did people think that there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities? If so, what experiments/data were used to establish that number?










      share|improve this question















      One of the major results of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was that humans have far fewer separate genes than previously thought. From a 2004 article about the HGP:




      Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), said, "Only a decade ago, most scientists thought humans had about 100,000 genes. When we analyzed the working draft of the human genome sequence three years ago, we estimated there were about 30,000 to 35,000 genes, which surprised many. This new analysis reduces that number even further [to 20,000-25,000] and provides us with the clearest picture yet of our genome."




      What was the old estimate of 100,000 based on? I assume that in 1994 no one had sequenced the entire proteome...



      Edit:



      As Remi.b points out, the 100,000 gene estimate is probably based on the One gene–one enzyme hypothesis. But that raises another question (which I guess is what I was really trying to ask originally): pre-HGP, did people think that there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities? If so, what experiments/data were used to establish that number?







      molecular-genetics human-genetics genomics experimental-design proteomics






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 38 mins ago

























      asked 2 hours ago









      tel

      3,2941327




      3,2941327




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The estimate of 100,000 genes is probably caused by the one gene - one enzyme/protein ideas




          The one gene–one enzyme hypothesis is the idea that genes act through the production of enzymes, with each gene responsible for producing a single enzyme that in turn affects a single step in a metabolic pathway.




          The idea that genes are affecting cell functions via the protein that they code for is not so outdated. However, the idea that a gene codes for a single unique protein is a little outdated.



          In reality a single gene can code for several different proteins via a mechanism called alternative splicing.




          Alternative splicing, or differential splicing, is a regulated process during gene expression that results in a single gene coding for multiple proteins. In this process, particular exons of a gene may be included within or excluded from the final, processed messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from that gene. Consequently, the proteins translated from alternatively spliced mRNAs will contain differences in their amino acid sequence and, often, in their biological functions [..]. Notably, alternative splicing allows the human genome to direct the synthesis of many more proteins than would be expected from its 20,000 protein-coding genes.




          The original estimate of the number of genes was hence probably alined with the observed number of proteins by assuming that there is a one-to-one function from gene to protein (as by the one gene - one protein hypothesis).






          share|improve this answer






















          • Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
            – tel
            46 mins ago










          • The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
            – Remi.b
            9 mins ago










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "375"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78093%2fwhy-did-scientists-think-humans-had-100-000-genes-before-the-human-genome-proje%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The estimate of 100,000 genes is probably caused by the one gene - one enzyme/protein ideas




          The one gene–one enzyme hypothesis is the idea that genes act through the production of enzymes, with each gene responsible for producing a single enzyme that in turn affects a single step in a metabolic pathway.




          The idea that genes are affecting cell functions via the protein that they code for is not so outdated. However, the idea that a gene codes for a single unique protein is a little outdated.



          In reality a single gene can code for several different proteins via a mechanism called alternative splicing.




          Alternative splicing, or differential splicing, is a regulated process during gene expression that results in a single gene coding for multiple proteins. In this process, particular exons of a gene may be included within or excluded from the final, processed messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from that gene. Consequently, the proteins translated from alternatively spliced mRNAs will contain differences in their amino acid sequence and, often, in their biological functions [..]. Notably, alternative splicing allows the human genome to direct the synthesis of many more proteins than would be expected from its 20,000 protein-coding genes.




          The original estimate of the number of genes was hence probably alined with the observed number of proteins by assuming that there is a one-to-one function from gene to protein (as by the one gene - one protein hypothesis).






          share|improve this answer






















          • Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
            – tel
            46 mins ago










          • The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
            – Remi.b
            9 mins ago














          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The estimate of 100,000 genes is probably caused by the one gene - one enzyme/protein ideas




          The one gene–one enzyme hypothesis is the idea that genes act through the production of enzymes, with each gene responsible for producing a single enzyme that in turn affects a single step in a metabolic pathway.




          The idea that genes are affecting cell functions via the protein that they code for is not so outdated. However, the idea that a gene codes for a single unique protein is a little outdated.



          In reality a single gene can code for several different proteins via a mechanism called alternative splicing.




          Alternative splicing, or differential splicing, is a regulated process during gene expression that results in a single gene coding for multiple proteins. In this process, particular exons of a gene may be included within or excluded from the final, processed messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from that gene. Consequently, the proteins translated from alternatively spliced mRNAs will contain differences in their amino acid sequence and, often, in their biological functions [..]. Notably, alternative splicing allows the human genome to direct the synthesis of many more proteins than would be expected from its 20,000 protein-coding genes.




          The original estimate of the number of genes was hence probably alined with the observed number of proteins by assuming that there is a one-to-one function from gene to protein (as by the one gene - one protein hypothesis).






          share|improve this answer






















          • Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
            – tel
            46 mins ago










          • The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
            – Remi.b
            9 mins ago












          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          The estimate of 100,000 genes is probably caused by the one gene - one enzyme/protein ideas




          The one gene–one enzyme hypothesis is the idea that genes act through the production of enzymes, with each gene responsible for producing a single enzyme that in turn affects a single step in a metabolic pathway.




          The idea that genes are affecting cell functions via the protein that they code for is not so outdated. However, the idea that a gene codes for a single unique protein is a little outdated.



          In reality a single gene can code for several different proteins via a mechanism called alternative splicing.




          Alternative splicing, or differential splicing, is a regulated process during gene expression that results in a single gene coding for multiple proteins. In this process, particular exons of a gene may be included within or excluded from the final, processed messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from that gene. Consequently, the proteins translated from alternatively spliced mRNAs will contain differences in their amino acid sequence and, often, in their biological functions [..]. Notably, alternative splicing allows the human genome to direct the synthesis of many more proteins than would be expected from its 20,000 protein-coding genes.




          The original estimate of the number of genes was hence probably alined with the observed number of proteins by assuming that there is a one-to-one function from gene to protein (as by the one gene - one protein hypothesis).






          share|improve this answer














          The estimate of 100,000 genes is probably caused by the one gene - one enzyme/protein ideas




          The one gene–one enzyme hypothesis is the idea that genes act through the production of enzymes, with each gene responsible for producing a single enzyme that in turn affects a single step in a metabolic pathway.




          The idea that genes are affecting cell functions via the protein that they code for is not so outdated. However, the idea that a gene codes for a single unique protein is a little outdated.



          In reality a single gene can code for several different proteins via a mechanism called alternative splicing.




          Alternative splicing, or differential splicing, is a regulated process during gene expression that results in a single gene coding for multiple proteins. In this process, particular exons of a gene may be included within or excluded from the final, processed messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from that gene. Consequently, the proteins translated from alternatively spliced mRNAs will contain differences in their amino acid sequence and, often, in their biological functions [..]. Notably, alternative splicing allows the human genome to direct the synthesis of many more proteins than would be expected from its 20,000 protein-coding genes.




          The original estimate of the number of genes was hence probably alined with the observed number of proteins by assuming that there is a one-to-one function from gene to protein (as by the one gene - one protein hypothesis).







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 8 mins ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          Remi.b

          55.3k6100179




          55.3k6100179











          • Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
            – tel
            46 mins ago










          • The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
            – Remi.b
            9 mins ago
















          • Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
            – tel
            46 mins ago










          • The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
            – Remi.b
            9 mins ago















          Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
          – tel
          46 mins ago




          Makes sense. What I want to know though is where that particular number came from. In quantitative terms, what experiments or line of reasoning lead to 100,000? It's (basically) within an order of magnitude of the correct answer, so I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the estimate was originally based on some solid numbers from somewhere. Like, was there a reason to think there were 100,000 distinct enzyme activities?
          – tel
          46 mins ago












          The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
          – Remi.b
          9 mins ago




          The original estimate was probably based upon the number of proteins. I'll clarify that in my answer
          – Remi.b
          9 mins ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78093%2fwhy-did-scientists-think-humans-had-100-000-genes-before-the-human-genome-proje%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?