Katherine Pollard: The Fastest Evolving Regions of the Human Genome

Identifying the specific mutations that make us humans is one of the greatest challenges of biology.
Join Gladstone Institutes' senior researcher Katherine Pollard in exploring the new techniques being used to discover the functions of the fastest evolving regions of the human genome and how individual DNA mutations altered these functions to make us human.
This Leakey Foundation Annual Speaker Series on Human Origins lecture took place at the Houston Museum of Natural Science on November 11, 2015.

[@bjrockensock]

The speaker's explanation of differences among mammals at vid 16:00 is very clearly explained and helpful

[@johnfox9169]

If this is not fascinating, nothing is!! Wonderful presentation by an excellent researcher!!

[@grsiva]

Fantastic presentation. very clear, enjoyed watching.

[@georgimmitev]

Good presentation. Wish my professors were this good

[@crowesarethebest]

Great presentation. Thank you for posting

[@TheLeakeyFoundation]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@KenDBerryMD]

Wonderful lecture, very helpful for my research!

[@malinkata1984]

How could someone dislike this presentation?

[@mirsad96]

A lot of creationists online. And on the 7th day, god rested and did some coding.

[@shadetreader]

Perhaps the White Person Dreads(tm)

[@bloodyfluffybunny7411]

dr katerine pollard have a cultural appropriated hairstyle as a foundation i would not want to be affiliated with this short of people kinda revolting to see

[@jasonwiley798]

@@bloodyfluffybunny7411 personal comments are inappropriate.

[@jasonwiley798]

@@mirsad96 intelligent d signer trolls wouldn't like this

[@robertlichvar4999]

Excellent. Very informative and stated at a level one could follow. I enjoyed how she hit the high points. Well done.

[@markdstump]

43:50 15 million mutations divided by 6 million years is not about 3 million mutations/year..it's 2.5/year, or about 3/year.

[@Skiskiski]

Good math, but everyone makes mistakes. Overall, I did enjoy the lecture.

[@CraigCastanet]

I'm glad you. caught that too. She is going to see that and kick herself. I think she knows that but misspoke, although that's a little hard to believe, since she must have thought about that a lot, and if she knew it was about 2.5 per year, it's hard to believe she would say 3 million per year.

[@johnfraser6013]

Most excellent presentation - thank you so much ! 👍👍

[@Rye-y3w]

straight to the heart of it

[@junebyrne4491]

So well done.

[@kforest2745]

8:38 “turns out to be about half and half” That’s likely because the relationship between the two (mainly physical) are similar

[@Skiskiski]

Question: so what are the fastest evolving parts of the human genome?

[@david-pb4bi]

Clickbait

[@spiralsun1]

Wow, one of my favorite videos I have ever seen. THIS. The important stuff: People don’t understand just exactly how important these things are. Also, I am completely in love with this speaker. 🥰🤷‍♀️ So freaking clear, I want to be near her so bad I feel it in my heart 😳 Did NOT expect that watching this until I heard her beautiful mind working. More please! 😂👍🏻

[@dukeallen432]

Great lecture. Thank you.

[@wiseguy10017]

Remarkable research and a fascinating lecture. Reading some of the comments begs the question "how much archaic human is still expressed in the homo sapien sapien genome".

[@davidjazay9248]

Excellent talk - thank you!

[@DennisMathias]

Erie to see that tissue beating like a heart. That must have been amazing the first time it was observed.

[@kforest2745]

13:37 “but many of us are not lactose intolerant because we are descended from people who are not herders” Is she saying that all the human populations on earth such as this example those who can digest milk and those who can’t are from two different species? So then at some point she’ll have to discuss bloodwork I would think since there are different blood types.

[@GaryR55]

I think she definitely went off-track when she speculated that humans may have developed speech as late as 5,000 years ago. That would have been well within the historical record. Civilization and government were arrived at by 6,000 years ago and, certainly, the beginnings of architecture and engineering, as well. So, speech would have been well-developed by then, of course. Given that art had its origins about 30,000 years ago, it is most likely that speech dates from at least 30,000 to 50,000 years ago.

[@ivanwigmore]

I fully agree, but would even go back much further, Neanderthal, & even homo-Erectus , like Erectus were successful until that Volcano 80,000 years ago around Southern India (if I remember right), took them out :( Basic language, (not written), but our most recent ancestors could make stone tools & organize hunts & more, by what, grunting & sign language! Then again if they were able to have an organized sign language, I would think they had the know how to have a rudimentary language , I think they’re Not giving them enough credit ! Neanderthals voice box would have given them a squeaky higher pitched voice (Not what u would think them being robust & burley.), don’t know about Erectus , but even most dogs over life time learn about 400 words, obviously can’t talk but hardest part is there, relating speech to communicate wants, needs & actions, & most important the relationship of Names if Erectus had a voice box, would think basic verbal speech would have been a big asset with there out of Africa expansion Eastward

[@GaryR55]

@@ivanwigmore So would I, to perhaps at least a million years ago, when it is thought (given the archaeological evidence from fire pits) that Homo Erectus invented cooking, an activity that would have required communication, as well. I only stated at least 30,000 to 50,000 years ago as a rough guesstimate that would be more readily acceptable to people like the speaker in this video.

[@markmiller6402]

@@GaryR55 there is a lot of evidence to support Neanderthals cooking their food, and even storing shellfish to keep it fresh. Language must go back further?

[@OspreyPort]

Leading edge research...

[@stephenbrown9998]

Brilliant thank you

[@alanharrison573]

Excellent presentation! Great insight into the way our evolution works.

[@marcosdenizatrailhiker2037]

Nicely done.

[@kforest2745]

13:57 “mutations that led to fairer skin in high latitudes” Yeah I recall hearing about higher latitudes a long time ago

[@kforest2745]

6:49 “a small percentage of our genome is a huge search space. Our genome contains 3 billion bases.” Are “bases” empty spaces that haven’t yet been filled so to speak? Oh man that seems to correspond with what I just commented on in a previous video about natural laws and empty space lol

[@hypsyzygy506]

With recent recognition that novel human diseases (eg HIV, Marburg) originate in wild animal populations that seem to be able to survive them, is it likely that adding the wild animal versions of microbial fauna to affected humans could mitigate the worst effects of those diseases in humans?

[@LoriDeMarco]

I can’t believe the comments on her voice or appearance. Perhaps discuss the science or anything of importance instead.

[@bloodyfluffybunny7411]

dr katerine pollard have a cultural appropriated hairstyle as a foundation i would not want to be affiliated with this short of people kinda revolting to see

[@davidhenke5603]

brilliant talk! thanks. I wonder if the "mutation clock" runs at the same rate in all species? Could mutations occur at the same rate in the highly conserved parts of the genome but are not passed to subsequent generations because most of the time they are lethal?

[@bakters]

"I wonder if the "mutation clock" runs at the same rate in all species?" Apparently, no. Molecular clocks need to be calibrated. That is, we need to compare the number of mutations accumulated over a known time span in order to estimate how long it took between the compared lineages diverged. "Could mutations occur at the same rate in the highly conserved parts of the genome" Random mutations, by definition, must occur at the same rate everywhere. Otherwise they wouldn't be random. "not passed to subsequent generations because most of the time they are lethal?" At least detrimental. Some of those regions could be related to fertility, for example. Then a mutation there might not be lethal, even in a broader sense (meaning, being unfit to survive), yet it would be selected out immediately anyway.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The fastest evolving region is the Observable Eternity-now Interval Conception Superposition-point here-now-forever, and the long-term complex metastable maintenance of apparent balance in uncertainty is "illusion". Real-time Actuality requires a more comprehensive approach to reasoning around pulse-evolution bio-logical clocking.

[@spiralsun1]

I like where you are going with this. New ideas are eye opening. 👁

[@hypsyzygy506]

If you are in a lactose intolerant population, why would you even think of consuming milk as an adult? Even if you had a lactase gene what is the chance that you would happen upon this new source of food?

[@dbmail545]

Cheese and butter are low enough in lactose that lactose intolerant individuals can happily consume them.

[@GJ-dj4jx]

I didn't know "most humans are lactose intolerant". I thought it's the other way around.

[@richarddiaz5165]

Only European and some African are lactose tolerant.

[@asecretturning]

@@richarddiaz5165 There are lactose tolerant people around the world, it's just not the majority.

[@philoaviaticus]

Lactase persistent is a popular phrase in some circles.

[@markmiller6402]

Maybe most don’t know

[@SusanWashington11]

You thought most lactose is intolerant of humans?

[@dorawang5451]

cooking with fire is the human thing

[@DennisMathias]

So would you consider H. neanderthalensis (neanderthals) human?

[@ManicPandaz]

Dennis Mathias Humans have Neanderthal DNA, so a few lineages of Neanderthals are now human. I'm also pretty sure Neanderthal are considered a type of human. Back when there were "types" of humans lol, weird thought.

[@DennisMathias]

@@ManicPandaz That's not true. Africans do NOT have neanderthal DNA. Whites, asians, Native Americans, etc. DO have H.n. DNA (2%-5%). You could argue that neanderthal is human but they typically are thought of as hominids. Human is typically reserved for Homo sapiens: US.

[@ManicPandaz]

Dennis Mathias I never said anything about all extant humans having Neanderthal DNA. All non African humans can colloquially be generalized to "humans". I could even say humans have red hair with out having to specify "only some". You're getting caught on semantics. Asians have Denisovan DNA too. It's also thought that African's have other traces of as yet unidentified hominid DNA. Humans slept around along back then. Neanderthals were (some of) our ancestors. Ever heard the term "Archaic Human"? It refers to our ancestors, like Neanderthals and Denisovan. "Human" isn't a scientific classification. It's just a word. A word I've heard scientist use to refer to Neanderthals many times.

[@DennisMathias]

@@ManicPandaz You said "Humans have Neanderthal DNA". That is not true since Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none. About the red hair, I don't think you can say humans have red hair. You would have to specify SOME humans have red hair. Yes, non-African humans are..um, human. A type of human that is non-African of course is not correct since we are all African--all humans came from Africa. Indigenous Africans would have no DNA. Homo sapiens is a single species comprising several subspecies that include the archaics and modern humans. Under this definition, modern humans are referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens and archaics are also designated with the prefix "Homo sapiens".

[@hypsyzygy506]

Some of my cats are lactose tolerant.

[@michaelcarley9866]

I hear if you cant drink milk, you get diarrhea if you do. Think of hard times when the milk is all that is available.

[@david-pb4bi]

This is all very interesting but the truth is they still don’t understand it.

[@kforest2745]

15:00 “it’s probably more than my lifetime” to find out what makes us human She suggests it’s not thought lol Naturally, all those AI machines will be a waste of time

[@fmgarzia]

YUyyyyYyyzy

[@bloodyfluffybunny7411]

dr katerine pollard have a cultural appropriated hairstyle as a foundation i would not want to be affiliated with this short of people kinda revolting to see

[@michaelcrane3646]

I fought my way through 11 minutes of this. It was fascinating, but I cannot listen to that vocal fry any more. It's just too irritating. What a shame.

[@nicholas1254]

made it 2 min

[@dukeallen432]

You have a problem. Mommy issues?

[@atmoms2]

I wish I could watch this lecture but her high pitched voice is too annoying. I hope since this was published she's learned something about how appropriations is so insulting and taken those dreads out

[@Sweet..letssurf]

Julia You people “

[@karenyu86]

I can't believe what I'm reading. She is a scientist. Her dreads should not be something to be judged for. Do people judge you for your yellow hair?

[@atmoms2]

@@karenyu86 Go look up appropriations and try to understand how offensive it is.

[@jonni2317]

there is a difference between appreciation and appropriation and unless you know her you don't know her history or why she chooses to wear her hair that way you don't get to decide which it is also complaining about the pitch of a woman's voice is considered sexist by some people and offends them, if you are going to live in a glass house you shouldn't throw stones

[@atmoms2]

@@jonni2317 I know she's white so it's appropriation.