Return to Question

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter.

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter.

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter. Is this claim false?

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

Hence, I am asking primarily for distant reordering of the genes intactly.

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter.

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter. Is this claim false?

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

Hence, I am asking primarily for distant reordering of the genes intactly. can the shuffling of the genes alone be responsible for much of the changes between mice and humans?

does the order of genes within a chromosome matter? or is the main thing that the genes are there.

so for example, our DNA is very similar to that of apes not only by the genes themselves but also by the arrangement of those genes in the chromosomes.

is the order of this arrangement significant? Or if it were shuffled around, then the functional impact would be more or less the same?

Another example, an international study in the mouse genome has revealed that virtually all mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans, i.e. humans and mice contain virtually the same set of genes. is the difference between humans and mice due primarily to the different order of the genes or to the slight differences in the genes themselves?

This question was raised from a claim here which seems to imply it does not matter. Is this claim false?

The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean 'impossible'. One simply doesn't see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing.

Hence, I am asking primarily for distant reordering of the genes intactly.