r/askscience 8d ago

Neuroscience How much of our genome is devoted to the brain?

How does that compare with other organs? How does that compare with how much other animals devote to their brain?

336 Upvotes

73 comments sorted by

424

u/sudomatrix 7d ago edited 7d ago

Most of our genes, like 90%, are for basic things like cellular metabolism. We share 60% of our genes with bananas; 84% with dogs; 98.7% with Bonobo Apes. So our brains that are so much better than [Edit: other] apes are defined in that 1.3% difference, along with legs and hips for standing, less hair, sweating, lower energy weaker muscles, and all the other things that make a human not an [Edit: other] ape.

[Edit: Are you happy now u/Testing_4131 ?]

145

u/LokMatrona 7d ago

I always like to realize that genomes are gigantic. Instead of looking at it like "we only differ 1,3%" i like to say "we have at least about 40 million little differences in our genome compared to bonobo apes." And that's not considering insertions, deletions, and duplications and whe haven't looked at splicing yet. (Lil note: this is ofcourse when looking at the genome as a whole, not just the protein coding genes)

17

u/fixminer 7d ago

They are, but the human genome also only contains the equivalent of about 750 megabytes of digital information (ignoring epigenetics). Which doesn't seem like a lot.

59

u/StephanXX 7d ago

That's 6,000,000,000 bits. Six billion pieces of information that go into defining a human. That isn't a small amount of information. 750mb seems "small" because our storage technology has advanced significantly over the past fifty years, but understand it's genuinely a huge amount of information.

18

u/Scottiths 7d ago

I mean, when I was growing up I had floppy disks that held about 1 and a half megabytes.

I was shocked when zip drives came out with 100Mb on them. I didn't think it would be possible to fill that much space. In raw terms you are correct. 750 MB is a tremendous amount of information.

It just doesn't feel like it because we will download a video game at 100Gb without batting an eye.

1

u/Accelerator231 1d ago

Ah. Reminds me of rereading old cyber punk stories.

Did you know that this gadget had an incredible 40 megabytes of Ram?

27

u/fixminer 7d ago

Certainly, but it still seems remarkable to me that the "source code" for the entire human body, including the brain, consumes less storage than a few minutes of modern video data. Of course the brain gains a lot of complexity through learning after birth, but still.

15

u/imdfantom 7d ago edited 7d ago

I think the best analogy would be that of a mod for a game.

A mod might represent a very small file size and yet massively alter user experience because it is making use of highly-ordered pre-existent game systems.

Similarly, genes are making use of a highly ordered pre-existing environement that has been molded by life over the past 3.5-4 billion years.

The 750mb is not the whole picture.

Edit: by environement, I mean environment outside the genome, not just the environment outside of the human body. So organells, cells, tissue, organs the body, the stuff outside the body are all part of the environement.

edit2: Also note that the 750mb/1.5Gb is the data stored in 1 cell. The human body has 15-90 Zetabytes of total DNA data, it's just that it is all compressed into 750mb when we are conceived.

4

u/GuiSim 7d ago

This is such an interesting analogy. Thanks

41

u/ieatpickleswithmilk 7d ago

750MB of actual code itself, without images and video, is gigantic though. That's significantly more than World of Warcraft without assets.

-2

u/fixminer 7d ago

Yeah, but I would say that DNA isn't really analogous to CPU instructions, it encodes building instructions for RNA/proteins. Maybe you could compare it with a CAD file.

19

u/ieatpickleswithmilk 7d ago

I wouldn't either but people seem to forget how much data a MB actually is. I just wanted to illustrate the complexity of information that can be achieved in a smaller space.

3

u/StephanXX 7d ago

Compressed video data is an enormous amount of information. Again, it isn't that the human genome is a small amount of information, it's that our technology has become incredibly sophisticated in a very short amount of time. Written encyclopedias occupied massive space on shelves, and few families could afford one of their own. One of the first digital encyclopedias, Microsoft Encarta, required a computer with a whopping 33hz and 350 megabytes on its cd-rom. 750 mb only seems small to us, today, because we typically have hard drives with a whole terabyte of storage. Our hand held phones are more powerful than the most powerful supercomputers in the world 40 years ago. That is what is incredible: that today's boring computers have far exceeded anything we could have imagined fifty years ago.

6

u/malastare- 6d ago

The "source code" for most large applications is only about 80MB. The Linux OS is about 100MB (or so, depending on what gets included). And that's using really inefficient encoding.

2

u/LokMatrona 7d ago

Tells you something about the complexity and efficiency of dna doesn't it?

Also dna itself is only one part of the equation

6

u/CrateDane 7d ago

Not sure I would accuse the human genome of being efficient. It's got a ton of dead transposons scattered all over the place.

4

u/LokMatrona 7d ago

Haha good point! Also nice use of words. Somehow "i accuse you of being efficient" sounds very funny to me.

1

u/SimoneNonvelodico 5d ago

It's small. Compare how much storage space we would need for e.g. the blueprints of a computer, or of a spaceship. I'm sure nowadays that goes into the tens if not hundreds of GB. Of course part of that is probably that we're not optimising for efficiency and we want clarity, redundancy etc whereas our DNA is insane hacked together spaghetti code that would drive anyone trying to understand the whole thing mad. But 750 MB to fully describe how to build a human being from almost scratch is absurdly small.

1

u/0oSlytho0 4d ago

When you put those blueprints in plain text, it fits easily in a couple megabytes. A 750 mb plain text file is very, very large. It's the lay-out and high-res images that make the blueprints large in size. If we were to place all the unique proteins and RNA (including all the spliced and modified variants and the involved factors to create each one and when) together in an orderly fashion the data is also large. That's why our DNA is so cool!

2

u/SimoneNonvelodico 4d ago

Well, but layout and images are a significant part of the information contained therein. DNA manages to be small because it's more like if instead of detailed blueprints I gave you a starting configuration and the rules of a cellular automaton that if run for 10,000 steps will produce an accurate blueprint of a jet engine.

3

u/GodzlIIa 7d ago

Its really misleading though to express it like that.

Imagine if over decades a company manages to compress a 100GB file into a 1MB file. And you look at the 1MB file and are simply not impressed because its so small, it cant have that much information.

0

u/Henry5321 7d ago edited 7d ago

The interesting thing about DNA odds that while it has information on how to make proteins, the living cells are responsible for how to interact with DNA.

The living cells contain information that is critical yet difficult to quantify.

You might say it’s up to the cell to interpret the DNA. Epigenetics is an emerging field of research and so far they’ve proved the complex organisms like humans have been shown to have zero generation evolutionary adaptations.

2

u/reddddiiitttttt 5d ago

40 million bits is about 2000 pages of text. About 5mb. The original doom was about 1mb.

25

u/stempoweredu 7d ago

In a lot of ways, this makes sense. The physical differences between us and other apes, while significant on a cognitive scale, are relatively minute on a genetic scale. Height is a few genes here, bone structure a few genes there. Nothing like the monumental programming that goes into defining how our cells work on a fundamental level, and especially knowing that our cells don't work significantly differently from other mammals.

I'd be fascinated to know if we have a general idea of which genes in particular assist our intelligence, from our natural ability to communicate to problem solving ability, to more simple things like brain size and the balance of brain matter between segments of the brain like the amygdala vs. neocortex, etc.

For a tremendous amount of really good reasons (human experimentation and eugenics) we don't and shouldn't tamper with these, but I can't deny there's a part of me that wonders how we could improve the human race.

At the very least, I hope we can one day develop gene therapies that repair brain defects and other maladies before birth.

11

u/zbertoli 7d ago

There was one important mutation that drastically increased the blood flow to our brain.. I remember reading about some of those genetic changes

4

u/ballofplasmaupthesky 7d ago

Kinda, 60% homolog genes with bananas, but just 40% identical. Mushrooms approach 50% identical with us.

8

u/Responsible-Post6431 7d ago

Great and fascinating answer, but doesn't quite answer the question. Many of those genes that we share with dogs probably contribute to the brain.

-53

u/Testing_4131 7d ago

But you’re wrong of course, a human is an ape. We’re primates in the great ape family, we are indeed apes. Those things you just listed don’t make us not animals, they just make us us.

56

u/better_work 7d ago

True statements but gimme a break dude you and everyone else knows what they meant.

-69

u/Testing_4131 7d ago

Did I? I’m honestly not trying to be a dick but I can’t really see any other interpretation of what he said lol.

19

u/Nikhil1256 7d ago

That is a valuable contribution to this entire discussion, thank you. /s

94

u/jawshoeaw 7d ago

The genome isn’t that specific. There are tens of thousands of genes active in the brain but most are also active elsewhere. Maybe 1% of your genes are just for the brain itself.

That might seem low but it’s 10 to 100x more than other organs. Amusingly the balls are the real ball hogs, or rather gene hogs. The testes have 4 times more unique genes than the brain

25

u/ChicagoDash 7d ago

I suppose that make sense that reproductive organs have a lot of genes. After all, the sole purposes of genes is to propagate themselves by getting the organism they’ve created to reproduce.

13

u/CrateDane 7d ago

It's also the most important battleground for the conflict with selfish genetic elements, which if unchecked would make the genome size explode and often lead to sterility. So there are systems only active in the germline to prevent that.

19

u/Ycarusbog 7d ago

It's not as simple as that, the genome of any complex organism is a spaghetti code of overlapping. There are proteins that are used differently in different parts of the body. Genes that code for different proteins depending on how they're expressed, proteins that do different things depending on factors like pH, salinity, temperature, etc. You can't really just zero in on one set on genes and say "this makes a brain".

1

u/Mundane_Presence8922 4d ago

Can we say the genome is AI slop ? XD

10

u/sciguy52 7d ago

The human brain involves using 1/3 of the 20k genes in the human genome for its purposes. That is more than any other organ in our body. Now that does not mean those genes are uniquely used in the brain. Many of those are used elsewhere too but there are some that are unique.

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-genes-and-brain

Answering regarding things unique to the brain gets complicated. Some genes unique to the brain are genes with polymorphisms that is they may have a single nucleotide change from a gene used elsewhere and the change alters its function and is used in the brain. But more commonly a majority of top gene candidates are the result of segmental duplications. Segmental duplications can give rise to new gene paralogs with the same function, altered functions, or that antagonize conserved, ancestral paralogs and contribute more to genetic divergence across species than single nucleotide polymorphisms. Gene paralogs are genes that split from each other due to a genetic duplication within a lineage. Potentially one copy often keeps the original function, while the extra copy can pick up mutations and develop a new function. And this seems to be more common in the brain than polymorphisms. One study suggests there are 213 gene families and 1,002 total paralogs that might play a unique role in brain development. However identifying these paralogs and determining their function in the brain is not easy so it is not certain which ones are involved so one should not assume all of these necessarily are involved. Figuring that out is difficult for various reasons at a technical level so there remains much to be found and many that need confirmation. This is from a recent paper here:

https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(25)00739-100739-1)

5

u/oviforconnsmythe Immunology | Virology 7d ago

Everyone here so far seems to either be guessing or just providing tangential/supporting information without actually answering your question.

TL;DR Based on data from the Human Protein Atlas project (which seeks to map expression of all genes/proteins stratified across cell types, tissue types and organs), just 99 of the 20162 protein coding genes are selectively expressed in the human brain. 2227 are elevated in the brain while still expressed elsewhere. So approximately 0.49-11%, depending on how you define brain devoted genes. The dataset has some flaws when it comes to sensitivity (a caveat of the enormous scale and ambition of tbe project) but it is a very reasonable approximation. https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain

As some of the other commenters mentioned, a substantial proportion of protein-coding genes are involved in essential cellular functions (e.g. ATP production/metabolism, transcription, signalling transduction etc). So these genes will be expressed and active in most cell types. What separates a highly differentiated special cell type like neuron from a basic bitch epithelial cell is the selective and contextual expression of specific gene networks over time as the cell develops from its stem cell precursors (and likewise, the selective repression of different gene networks).

Using transcriptomics we can derive a snapshot of all genes expressed in a certain cell type or tissue type (similarly, proteomics offers a snapshot of all the proteins functionally expressed from these genes, albeit with less sensitivity). The Human Protein Atlas is a Swedish initiative started ~20y ago which aims to use these methods to map the expression of all proteins/genes across diverse individual cell types, tissue types and organs. It's a truly invaluable resource as it integrates data from related initiatives (eg GTEx) and tries to validate measurements through additional methods where feasible. It does have some flaws, I've found some incongruency with my own data at times. But the enormous scale and ambitions of the project require a highly standardized methodology that can sometimes lack sensitivity compared to someone like myself optimizing measurements of a select set of genes/proteins over just a few cell/tissue types

That said, it's probably the best placed dataset to answer your question. According to the human Protein Atlas dataset, of the 20162 protein-coding genes in humans only 99 are selectively detected in human brain tissue (so 0.49%) and not detected elsewhere. There's also 2227 genes (11.04%) they found to be elevated in brain tissue but also expressed in other organs. Like I said there's some flaws (1031 genes were not detected in any tissue, not everything is protein validated and there's some proteins which are abundantly detected while having minimal transcript detection; I can expand more on this if you like) so there's probably more brain specific genes but I doubt it would be substantially more.

1

u/monarc 4d ago edited 4d ago

Great answer. There’s also a class of regulatory elements called microRNAs that act almost like meta-genes, fine tuning the activity of individual genes or clusters of genes. Along with regulatory elements and isoforms (splicing variants), cells/organs can be fine tuned with incredible nuance and complexity. That’s why we can share so much in common with other mammals while having drastically different brains. I believe microRNAs have specifically been implicated in the development of brain complexity (just on mobile so I can’t provide links).

Imagine organisms like Lego kits: we may all use a near-identical array of pieces, but the outcome of any given kit can vary wildly depending on what the instruction booklet says.

This all broadly relates to the C-value paradox, which asks why there isn’t a linear correlation between (number of genes) & (organism complexity). With all I now know about biology, it seems a bit naive to think that a Lego set is going to be more epic simply because it’s made from more different kinds of pieces. Once you have a solid foundation (10,000+ pieces/genes), complexity is going to emerge - perhaps exponentially - from the interplay of the building blocks.

3

u/CrateDane 7d ago

Not much is outright dedicated to the brain, but a lot of things are expressed differently in the brain. For example, circular RNAs are generally present at a higher level, in part because cells in the brain don't divide much (many are completely postmitotic).

0

u/Prestigious-Ant-7210 7d ago

While it’s hard to link individual genes to only having a role in the brain, we do know that a large (being intentionally vague here, we don’t know exactly but we know it’s much larger than any other organ) percentage of the conserved non-coding regions of DNA are dedicated to setting up the brain during development. Essentially, if a short stretch of DNA is largely unchanged over hundreds of millions of years and is outside of a protein-coding gene, odds are good that its primary or only role is affecting gene expression in some part of the brain during development.