Over at Uncommon Descent they are discussing a paper published in Genetics which presents evidence for a novel coding protein in the yeast S. cerevisiae. You can read UD’s post here, and the paper’s abstract here. Unfortunately a subscription to Genetics is required to read the whole paper.
Essentially, the researchers report that they have found a sequence in the yeast species S. cerevisiae which codes for an entirely new protein. While the protein itself has not been identified, the researchers say their study shows that it is likely part of a DNA repair pathway — processes in the cell that repair damaging mutations.
The primary evidence for the gene’s novelty rests on the fact that it lacks any homologues, or similar gene sequences, in related species. Homology is considered a sign of an evolutionary relationship. Thus the lack of a homologous gene in a closely related species indicates that the gene was produced only in the particular species that has it, and was not inherited.
If this is correct, it would be evidence in favor of the power of evolution to produce entirely new genes — evidence which has heretofore been lacking. While there is substantial evidence for the production of new genes by duplicating, shortening, shuffling, and recombining previously existing segments of genes, evidence for the formation of entirely new genes is sparse. Critics of Darwinian evolution have pointed to this fact, and to the prohibitive mathematical improbability of new genes forming by chance, as evidence against Darwin’s theory. This new study, however, would seem to indicate that this species was able to evolve an entirely new protein from a previously non-protein-coding segment of DNA.
The authors make some assumptions that need to be backed up by further experimentation, as noted by poster gpuccio at UD, namely: first, that the sequence actually codes for a functioning protein; and second, that the lack of homology is evidence for de novo evolution. (There are other biological explanations that could also apply).
It will take time to see what light further experimentation sheds on these results and their reliability.