Comment Re:97.5% genetically identical (Score 2, Informative) 339
The 97.5% number, as it reads in the newspaper article, is wrong. If you compare the complete DNA sequence of mouse to human, the correct number is around 70%.
Even if you restrict yourself to the genes shared between mouse and human, the DNA sequences are not 97.5% identical. I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but it's somewhere closer to 90%.
Note that this 97.5% number is not in the scientific article -- I double checked on the website. It looks like a number that the newspaper guy pulled out of a hat, probably from some other book or study he'd read.
My guess is that 97.5% refers to some other, much more specialized calculation, e.g. the percent identity at the protein level of genes that have clear counterparts in mouse or human, or perhaps to the fraction of known genes in human that have a counterpart in mouse.
In any case, the newspaper writer screwed up. As it's written, the 97.5% identity statement is very misleading.
Even if you restrict yourself to the genes shared between mouse and human, the DNA sequences are not 97.5% identical. I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but it's somewhere closer to 90%.
Note that this 97.5% number is not in the scientific article -- I double checked on the website. It looks like a number that the newspaper guy pulled out of a hat, probably from some other book or study he'd read.
My guess is that 97.5% refers to some other, much more specialized calculation, e.g. the percent identity at the protein level of genes that have clear counterparts in mouse or human, or perhaps to the fraction of known genes in human that have a counterpart in mouse.
In any case, the newspaper writer screwed up. As it's written, the 97.5% identity statement is very misleading.
