Everyone has fears of their own, but have you were wondered why our fears tend to change as we grow older? According to a study conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University, the answer lies in human genes. More on the human genome in the full article after the jump.

Wheezing megabats, Batman! An analysis into the evolutionary history of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has opened up significant revelations as to where the virus could have originated, and this time it isn't from our scientifically linked branch swinging, banana loving cousins. In fact, scientists think that SARS may have originated from bats. Let's head over to the full story for more enlightenment, before y'all go saying, "I thought it was them cats."

It may probably sound like a bad spin-off from the X-Men movies, but its a lot more plausible than mutants with uber-regenerative properties and the power to shapeshift. In a recent study by Duke scientists, they were able to create the first map of imprinted genes throughout the human genome as a way to understand human genetics even further.

For more information on this groundbreaking study, read the full article!

Procter & Gamble (P&G) Beauty researchers have grown 10 liters of the fungus Malassezia globosa, known for causing dandruff from 50% to 90% of people on Earth, in order to have its genes sequenced (or its genetic make up profiled). The researchers accomplished this to study the interactions of humans and fungi.

P&G mapped M. globosa's genetic make-up to better understand the fungi. The staggering amount of fungi they produced for the sequencing: 10 liters - equal to the amount of fungi on top of 10 million heads.

We all know how time seems to catch up with religion. As things that were once mysterious are explained, religion has had to adapt. Facts like the world isn't flat once rocked the world when discovered. But now it seems religion isn't the only one who has to cope: even Science needs some catching up to do as it tries to define the meaning of life.

Defining life is supposed to be easy if you think about it. Eat, sleep, reproduce; that's basically the sum of life. However, Science has advanced so much it's not so clear cut anymore.

Scientists have managed to manipulate genes of bacterium to create all new strains that do completely different things. Is it still considered life if its initial DNA has been changed beyond its initial purpose? Scientists have also developed stem cell research so far that they believe they can create "wet" artificial life (think Frankenstein Amoeba).

And of course there's everyone's favorite quandary when it comes to defining life: robots. The question has inspired numerous movies like Terminator, AI, and I, Robot. Robots may not be carbon based as us humans, but their silicon chips hold all the processes of human thought. If we're all just computer simulations ourselves (or brains in a jar), can we consider ourselves alive?

Ray Kurzweil, a futurist who has advised even Bill Gates, theorizes that it's possible. He believes that by 2029, Artificial Intelligence would have advanced so much as to be human. Does that make them, in essence, alive? "The key issue as to whether or not a non-biological entity deserves rights really comes down to whether or not it's conscious. Does it have feelings?"

Francis Collins, a Christian Scientist and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, offers what is probably the only answer humankind is capable of right now: "[Defining life is] an important but ultimately frustrating question, if one expects to come up with a nice clean shiny answer; it ain't going to happen."

Are you guys familiar with Dr. Craig Venter? He is a biologist at the J Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland and is the first person to have his entire genetic makeup read.

Now, Venter and his team reached a milestone today as they were successfully able to take the whole genome of a bacterial cell and transplanted it into a closely related species. This process, which Venter's team refer to as "species transplant", led to the creation of an entirely new species.

This is not the most interesting part, however, as the biologist mentioned that they are planning to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory - pushing the possibility of creating a synthetic life form.

"We would hope to have the first fuel from synthetic organisms certainly within the decade, possibly within half that time. [It's like] changing a Macintosh computer into a PC by inserting a new piece of software. [But] it would be more difficult in other kinds of cells, which have enzymes to snip the DNA of invader," commented Craig Venter.

The breakthrough was met by the scientific community with both excitement and unease because some have pointed out "the limits of science and the inevitable fears about playing god, as well as raising the spectre that this technology could one day be abused to create a new generation of bio weapons."

Amidst all these, Venter shared that the project was in fact delayed for a significant amount of time because they reviewed its moral and ethical consequences.

We don't want to go into debate about this one but the Human Genome Project was never really completed. Back in 1995, it was considered "pragmatically complete" at 92% and the remaining 8% of DNA found in human cells were never really studied.

Now The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (Encode) is trying to understand the so-called "letters of the genome". Prior to all these, the scientific community generally believes that the genome activity is focused on the 22,000 genes with known functions, making up around 3% of all our genes.

The remaining 97%, furthermore, are known as junk DNA because it is still unknown what functions they serve. The latest findings of Encode is currently challenging that belief. According to Dr. Tim Hubbard from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute,

We are now seeing the majority of the rest of the genome is active to some extent. The genome looks like it is far more of a network of RNA transcripts that are all collaborating together. Some go off and make proteins; [and] quite a few, although we know they are there, we really do not have a good understanding of what they do.

Hubbard, together with his team, focused on 1% of the human genome sequence, carrying out 80 different types of experiments that generated more than 600 million data points. The scientist mentioned that these data will be further combined with other findings.

The Human Genome Project and Encode, you see, are collaborative efforts between 80 organizations from around the world.

Big dogs, small dogs - they all belong to one species of the animal kingdom: Canis lupus familiaris. How come there are dogs that are barely the size of human heads, and there are dogs that are as big as an adolescent human? The answer lies in a study made by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

Those NHGRI folks saw that the differences in dog size depends on the versions of the gene that encodes for insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1). Insulin-what? Sounds like a crazy experiment, but IGF1 is just a substance that determines size among animals. The team found out that single nucleotide polymorphisms, or variations in the DNA, located near IGF1 correlates with body size.

Testing a number of dogs great and small, the scientists discovered that IGF1 polymorphisms are a common factor in determining size. They found out that small dogs are much likely to contain two different versions of IGF1 compared to large dogs. In the studies conducted to mice and humans, and here, in dogs, the findings are similar: creatures with less IGF1 are more likely of normal size.

Now how would this affect you? Scientists would like to use this finding to probably control the body sizes of dog species. Anyone want a gigantic chihuahua? Or a miniscule Saint Bernard? The differences in sizes all lie in the presence of IGF1 in dog genes. Now if only they could find out the other genetic markers that determine dog cuteness, or attitude ... imagine being able to customize your dog.

First it was the soldier gene that makes warriors out of toddlers, then it was the gay gene that turned alpha males into she-males. Don't look now but we've got another excuse to enjoy tobacco!

Light that Cuban cigar, tough guy, because researchers at the University of Iowa say that there's sufficient evidence to prove that some people may literally have been born to smoke. In a scan of the 30,000 genes in the human genome, they determined a pattern that is common between smokers and absent among their non-smoking counterparts.

The study involved 94 people who were subjected to a method known as transcriptional profiling. In the mix were smokers and nonsmokers and found out that there are 579 genes in the average smoker which are more active and there are 584 less active ones. That means there is no reason for your mama to blame it on peer pressure. It only means that a smoker's physiological makeup makes him more prone to nicotine addiction.

Social judgement and the ability to interact with your peers also has a direct influence coming from the genetic makeup of a person. "When you look at substance-abuse disorders and antisocial behavior, these are the last vestiges of the belief that mental impairments are related to moral will," says University of Iowa forensic psychiatry director Tracy Gunter.

The study also determined that genes linked to smoking are also linked with depression and panic disorders, which may later on prove that there's a correlation among the habits and minor mental disorders. This, the experts say, would require another look.

The study on nicotine addiction being linked to genes follows the series of studies conducted around the world which answers the question on whether or not addictions are innate or acquired.

The short of the long of it? Insect repellents can get better. How? Well you'd have to read a bit more now wouldn't you?

It has been known since 2001 that when neurons in a fruit fly's antennae sense carbon dioxide, they release the chemosensory receptor protein Gr21a. By examining other taste receptors in the fly's antennae, a team of researchers of Rockefeller University also discovered that one particular protein--Gr63a--is co-expressed with Gr21a in both larvae and adults. Relax, we'll explain...

By genetically engineering flies that only released one of the two proteins, they determined that a combination of the two proteins is necessary to get the antennae neurons buzzing. Basically, a strain of fly with a mutated version of Gr63a could not detect concentrated carbon dioxide mixtures that normal flies--which are carbon dioxide-averse--would flee from. In essence they figured out how flies' antennae detected carbon dioxide.

Here's where mosquitoes come in. You see, mosquitoes detect carbon dioxide in order to bite us. Flies detect carbon dioxide because they hate it. Now that they figured out how to stop flies from smelling CO₂, they're trying to do the same to mosquitoes.

They looked at the mosquito genome and found GPRGR22 and GPRGR24, two strong candidates for being identical (each by about 62 and 48 percent identical) to the stuff that the flies have. The team now wants to disable these receptors--at least in the case of mosquitoes--by developing an effective repellant. The current industry-standard compound in bug spray is DEET.

Neurogeneticist Leslie Vosshall believes that her lab will be able to improve on DEET by inhibiting GPRGR22 and GPRGR24. Bug repellents that work on the genome level? Cool isn't it?