It seems the basis for granting the in principle approval for introducing African Cheetah in India was on the basis of Dr. Stephen J. O' Brien saying that there is no significant genetic difference between the African and the Iranian cheetah. I was told that my previous comment that the African and Indian Cheetahs are different is not right.

In 1992 Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien had reported that the two African subspecies of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus jubatus from southern Africa and A. jubatus raineyi from eastern Africa)
displayed markedly reduced levels of genetic variation relative to other species. “These measurements included:
(i) electrophoretic variation of allozymes and cell proteins resolved by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis;
(ii) immunological (surgical skin graft) and molecular [restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP)] variation at the feline major histocompatibility (MHC) locus, one of the most polymorphic loci in mammals; and
(iii) morphological variation of cranial characteristics. The results of each of these approaches showed that the cheetah had levels of variation comparable to that of deliberately inbred strains of laboratory mice or livestock. These studies lent support to the hypothesis that the cheetah's ancestors had survived a historic period of extensive inbreeding, the modem consequences of which are 90-99% reduction in measurable allelic variation and remarkable physiologic impairments including increased spermatozoa abnormalities, decreased fecundity,
high infant mortality, and increased sensitivity to disease agents”.* On the basis of this study, he had even recommended breeding between the two African subspecies of Cheetah (A. jubatus jubatus and A. jubatus raineyi).

New discovery in Genetics
I am mentioning some latest discovery in genetics in 2006 due to the reason that our understanding of genetics is changing rapidly. I may be digressing, but I think this is important to get a perspective.

In 2006, scientists discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that caused a fundamental reappraisal of understanding of mankind. This superseded the basic principles of human genetics that we knew from the days of Gregor Mendel, and of Jim Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the DNA double helix in 1953. It was believed that the variation between people was largely due to differences in the sequences of the individual "letters" of the genome. Now we are told that the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome. Copy number variants (CNVs) are DNA sequences, 1,000 base pairs or larger, that are deleted, duplicated, or inverted in some individuals but not others. Several thousand CNVs have been discovered in humans, indicating that at least 4 million nucleotides of the human genome (and perhaps several times more) vary in copy number among individuals. CNVs thus represent another important class of genetic variation and contribute to at least an additional 0.1% difference, on average, between individuals.

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases. It also told us that we are about 96% similar to Chimps and not the 99% that we thought earlier.

Scientists used highly sophisticated methods of analysing large segments of DNA. Niger Carter of Sanger Institute of Cambridge had said that "In some ways the methods we have used are 'molecular microscopes', which have transformed the techniques used since the foundation of clinical genetics where researchers used microscopes to look for visible deletions and rearrangements in chromosomes.
The study was undertaken with a sample size of 270 people.
Our readers now would have an idea that completely mapping the genes is not an easy job. In case of the issue of climate change, we all know that lot of scientists and senior civil servants in USA had softened their stands. Before anyone says so, I would like to clarify that I am not alluding at this moment, that the scientists have given suitable comments for furthering the cause of this project. However, I would like to know whether the scientific studies about the genetic differences between Asiatic cheetah and African has been done rigorously and whether they are upto date. The methodology used including details of how many samples have been collected for this study should be made available. I am sure for the sake of transparency the detailed scientific papers are made available to the public.

Sabyasachi

Ref:
* Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah
(DNA rmgerprint/mtDNA)
MARILYN MENOTTI-RAYMOND* AND STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN
*Biological Carcinogenesis and Development Program and tLaboratory of Viral Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702
Communicated by Bruce Wallace, October 29, 1992