Cheetah Genetic Diversity — MHC Genes & Disease Resistance
GED Science Practice — Reading scientific passages, evidence & research comparison
Read the passage
Scientists have examined the genetic history of a large group of cheetahs and have found that there was a significant decrease in the genetic diversity of the cheetah species about 10,000 years ago. Scientists found that, even in unrelated groups of cheetahs, individual cheetahs had 99% of the same alleles. By comparison, in a genetically diverse population, even closely related individuals contain only 80% of the same alleles. Genetic diversity is important to the survival of a species, and scientists worry that a disease that cheetahs are not resistant to could decimate the population.
Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are used by the body to identify self from non-self and direct the immune system to attack non-self particles. Invading bacteria and viruses do not contain the same MHC genes and therefore are attacked by the immune system. Within a population, a high diversity of MHC genes protects the population from attack by disease. In a highly diverse population, it is likely that at least some individuals will contain an allele that identifies a new disease as non-self and can direct the immune system to destroy it.
In 1985, research by Stephen O'Brien reported that skin grafts from cheetahs in a zoo in Oregon were accepted by cheetahs in Africa. Skin grafts, like other organ donations, must be between individuals that have the same MHC factors. If any of the genetic factors are different, then the immune system of the individual receiving the organ will identify the organ as non-self and the body will attack the donated organ as if it were a foreign organism such as a virus or bacterium. The conclusion from O'Brien's research was that cheetah MHC genes are as alike as those of identical twins.
More recent research by Simone Sommer took a much more comprehensive approach to examining the genes of a large sample of wild cheetahs. Sommer's research determined how many alleles are present on two different types of MHC genes in approximately 150 cheetahs. Sommer was able to show that the variation in some MHC genes was higher than previously thought. The variation in MHC genes in cheetahs is still smaller than that for other big cat species but appears to be sufficient to allow the populations to identify a wide variety of foreign particles.
GED questions from this passage
Sommer's research concludes that cheetahs have sufficient genetic diversity to respond to common diseases, but may still be at risk of new diseases.
Q1: Which statement from the passage supports this conclusion?
Q2: Why is the conclusion about gene variation among cheetahs from Sommer's research more valid than the conclusion from O'Brien's research?
Cheetah genetic diversity — animated diagram
Cheetahs share 99% of their alleles — compared to 80% even in closely related individuals of diverse species
How MHC genes protect populations from disease
MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) genes are the immune system's identification system. Here is how they work:
- Every cell in your body carries MHC proteins on its surface — like an ID badge
- The immune system checks these badges constantly — cells with your MHC = "self" = safe
- Bacteria, viruses, and foreign tissue do NOT have your MHC genes = "non-self" = attack!
- The more diverse a population's MHC genes are, the more types of invaders the population can collectively recognize and fight
Visualizing genetic diversity: cheetahs vs. diverse species
Cheetahs share 99% of their alleles even when unrelated. Diverse populations share only ~80% even among close relatives.
Why does skin graft acceptance matter?
Skin grafts (transplanting skin from one individual to another) only succeed when donor and recipient have matching MHC genes. If the MHC genes are different, the recipient's immune system rejects the graft as foreign tissue.
O'Brien found that cheetahs in Oregon accepted skin grafts from cheetahs in Africa — animals living on separate continents that had never met. This happened because their MHC genes were so similar that the immune system did not reject the foreign tissue.
O'Brien's research (1985)
Sommer's research (more recent)
O'Brien vs. Sommer — side by side
| Aspect | O'Brien (1985) | Sommer (recent) |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Skin graft observation | Direct gene analysis |
| Sample size | Small (zoo cheetahs) | ~150 wild cheetahs |
| Type of evidence | Indirect (behavior of immune system) | Direct (actual allele count) |
| Conclusion | MHC genes like identical twins | Variation sufficient for wide disease recognition |
| Validity | Lower — indirect method | Higher — direct gene measurement |
Q1 — Which statement supports Sommer's conclusion?
Sommer's conclusion: cheetahs have sufficient diversity to respond to common diseases but may still be at risk of new diseases.
This is background information explaining what MHC genes do — it applies to all animals, not specifically to cheetahs' level of diversity. It does not support or contradict Sommer's conclusion about cheetahs.
This directly supports both parts of Sommer's conclusion: (1) "sufficient" variation = they can respond to common diseases, and (2) "still smaller than other big cats" = they may still be at risk from new diseases they haven't encountered. This is the only option that directly addresses both aspects of the conclusion.
This explains how skin graft rejection works — it is part of the explanation for O'Brien's research method. It says nothing about cheetahs' ability to respond to diseases or the extent of their MHC variation.
This describes Sommer's research METHOD — not the conclusion or findings. It tells us what was measured, not what was discovered. A description of method does not support a conclusion about what the results mean.
Q2 — Why is Sommer's conclusion more valid than O'Brien's?
Being more recent does not automatically make research more valid. What matters is the quality of the method and evidence, not when the study was done. Older research can be perfectly valid; newer research can be flawed.
Using a different population is not what makes Sommer's research more valid. The key is the method — directly measuring gene alleles vs. observing skin graft results. The population difference is a detail, not the reason for greater validity.
This correctly identifies what each conclusion is about — but it doesn't explain WHY Sommer's is more valid. Just being about a different topic doesn't make a conclusion more or less valid. The reason is about method quality, not subject matter.
This is the correct reason. Directly examining and counting genetic alleles is stronger, more direct evidence than observing whether a skin graft is accepted. The skin graft is indirect evidence — it only shows MHC similarity between two individuals. Sommer measured the actual alleles across 150 cheetahs, providing direct genetic evidence about population-level diversity.
