5 ms·

This is one of those weird articles where having degrees in Biology, Genetics, and CS converges so bear with me as I explain a lot of domain specific terms Cen

by TheBiv 10y ago

This is one of those weird articles where having degrees in Biology, Genetics, and CS converges so bear with me as I explain a lot of domain specific terms Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein. In the scheme of a person, a gene (DNA) doesn't mean as much as protein folding does. To give a programming example, DNA is the source code, RNA is the compiler and proteins are the executed program. A "person" is the executed program bc it's the end result. However tracing a lineage back to the source code of DNA to figure out the smallest amount of code required to create the program is often difficult (if not impossible). Genes are the blueprint, how those genes are transcribed into RNA and then translated into proteins matters FAR more than the amount of genes that it would take to make a sustainable human. So while I understand what this article is trying to get at, it's missing the central dogma of molecular biology which is still the wild Wild West!

acomjean 10y ago
I like the programming annolagy. What about alternative splicing where one gene can make multiple different proteins? The more I learn about biology the more clear it is how little we know.
jonathansizz 10y ago
You repeat a popular misinterpretation of the central dogma. The term was coined by Crick^, and actually says that once the information in nucleic acid goes into protein, you can't get it back out again. So if you want to diagram it, it would be DNA/RNA --> Protein, where the arrow represents information flow. Note that (rather ironically!) it was actually Watson who popularized the misinterpretation, in his college textbook. The reason I point this out is that there are many known violations of the Watson version of the central dogma, but none of the Crick version. Also, I'd take issue with your claim that genes are like a blueprint. I'd say they're more like a recipe, as stated in the article (and I think your comment implies this anyway). The larger point (that the article mostly ignores) centers around human vanity: we're actually not really much more complicated than many other species, especially our close relatives like the apes. Most of the differences between us and them are developmental, and you don't need many genes to produce such changes. ^ Crick 1956, 'Ideas on Protein Synthesis'. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf
- TheBiv 10y ago
  The concept of messenger RNA (mRNA) is the source of your confusion. As cited by their Nobel Prize, it is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Please do not confuse scientific facts with google searches you've done. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ Please review this up to date article with how DNA turns into protein, in case you are still needing more reference http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-...
  - jonathansizz 10y ago
    I'm not confused. Your link shows how DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. That's not the central dogma; it's the misinterpretation of what the central dogma states, which I pointed out in my above comment. Please follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. I'll quote the pertinent section here for you: The Central Dogma: "Once information has got into protein it can't get out again". Here's a follow-up article by Crick, from 1970 (which he wrote in response to repeated misinterpretations of what he'd originally stated): http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCentralDogma1970.pdf http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCe...
    - TheBiv 10y ago
      I understand, in general what you are saying, yet the links you're citing but you have yet to talk about mRNA. All of your links are from 1960/1970 concerning scientific politics before we established scientific fact like we have now. I do not believe that you have reviewed my second link which takes you through how DNA goes to RNA then to protein. Yes it's mRNA, but mRNA is RNA. The inheritable material from DNA is in the nucleotides on the inside of the double helix. Please review the Nature link to understand how DNA goes to RNA and then protein.
      - jonathansizz 10y ago
        I really don't need a lesson on how transcription and translation work. I have a PhD in genetics. I am of course not disputing that DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein. In your original post, you state: Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein and what I'm actually arguing with is your description of what the central dogma is stating. Because it actually states Nucleic Acid --> Protein My criticism was a technical one regarding information flow, and I wasn't trying to argue against the importance of developmental factors downstream of genes to the production of complexity. Sorry if I seem pedantic, but we have to be careful with our terminology, because otherwise as soon as someone learns about reverse transcription they write an article saying how the central dogma is dead.
Zigurd 10y ago
Biologists reverse engineer the purpose of genes, and gene expression, by "commenting out" genes and seeing what stops working. Crick made a point about not being able to "decompile" proteins into DNA, but that doesn't mean that you can't discern what genes do by observing which proteins go missing when you knock out a gene.
- TheBiv 10y ago
  In my lab we did exactly what you are referring to. The thing that doesn't get headlines are the many labs where they delete genes and things go completely haywire and they have no idea why. To again use a programming analogy, it's like when you change a variable for the height of an image and then your page doesn't load. You know you did something, but your code is so tightly coupled that it's hard to discern what's going on. That's my point. DNA is tightly coupled, so if your boss came up to you and asked you "What is the absolute minimum lines of code we can run this business on?" Then you would feel the same way that I did when reading this article!
  - hliyan 10y ago
    I always think of our genome as a massive legacy code base that has been tested and patched billions of times. The code is spaghetti, but absolutely robust. Lots of cross talk. Perhaps there is a more concise version that achieve the same results...

by TheBiv 10y ago

acomjean 10y ago

I like the programming annolagy. What about alternative splicing where one gene can make multiple different proteins? The more I learn about biology the more clear it is how little we know.

jonathansizz 10y ago

You repeat a popular misinterpretation of the central dogma. The term was coined by Crick^, and actually says that once the information in nucleic acid goes into protein, you can't get it back out again. So if you want to diagram it, it would be DNA/RNA --> Protein, where the arrow represents information flow. Note that (rather ironically!) it was actually Watson who popularized the misinterpretation, in his college textbook. The reason I point this out is that there are many known violations of the Watson version of the central dogma, but none of the Crick version. Also, I'd take issue with your claim that genes are like a blueprint. I'd say they're more like a recipe, as stated in the article (and I think your comment implies this anyway). The larger point (that the article mostly ignores) centers around human vanity: we're actually not really much more complicated than many other species, especially our close relatives like the apes. Most of the differences between us and them are developmental, and you don't need many genes to produce such changes. ^ Crick 1956, 'Ideas on Protein Synthesis'. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf

TheBiv 10y ago
The concept of messenger RNA (mRNA) is the source of your confusion. As cited by their Nobel Prize, it is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Please do not confuse scientific facts with google searches you've done. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ Please review this up to date article with how DNA turns into protein, in case you are still needing more reference http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-...
- jonathansizz 10y ago
  I'm not confused. Your link shows how DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. That's not the central dogma; it's the misinterpretation of what the central dogma states, which I pointed out in my above comment. Please follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. I'll quote the pertinent section here for you: The Central Dogma: "Once information has got into protein it can't get out again". Here's a follow-up article by Crick, from 1970 (which he wrote in response to repeated misinterpretations of what he'd originally stated): http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCentralDogma1970.pdf http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCe...
  - TheBiv 10y ago
    I understand, in general what you are saying, yet the links you're citing but you have yet to talk about mRNA. All of your links are from 1960/1970 concerning scientific politics before we established scientific fact like we have now. I do not believe that you have reviewed my second link which takes you through how DNA goes to RNA then to protein. Yes it's mRNA, but mRNA is RNA. The inheritable material from DNA is in the nucleotides on the inside of the double helix. Please review the Nature link to understand how DNA goes to RNA and then protein.
    - jonathansizz 10y ago
      I really don't need a lesson on how transcription and translation work. I have a PhD in genetics. I am of course not disputing that DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein. In your original post, you state: Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein and what I'm actually arguing with is your description of what the central dogma is stating. Because it actually states Nucleic Acid --> Protein My criticism was a technical one regarding information flow, and I wasn't trying to argue against the importance of developmental factors downstream of genes to the production of complexity. Sorry if I seem pedantic, but we have to be careful with our terminology, because otherwise as soon as someone learns about reverse transcription they write an article saying how the central dogma is dead.

Zigurd 10y ago

Biologists reverse engineer the purpose of genes, and gene expression, by "commenting out" genes and seeing what stops working. Crick made a point about not being able to "decompile" proteins into DNA, but that doesn't mean that you can't discern what genes do by observing which proteins go missing when you knock out a gene.

TheBiv 10y ago
In my lab we did exactly what you are referring to. The thing that doesn't get headlines are the many labs where they delete genes and things go completely haywire and they have no idea why. To again use a programming analogy, it's like when you change a variable for the height of an image and then your page doesn't load. You know you did something, but your code is so tightly coupled that it's hard to discern what's going on. That's my point. DNA is tightly coupled, so if your boss came up to you and asked you "What is the absolute minimum lines of code we can run this business on?" Then you would feel the same way that I did when reading this article!
- hliyan 10y ago
  I always think of our genome as a massive legacy code base that has been tested and patched billions of times. The code is spaghetti, but absolutely robust. Lots of cross talk. Perhaps there is a more concise version that achieve the same results...