3 ms·
An interesting point of view, especially that is a "bit opposing" the perspective of Sergey Brin described in this article : http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/
by adulau 16y ago
An interesting point of view, especially that is a "bit opposing" the perspective of Sergey Brin described in
this article : http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_sergeys_search/all/1 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_sergeys_search/all/... where Sergey Brin knows having a specific gene (LRRK2) that has been associated with a higher rate of Parkinson disease. But the conclusion looks the same, we still don't know well the interaction of the Genome with our real biological operation and need more research especially in data analysis.
Looking at it on a programming perspective, it seems that we have a large pile of "source code" and we are still evaluating some functions (or even at some variable name) without grasping the overall modus of operation. When we are doing binary reverse engineering, we are always looking for an entry point where the program starts to be executed. It seems that for Genome that there are many entry points...
- phaedrus 16y agoLike a program binary, which has been developed by trial and error without a design, which uses overlapping instructions that mean different things depending on the entry point, and which makes extensive use of self modifying code (via gene expression). And which goes through three phases of binary to binary translation: DNA->RNA->Proteins.
- mbreese 16y agoAnd that's just the simple stuff. Now imagine that you will silence a lot of the binary code, only running small parts of it. But you may not know which parts. I think this is one of the big things to come out of the human genome project: exactly how little is there. And since there is so little code to work with, there is a bigger need for epigenetic regulation and alternative splicing.