4 ms·
Wait do we even know that every human gene has a 1:1 mapping to a function in the body? I think the code analogy to this would be trying to map "C++ if statemen
by coryfklein 4y ago
Wait do we even know that every human gene has a 1:1 mapping to a function in the body? I think the code analogy to this would be trying to map "C++ if statements" to a particular feature in your product. I'd expect something as complicated as the genome would have a much richer and complicated interaction with biological feature expression.
I'm probably simply misunderstanding; maybe Weissman's data is a 1:N mapping?
- astrange 4y agoThis kind of shallow presentation is common for genetics; compare reporting genetic traits by SNPs and implying the SNPs "cause" them, which is like diffing two versions of a program and saying X new feature happens because there's a letter 'n' in one program and not the other.
- shpongled 4y agoWe already know that many genes have more than one function (especially when you consider that one gene can produce many protein products)
- elif 4y agoI think mpeg encoding would be a better demonstrative than code... Where data is lost, details are lost, but the end result still typically renders into something recognizable. If you lose an iframe, you end up with a more serious deformity. Whereas code either does exactly what it says or does nothing at all, and knocking out a single statement is almost certain to break everything.
- axg11 4y agoThere’s not any type of mapping and this is what makes biology so difficult to study and understand. One gene can affect anywhere from zero other genes to every single gene. We also need to account for effects at every level of the central dogma of biology. Knockout of a gene can affect genetics, RNA, protein, and much more we don’t even know about yet. The other underestimated complicating factor is that biology is very nonlinear. A 10% increase in gene expression could lead to no resulting effect, whereas an 11% increase in expression could upregulate downstream genes by 1000x.
- hgomersall 4y agoI remember going to a really interesting talk in which the proposal was to represent the transcriptome as a probabilistic generative model. That felt like getting something close to an appreciation of the complexity.
- Balgair 4y ago> Wait do we even know that every human gene has a 1:1 mapping to a function in the body? When it comes to biology, the answer is typically: It's complicated. I'll give two examples, melanin and the gene for vitamin-C. The process to make melanin is a bit complex, but suffice to say the chemical is produced. From there, it is used in at least two way you are probably familiar with: sleep and tanning. Our bodies uses melanin production to help regulate our sleep cycle. Also, through the quirks of evolution, we use it to help stop UV radiation and keep our skin safe. At the end of the day, a complex process that includes a few genes maps to multiple functions. The gene for vitamin-C production is another example. In humans, some primates, and guinea pigs, this one gene is mutated. As such, we can't produce vitamin-C internally and we have to get it from our diet. This single gene had a function in our ancestors, but no longer does. I think you can argue that it's lack of function is a psuedo-function for our ancestors to eat more fruits, but I don't really buy that. Evolutionary, we would be better off with the non-mutated gene than with what we got now (ask any scurvy survivor or Inuit). Generally, I'd say that most of the genes in our code are more like the mutated vitamin-C gene than the melanin ones. They had specific functions sometime in our history, but no longer do. Kinda like a vestigial organ or the eyes of a cave fish.