3 ms·
He does mention structual interactions as well as duplications/deletions/inversions. I would argue methylation is more like an annotation of DNA and not part of
by deng 1y ago
He does mention structual interactions as well as duplications/deletions/inversions. I would argue methylation is more like an annotation of DNA and not part of the DNA itself, but that's a matter of opinion.
In the end, the author literally says: "nobody knows". Yes, you cannot compare a linear sequence of bits to a macromolecule that interacts structurally with its environment, and the author does not make that claim. The question he tries to answer is: how much data is needed to re-create a similar macromolecule that interacts in a similar way. His main point, in which you both agree: only the exons are surely not enough because the encoded proteins are just a (small?) part of how DNA interacts.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoExons are almost like functions where as a gene is almost like a class definition. In different tissues in the body a gene might be alternatively spliced to lead to different protein isoforms. In effect, making use of only a subset of available functions in the class depending on certain input parameters or how the class is called.
- throwanem 1y agoThis is a Star Trek version of the subject, in that it is pure technobabble which happens to mention a few real terms.
- acchow 1y agoAs someone with both a biochem and CS background, I found the comment insightful and clear. Zero technobabble to my ears.
- throwanem 1y agoWhat does casting biochem in the metaphor of CS abstractions, in this example, clarify? What does it elucidate? What further predictions does it allow us to make about either subject of the metaphor? Can those predictions be tested? Do they make sense enough for that to be a meaningful question? Show me how this isn't a more confusing than useful explanation, even for the bright ten-year-old or so at whose level it appears to be pitched, and I'll grant it may have some value.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]