I am always highly skeptical of Science Daily articles - this one sounds like it was written by someone without further background knowledge than what was given

I am always highly skeptical of Science Daily articles - this one sounds like it was written by someone without further background knowledge than what was given in a press release. Or, worse, this person far overstated what the cited researchers claim I think the 'layperson' summary of this article should be that the authors may have found an unappreciated mechanism for gene expression [1-3; 3 articles were published simultaneously]. As you may have heard, your genome comprises four 'letters', called the DNA bases. Collections of these bases called genes encode proteins, molecular structures that perform myriad functions. Indeed, everything that you can see on a living organism is either protein or was created by a protein. Genes have specific functions that are often limited in both time and space - the protein encoded by a gene may only be needed in the embryonic pancreas, for example. In the field of epigenetics, researchers try to understand the causes of this tight control of gene activity, among other things. The addition of methyl groups to DNA bases is a long appreciated way to control gene activity - see ref. 4, which is an excellent, freely available cell biology text. The DNA base cytosine is often modified to yield methyl-cytosine, a methylated base with a well established role in the regulation of gene expression; methyl-cytosine tends to mark genome areas with lower probabilities of gene expression. The authors find that methyl-adenine seems to play a role opposite to methyl-cytosine, surprisingly. While the existence of methyl-adenine was known in bacteria, its function in gene expression in more complicated organisms was not known. Refs 1-3 don't show a causative role for methyl-adenine in increasing gene expression but the correlations the authors report are likely to be followed up. In summary, the story behind this article is pretty exciting and could indeed expand our understanding of epigenetics, cell biology and perhaps more. One should remain extremely skeptical of anything in Science Daily - always go to the source. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415004274 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415004353 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415... [3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415004225 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26854/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26854/