Slashdot Mirror
New Class of Genes Discovered
HarryGenes writes "Reuters is reporting that Scientists Find New Type of Gene in Junk DNA. The research from Harvard Medical School describes a discovery in the Yeast Genome of a new class of gene that regulates the neighboring gene through the production of its RNA product. This has much broader implications than the article lets on to. Assuming these same type of genes exist in Humans and other organisms, the whole science behind gene expression and gene mapping will be changed dramatically. This type of mechanism can explain a lot of the 'unexplainable'. This is really exciting. I have been working in gene mapping for years and always felt that the 'junk' was there for a reason."
And yet there are people prepared to unleash modified genes on the world saying that they **know** there is no risk.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
I have been working in gene mapping for years and always felt that the 'junk' was there for a reason.
Sometimes, too, the gene may have moved into the junkyard for a good reason.
Just imagine reactivating some junk human genes to see what happens:
Human females have a more pronounced season of going into and out of heat.
Get an extra furrowed forehead to better protect vision during rainstorms and intense heat on veldt.
Get large hairy ears to better pick up on approaching predators like lions.
Given the current rate of change in human environment due to social and cultural changes, I'd venture to guess we have a lot more junk DNA that needs to exit (eg, propensity to develop diabetes if not on a hunter/gatherer diet) than we have need to reactivate old junk DNA.
If we could engineer useful new DNA, probably creating a visual transmitter capable of expressing information more quickly than voice or hand movement would be high on the list. I would call this the Teletubby gene...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This article is about is genomics knowledge which is one of the best understood areas of biotechnology and molecular biology, yet it's always bugged me that PhDs in biology would simply dismiss what didn't fit into their neat little model as "junk DNA". That "junk DNA" was conserved gave serious doubts about it being junk. That it has to be a "control system" component has pretty obvious.
Until recently though, math and systems theory have not been strengths of biologists in general - when I was in school, biology was what people took to be able to do science without a lot of math. Ask a biologist about Laplace, Linvill or Liapunov and you'll get a blank stare - which is truly scary if they're mucking around with living feedback systems being spread into the broader environment. There's still a generation that probably needs to be purged before the profession can be deemed "systems theory aware".
What's scarier: the whole knowledge-base of proteomics and enzyme/metabolic circuitry is far more primitive that genomics, yet this area represents far more of the biology activity in cells than genomics. Which makes plunging head-long into rolling out things like Monsanto safflower extremely dubious and dangerous.
That said, I'd be the last to advocate ceasing this type of genetic research and technology development - only it is different from most every potentially dangerous technology humanity has developed, so considerable caution and process safe-guards are needed.
Does this mean DNA has parity bits for error correction?
Coincidentally, I just finished reading Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children novels. They use the premise that "junk DNA" is not junk at all, but is used to drive evolution.
-- jchenx
There is a fair amount of precedent in science and math for this sort of terminology.
For example, a few centuries ago some mathematicians started studying the funny numbers like the diagonal of a unit square, and proved that they weren't the ratio of two integers. The idea that there were such numbers was widely ridiculed. The mathematicians' reaction was to say "We need a name for these new numbers. People are calling us irrational for talking about them. Why don't we just call them `irrational' numbers?" And so it was.
Some time later, in the 1800's, some mathematicians started talking about numbers whose squares were negative. Others criticised this as saying that there were no such numbers. Again, a name for these new numbers was needed, and someone suggested adopting the critics' terminology and calling them `imaginary'. And again mathematicians liked the sound of this, and adopted the term, with `real' the name for the numbers that their critics believed in.
Part of the education of a mathematician or scientist is learning to take a disconnected, "objective" view on such terminological quibbles. Adopting your critics taunts is a good way to get across the idea that "it's just a word" with no connotations other than the technical definition.
In the computer field, we have the term `hacker' that originated as an insult, and is still used as such by outsiders. But to us, it's a useful technical term with no negative connotations.
Just as `irrational' and `imaginary' are considered simply descriptive terms by mathematicians, with no value judgement implied, we can expect that biologists will use `junk DNA' as a technical term for specific kinds of DNA long after they fully understand the function of the `junk'. You'll find it precisely defined in textbooks, and people will use the term without thinking that it's derogatory.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Interesting idea, but from looking at blood type distribution it does not seem to closely related to differing areas of the world. The blood types seem to be rather evenly spread.
My thinking is that the prehistoric people regardless of blood type would have all had to survive on the available local foods. I would think that the lack of choice, i.e. "rabbit or nothing" would have killed off those in the region incapable or less well suited to digesting most of the local quisine.
The question for me is are there other genetic predispositions like lactose tolerance (although to a lesser degree) which would allow some to make better use of certain types of food than others?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I think you are looking at the wrong sample. You could probably say the analogous things about computer execs. The real algorithmic research of course happens at the universities and similarly that's were the real biology research is happening - not at the biotechs.
You are correct that nowadays biology and mathematics are intertwined, attracting more quantitative people. Where you are mistaken is your implicit assumption that the naivete is on the biologists side. There is a lot of knowledge that needs to be accumulated before the biological literature can be adequately digested. Your post is point in proof - had you been more experienced in genetics you would have realized that no geneticist really believes in junk DNA - it is really a term that laymen have found useful.
As someone who does both, I would also argue that it is much easier to pick up the mathematics than the biology. If you are a quantitative person it is very easy to learn what a Laplacian is, and to apply it to your biological problem. While it may be just as easy to look up junk DNA - it is very difficult to get to the point where you realize that is what should be questioned. The problem I see is not so much biologists who waste time because their projects are mathematically unsound, but more so, mathematically trained people spinning wheels on research which is not relevant or based on dubious biological tenets. However, I do think it is a transition thing as specialists in both fields learn (the hard way) about the pitfalls.