Slashdot Mirror
New Code Discovered in DNA?
anthemaniac writes "The NY Times is reporting that scientists have found a second code in DNA that goes beyond the genes. The code is superimposed genetic information and 'sets the placement of the nucleosomes, miniature protein spools around which the DNA is looped. The spools both protect and control access to the DNA itself. The discovery, if confirmed, could open new insights into the higher order control of the genes, like the critical but still mysterious process by which each type of human cell is allowed to activate the genes it needs but cannot access the genes used by other types of cell.'"
like the critical but still mysterious process by which each type of human cell is allowed to activate the genes it needs but cannot access the genes used by other types of cell.
So my body has built in DRM?!
Monstar L
Does this mean that DNA has DRM?
So did we finally discover the Midichlorians that Qui-Gon was rambling about?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Personally, I think it's God's version of Sudoku.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I'll bet it is controlled by an Active Directory installation.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
I think this kind of thing is an important reminder to all humans how much we really have to learn about this crazy but wonderful world we live in.
"The NY Times is reporting that scientists have found a second code in DNA that goes beyond the genes."
Man! How long did it take evolution to figure that one out?
Only Go^H^Han intelligent designer could have implemented DNA with private and protected data. This sort of thing just can't randomly 'evolve'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(TNG_episod e)
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Any software problem can be solved by adding another layer of indirection.
So apparenlty we are a software problem.
The RIAA has announced that they are suing the entire human race for violation of their client "God"'s intellectual property.
What an arrogant, presumptuous argument.
"I can't figure out how this could evolve, so God must therefore be precluded from creating a universe in which living creatures evolve."
As if God is limited to what one human can or cannot understand...
It's not like nucleosomes are anything new though, the real discovery here is that the scientists found a pattern to their binding.
Sadly the times article is filled with a lot of fluff. This isn't really a "second code" nor do I see why it's "hidden".
Error control mechanisms, at the very least, would very much run against the flow of blind Darwinian processes.
Yes, this discovery does not hurt the ID movement at all.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
...a Whitespace program inside a C++ program. The Whitespace program coexists with the C++ program because of the "wiggle room" (to borrow a phrase from the article) that the C++ grammar givess you.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Abstract and full text PDF. (currently freely available).
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
It is also why humans pass around so many damn virii. And how much junk mail do YOU get each week? We could go on and on, but I think it is fairly obvious that All Our DNA are Belong to Billy G.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
That's the part that lets us read email.
have been discovered to be eighty units long and oriented face down, nine edge first.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Error control mechanisms, at the very least, would very much run against the flow of blind Darwinian processes.
Why? Why couldn't DNA evolve error control mechanisms over billions of years? Because you don't want it to?
Seems to me a mechanism to make the genes encoded into DNA more stable and reproduceable would produce enormous benefits to an organisms ability to rapidly and accurately reproduce and thus would have enormous evolutionary pressure behind it.
We're C++ code
I find it interesting that god/evolution/the great green arkleseizure/FSM/whatever invented metadata LONG before we did. Not surprising, just interesting.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I have a lot of good code, ready for re-use!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Hidden message deciphered in nucleosomes: WE ARE SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.
FTFA: "I think it's really interesting," said Bradley Bernstein, a biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
If this guy is so pumped, shouldn't we all?
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
NYTimes is reporting a new discovery. However, because neither their journalists couldn't be bothered to understand or imaginatively report the discovery, they have instead decided to simplify it to the point that it appears to be exactly the same as something that biologists. It's hoped that in future, reporting will improve. This could revolutionise newspapers to the point where they are actually useful.
Phil
Evolution! Natural Selection! Darwin! Condoms! Abortion! Diplomacy! Secularism! Science! France! Hollywood! Palestine! Environmentalism! Global warming! Nudity!
Hahahahahahaha!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"God uses DRM, SO CAN YOU!"
-EL
When am I going to see my first wetware virus that uses an "escalation of privileges" type attack?
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
"...like the critical but still mysterious process by which each type of human cell is allowed to activate the genes it needs but cannot access the genes used by other types of cell."
Personally I think some of these genes are not declared as 'public', but rather 'protected' or 'internal'.
Privacy is terrorism.
Can you program your DNA with PHP?
Geneticists have already found a "second code" in DNA, called methylation. And that NYTimes article also reduces the basebair redundancy to "wiggle room".
The underlying research, published in Nature magazine, is extremely interesting and valuable, no doubt valid. The NYTimes coverage is oversimplified into wrongness out of reporter ignorance, and an insult to both readers and scientists.
--
make install -not war
New Code Discovered in DNA
b-e-s-u-r-e-t-o-d-r-i-n-k-y-o-u-r-o-v-a-l-t-i-n-e
wow we have discoved that genes use encapsulatio now.. OOPS is the way to go... no wonder it cant access private members of other classes erm.... genes..
...but is this anything like the Hot Coffee mod?
If you put the new code together correctly will it form the plans for a dimensional portal?
The placement of histones on DNA is something I learned about 10 years ago in my genetics textbooks. This is merely a slight addition to our current knowledge of which sequences histones are likely to bind.
Over ten years ago, the hot new field in biology was "gene expression". We already knew about DNA, but there was a lot of "junk DNA" that seemed weird, as well as lots of questions around when and how DNA was actually turned into working proteins.
It turns out there's some vastly complex actions around how genes are actually expressed. Methylization semi-permanently deactivates DNA. Other things control the unfolding of DNA so that they're accessible to be exposed. Much of the "junk dna" is probably not junk, but rather controls gene expression to some degree.
The bottom line is that DNA is only the bottom rung of how information is stored and manipulated in the nifty little computers that are our cells. This is also a great context to talk about evolution - no sane intelligent designer would make a cell this way. If you think about small changes over billions of years, though, you can see how the warping and twisting of DNA could produce interesting results that are passed down from generation to generation.
Science is rarely boring.
"The discovery, if confirmed, could open new insights into the higher order control of the genes."
Perhaps this may provide additional information as to the usefullness of the supposed "junk DNA" that fills the human g-nome.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
From TFA: A histone of peas and cows differs in just 2 of its 102 amino acid units.
Mmmm, a histone of peas... Seriously, let me be the first to say: I smell a Nobel prize for this one.
But, then we must of course examine our creator/creators.
The creator(s) are one of:
1) more complicated than us. So they even more likely created by another being than us. by the "intricate things have a creator" theory.
2) more complicated than us as a whole. The creator society as a whole created us.(**)
2) less complicated than us. Our creators used there intelligence, and directed evolution to create us. (***)
3) we are not allowed to think about this according to our religion, sorry.
(**) Similar to how a single person cannot build a jumbo jet, but thousands of people can.
(***) Note that we can create machines that can make calculations faster than any human. Note also that we can use software evolution to create efficient algorithms.
As if superimposing two codes into the same gene (the way the article describes) was not enough, DNA has extra surprises for us. There are genes that code one protein when read normally and another different protein when read backwards. And that's not all. Some genes code for a different second protein when read using different frames (starting points). And yet other genes code for another new protein when the complementary strand is read !
Our view on life mechanisms was so simplistic at the beginning of our scientific quest for origins. That's why we ended up accepting a theory that postulates mutations as the generator of genetic information ! Knowledge advances incrementally but our mind is so unprepaired and suspicious to the real answer: We've been created ! In an wonderful way...
If you assume error-correcting DNA allows more accurate and rapid reproduction because cell division can be faster and offspring are more likely to be viable (I think those are probably pretty safe assumptions - at least on the single-cell organism level), I'd venture to assert that even a small advantage in reproductive rates would utterly outweigh any lost advantages from any loss of potential genetic variability.
In other words, having the potential for large evolutionary leaps isn't much help in outcompeting a similar organism that can outbreed you.
Everybody knows there's a hidden code in our DNA... Leonardo DaVinci put it there!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I find it fascinating how cells are amazingly complex, and yet are able to reproduce of themselves. It is like there is a whole world found in a cell, and it is able to transfer all this needed information accurately to the next generation. I think we are just beginning to understand cells and there is a lot more complexity to be discovered.
This isn't a second code. The second code is the binding sites for proteins that activate and inhibit gene expression. Then there are a number of other codes already known that affect replication or expression in various ways.
This is way down on the list of discoveries of patterns in DNA, and it's really more a storage medium property than a code. This is more like sector markings on a hard drive platter than anything to do with data or filesystems. It's important, but because it will tell us where DNA is likely to get damaged, but these sequences are not functional components of the actual use of DNA.
Those cold, dead sequences of DNA that everyone has been sequencing are only the starting point, not the endgame that some were promising. Those dead letters do not exist like that in living cells. Everything is epigenetic. It is in the runtime. It exists in the living, breathing cells, and not in the literal dead sequences. These histone manifolds are just one piece of the puzzle along with chromatin remodeling and DNA methylation that have been discovered and yet-to-be discovered. Many systems control the runtime expression of genomes, build endogenous stem cell lines and sex cells, and control the growth from embryos to adults. The methylation mysteries started showing up in clones, when nothing in the raw DNA sequence could explain what was different in the cloned adults. Turns out the imprinting (which gene gets expressed - mom or dads? Or even both!) is not stored in the DNA, but in the DNA's methylation patterns. And this pattern can be inherited. Will turn out to be one of many mechanisms.
42
What we need to find are the comments!
// FIXME: should check for overflow here!
if (replication_count < MAX_REP_COUNT){
childcell = new Cell;
replication_count++;
}
The short answer is this: "selfish" DNA like transposons invade a genome, they replicate and produce many copies, some preferentially insert near genes. These transposons over time degenerate but their ability to create mutations, including using their own proteins to control expression of some genes leads to diversity = better ability to cope to environmental pressures. This leads to a better capacity for evolution than waiting for single base mutations from cosmic radiation and the like. When a transposon has gone from genomic invader to a productive member of the gene pool it is said to be domesticated. Over long periods of time (hundreds of millions of years) a lot of the copies of the transposons, which are not necessary, and therefore not selected for, are allowed to mutate, degenerate and appear to be "junk".
In response to a small percentage of posts, I can't help but make this comment: As usual, when there's a new scientific discovery that proves nature is more "complex" (a totally subjective word in and of itself) than we once thought, there's a surge of morons shoving the word "god" in where the words "I personally have no explanation" should be used instead.
Currently theta testing the prototype "Event Horizon" server-scaled desktop box with a 50 Gigameg of Ram.
FTA: "Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern."
Honestly, many of us biologists are kind of giggling at how the NYT (and I guess Slashdot) have been hoodwinked by hot headlines. We have known for decades that histones bind DNA and organize it (into nucleosomes), periodically, all along its length. Now, this group has identified some concensus sequences where the nucleosomes are most likely to form. Turns out, yeah, it's what we thought, with the little twist that precise positioning of nucleosomes could help regulate gene expression (also heavily predicted and fully expected). There are new articles about DNA organization weekly. I think the NYT just picked one and labeled it as a "code beyond genetics", which is absurd, since the organization of DNA is controlled ultimately by DNA sequences. Also, if you want to talk about codes beyond genetics, there is a whole field of study called "epigenetics", which is "the study of reversible heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA".
Personally, I find epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics more interesting than this article. It also explains the "mysterious process" of cell types.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Secretary: Mr. President, it's God on the red phone.
Bush: Make him hold.
*ten minutes later*
Bush: Yeah?
God: Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to call and ask if you could stop killing innocent people.
Bush: F&"! You!
God: C'mon, it's not nice to kill innocent people and provoke wars around the world. Could you at least back up a bit?
Bush: *hangs up the phone*
You don't mess with higher powers. Bush is above law, above God and you should not speak against him. (Or you end up in some distant resort and learn some new hobbies like waterboarding.)
The existence of nucleosomes is well known. It is not a secondary dna, simply a packing/folding mechanism for DNA, and it may have a role in regulating gene expression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosome
The paper itself is as bad as the press reporting it. Slashdot is hardly the avenue to discuss the fine points of a research, but here is something to chew on: note how the authors claim that they predict 54% of nuclesomes ... yet a little later note how by random chance this so called "prediction" would yield a 39% accuracy anyhow. I guess that 54% accuracy is a whole lot less impressive.
Behind the mumbo-jumbo, p-values, Komolgorov-Smirnoff tests, Boltman partition functions, etc all they do it match a set of 146 bp (start,end) intervals to another one. They are very-very skilled at hiding the simplicity of what they do behind a whole lot of fancy plots and words.
Nature should be ashamed of themselves ... the literature on this subject goes back many decades, besides doing more experimental work none of this is new, novel or even interesting. I also expect a significant backslash from people that are far more knowledgeble than I am in the matter.
The only way this code was hidden was that we didn't know about it before. It took a whole bunch of yeast work and number crunching to see it.
"There are about 30 million nucleosomes in each human cell. So many are needed because the DNA strand wraps around each one only 1.65 times, in a twist containing 147 of its units,..."
.....1.618 The Divine Proportion....damnit i was soooo close to finding the meaning of life this time!
1.65 hmmmmm thats awfully close to
SMD
over and out
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature04979.html
The argument those of us are making is more complex than "we don't understand it, therefore God."
The arguments are closer to "the more you understand, the better our case is."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'm just not going to expect a net increase in information based on new cards appearing.
Repeat after me until it sinks in:
"The Earth is not a closed system."
I wasn't referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I was referring to information.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Some jokes just write themselves.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
With much fear, surprise, and surprise for some of the scientists, they began to read the new code... it began:
......
#!/usr/bin/perl -ane
One scientist looked at the other, and said "This explains everything!"
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Darwin's Radio? (Greg Bear)
Changing too rapidly, or too randomly, is as dangerous to an organism as not adapting fast enough
As in cases of cancer, mutation, and other such things. We want our bodies to adapt, but not necessarily mutate (and I don't mean in the X-men way)
Sounds like a legitimate point, not a troll.
I mean, honestly. The creationist tactic of taking plausible-sounding premises and coming up with utter bullshit conclusions is frustrating, amusing, and finally just boring. You've said nothing of actual useful interest here, and it's a good solid bet that 90% of the premises you've put forward are complete garbage anyway. You numbskulls do not now and never will understand what science is actually about. Real knowledge is real power. Fake knowledge will give you the illusion of power, and the moment the sand shifts under your feet you will have nothing except a bunch of people laughing at what jackasses you are.
My book, podcast
That's a little unfair considering the posts came in within one minute of each other.
If you want to argue properly against the existence of God, you'll need to at least do a little reasoning.
as well as lots of questions around when and how DNA was actually turned into working proteins.
DNA is transcribed into mRNA which is then translated by ribosomes in the cytoplasm. DNA is not "turned into" proteins.
Methylization semi-permanently deactivates DNA
Methylation is just one aspect of chromatin structure. It's not semi-permanent, it's dynamic.
The bottom line is that DNA is only the bottom rung of how information is stored and manipulated in the nifty little computers that are our cells.
DNA is the fundamental unit of information, which is the source of all gene regulation. If the DNA wasn't what it was, nothing would work in the cell. Afterall, "junk DNA" as you call it is not junk and is responsible for gene silencing (microRNA) other forms of gene regulation.
This is also a great context to talk about evolution - no sane intelligent designer would make a cell this way. If you think about small changes over billions of years, though, you can see how the warping and twisting of DNA could produce interesting results that are passed down from generation to generation.
To claim that you are smarter than the creator of the universe is pure hubris. Who are you, o little man? You are but a speck in the ocean of the universe.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
This is called the argument from personal incredulity, and is a favourite of the IDers. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/art icle.html for an excellent example of how this argument fails spectacularly with the nature-evolved wheel, the eubacterial flagellum.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Without being able to view your premises I can only guess at what they are, but I assume they include ideas like "irreducible complexity" which has been violently debunked a number of times now.
Also there's the simple matter of a testable hypothesis, which by the very definition that is given is impossible. In the meantime, real scientific knowledge advances despite all Creationist efforts to prevent it. I find it variously hilarious and very irritating (as I've posted before) that Creationists try to glom onto every new scientific fact before it can get out into the world and cast it as some sort of religious revalation. The problem is, and has been, that if you come up with bogus conclusions and are later trumped by reality, you end up looking just plain stupid.
But that's a choice you make for yourself. Filling in the gaps with God has been the tactic for centuries and we can always look back into the past and see that in those gaps were always more revealing and far more compelling real-world explanations than the unimaginative God-obsessed dullards could ever come up with. Fake knowledge is fake power. Real understanding leads to real illumination. I always prefer the real thing.
My book, podcast
I suppose by "semi-permanent", I meant that methylization was a fairly sturdy structure compared to other methods of blocking transcription. This is in comparison to RNAi, which is fairly temporary.
:)
DNA is the fundamental unit of information
I suppose we could go over semantics forever. Lots of stuff carries information. I'd argue that everything carries information in some form or another. Prions, viruses, and raw RNA seem to do just fine without any DNA. What I was trying to get across is that there were lots of biological mechanisms that carried and processed information, not just DNA.
To claim that you are smarter than the creator of the universe is pure hubris.
Guilty as charged.
I am tempted to summon Occam's Razor in this case. It's sort of like the "Little Man in the Coke Machine" argument. Sure, the Coke cans might be dropped down by a little man inside the vending machine when I put in my money. The simpler mechanical answer is more likely, though.
In this case, I'd argue that a super-intelligent being might take pity on me and make DNA that didn't fall apart and get cancer, make my knees non-screwed up, and my sinuses drain outside my body instead of down my throat.
Who knows? Maybe the universe was created by a Book of Job God who likes to punish us to teach us to be good. I never did understand the part about Job being okay with getting a new wife after God killed off his old one, but maybe Job was a swinger or something.
Sorry for wandering off topic. I blame the coffee.
I find this akin to a computer trying to reverse engineer itself. For instance: I am a software program (mind) that is running on organic hardware (body). Whatever designed me probably coded me in Jah++, I can compile Jah++ natively, but I don't really know what any of it means - because I only understand binary. Is it even possible to understand how we are coded? I mean we can see that there is input and it is n characters long, and it affects the eyeballs. But can we really fully understand why? Why were we coded this way in the first place, and how are we able to understand what little bit we can? Finding comments and metadata etc. in our DNA should come as no surprise to anyone here. We have crudely reproduced the most basic inner workings of animal deduction in modern PCs. We didn't invent the PC, we observed and deduced things that occur naturally. PCs are built the same way we are, foreground processes (listening, watching, reading, consciousness) running on top of background processes (breathing, blood circulation, subconsciousness) inside of a case that cools and provides structure. There are input and output devices, microphone, camera, scanner, printer, speaker, etc. We are the creator's computers. We are a part of a grand design for a self contained network of evolving machinery. As far as our computers go, we are building the dinosaurs and hard shelled organisms, slowly we will evolve into making organic computers that are made out of the same stuff we are and can reason - way beyond AI, I am talking about proper intelligence being built into an organism. Arms being recreated, lungs being grown for implants, brains being repaired after car accidents. It is not a far fetched sci-fi scenario. We are able to interface brain to computer right now. Give us time and we will have a Data, we will not know the difference between man and machine. Just my observations. I could be wrong.
-Scottux
the mod who gave me 0, troll must be a hyper-reactionary religious nutcase, or must be an employee or benefactor of the pharma/biomeds, or both... or something else...
Any astute person would realize a wee bit of irony and sarcasm (and poor wit, too) in my previous post: IF "god" didn't want humans to access the DNA, then "god" would have used his/her/its hand to keep humans out.
Now, I'll chance the bush-clan reaction:
IF "god" is allowing scientists to access the "wrapper" or second DNA layer just (supposedly just) discovered, then the administration has no fucking business calling the shots. Fortunately, OTHER countries are seeing fit to exploit this information. I just hope the exploitation is for the GOOD injured/defect-affected and not JUST the PROFIT of some businesses.
Shee, some people need to get some sex (or, to borrow a phrase from the auto-checkout thread... some "electron-auto-erotic strangulation stimulation) and lay off the 0, troll mod power...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
For God to "play by the universes" rules means that God isn't what he says he is.* The thing about evolution and chance, is that there isn't as much failures as you'd expect given the time scope.
*Side note. If there's no God, doesn't that mean there's no Devil too? I don't see too many fights breaking out over that aspect of the issue.
Message finally revealed to be: "All your bases are belong to us..."
any biologists have any recommended reading / courses for this kind of stuff ... ie what's the best starting point etc
I've been reading a lot of Richard Dawkins - find it interesting - gave up biology at GCSE level (exam in UK we take at 16yo) - but could do some OU (www.open.ac.uk) courses etc.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that closed systems move towards greater states of entropy, i.e. disorder. The appearance of more order in an isolated area of a closed system (i.e. more information) is not problematic so long as the sum entropy of the whole system is not reduced.
The point is that the 2nd law is about information.
"Stumble before you crawl"
from the mod: I didn't mod you down for your point (which, reading between the lines, was somewhat insightful), I modded you down because fully half the post was trite, off-topic, and deliberately inflammatory: "the kind that certain people prefer to kill in the name of", "Some god...Maybe 'god' needs an upgrade or two?"
With loose hanging comments like: "I think it's really interesting," said Bradley Bernstein, a biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. and a link to the hospital web site, I think this article was for publicity purposes and nothing else. It really says nothing new, nothing that matters and nothing for nerds. Who let this one through the editorial process?
So it's like Object Oriented Genetics?
While I'm on the subject, there is no such thing as a red blood cell or white blood cells. These objects are corpuscles, or bodies, not cells because they have no genetic material.
Now, what kind of a Nazi am I?
You're not allowed to bring up Goodwin's Law. :)
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Making a point that isnt understood by all will only get you in trouble faster.
Although i had a good laugh at that one. Good job from me^_^
When I read articles about biology, especially molecular biology/genetics, I see lots of interesting "facts" about the field given by various members of the slashdot crowd. I'm not a leader in the field, but I feel knowledgeable enough working in the field to know just how wrong these "facts" are, yet get modded insightful.
What scares me are all the articles about topics that I'm not an expert in, where I can't judge the veracity of comments. I've realized that if you guys are so terribly wrong here, that you're probably not believeable anywhere else, either.
Not that this news to anyone. It just depresses me everytime I see this type of story come up.
*sigh*
Yeah, it's a valid point, but it's also against Bush and therefore violates Patriotic Act, I love USA Act, We Praise George W Bush Act and All Your Base Are Belong to US Act.
Isn't that similar to the ID argument? How the hell can we use science to deduce if a external being has changed the laws of our universe and is able to manipulate time at will? I was just pointing out that it doesn't matter if we could scientifically deduce how rainbows could have been created by god, because we first have to make a faith-based assumption that god did create rainbows.
Wheels within wheels, code within code. How much more intricate can it get?
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I actually did a short research rotation in Jon Widom's lab at the beginning of grad school, 3 years ago. If anyone has any more specific questions regarding the implications of this work, let me know and I'll post something useful.
I'm not a biologist, and as much as I'm interested in this kind of thing I don't have the time, inclination or background to keep up with such old, old stories.
./ may have been hoodwinked by it, but I don't really mind - one of the great things about /. is that when you get an article like this, folks who actually *do* know what they're talking about will chime in with links to better info, better commentary, explanations of their own... which means that I get to vaguely edumacate myself over lunch.
Sure, it's a hot headline &
It's not like it's another "Google releases x beta" story - it's a starting point for discussion. Just my £0.018
The paraphrase sounds like it could be describing a C++ class with protected members and friend classes.
Where's the 0xBEEF
I am a Molecular Biology major. Biologists have known about histones (that's what they are called) for years now. I don't see how the NYtimes can play this up as something new.
I am DEFINITELY on the wrong planet...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
thank you for reading my useless post.
thank you for pointing out "their". please inform the editors.
Did anyone else think this was a perfect summary of TFA?
Don't believe the nonsense, unless you hear it from me directly.
Sounds like data security and C++ encapsulation
To add to what you said, I read an article in Scientific American a few years ago (The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms, John S. Mattick, Scientific American, October 2004, p62).
It seems that the "junk DNA" may actually code for RNA molecules that perform a bunch of regulatory functions. Removing some of this "junk DNA" seems to have ill effects on some organisms.
There's also more here.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
My first thought was "oh my $DEITY, they *ACTUALLY* found it". But thun again, of course I've been reading too much sci-fi. It's just that this one story ....... well, here it is:
t ml
"We'll Return, After This Message" by John Walker, December 1st, 1989
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/gpic.h
"Good news, everyone!"
Whilst (mature) red blood corpuscles don't have nuclei, I was under the impression that white blood cells are genuine cells, and do have nucleii.
Looks like all that time they took to map the human genome could be a waste of time. They may have to do it all over again.
Nature wouldn't evolve as system as wasterful as 2-3% useful DNA (0.1% in some amoebas). The other stuff is doing something, either rarely used or relatively transient.
Also Wik.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
No. It is about entropy, not information. They are different categories.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Let me correct your correction then. Once the sperm enters the Oocyte it is then considered a cell. It's after this point that the mitochondria introduced by the sperm is destroyed. Clearly it wouldn't have happened before because the mitochondria wasn't in the Oocyte. The embryo is the egg cell I speak off, not the precursory elements of it.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Except that the amino acid code existed in Bacteria long before the Eukarya and Archaea, and Bacteria don't have histones, the core feature of nucleosomes. There may be another code that explains the redudancy, but it's probably not a nucleosome code.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show