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.'"

Comments

An important reminder

[QuantumFTL]

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.

Evolution proves totally brilliant once again

[realisticradical]

I'm always thuroughly impressed by the ability of cells to use lots of simple mechanisims to achieve complex results.

It's not like nucleosomes are anything new though, the real discovery here is that the scientists found a pattern to their binding.

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.

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".

Re:Random error produces error control mechanism?

[plalonde2]

Pardon? Your statement is nothing but a bald assertion. Error control mechanisms run in no way against the evolutionary grain. It's easy to imagine that an organism with a little error correction will be more fit in its niches than an organism without. Changing too rapidly, or too randomly, is as dangerous to an organism as not adapting fast enough.

Metadata

[Aladrin]

I find it interesting that god/evolution/the great green arkleseizure/FSM/whatever invented metadata LONG before we did. Not surprising, just interesting.

Re:First DNA virus hackers?

[plalonde2]

Think of cancer as a fandango on core followed by a DOS/fork bomb.

Re:New Discovery

[dan dan the dna man]

I'm not entirely sure this is a problem. We have a heirachy of media that cascades, simplifying down at each stage. In this case we normally have something like Nature article (for the practicing biologist) -> Nature News and Views (for the lazy people who read Nature but can't be arsed to read the article) -> New Scientist article/comment (for the interested layman) -> traditional news media (the proletariat). At each stage something is lost. I don't expect the public to care about a prediction method for the sequences involved in higher ordering of chromatin structure, but the fact they might find out that DNA does more than just 'make genes' I think is a relevant point.

The headline however, is unnecessarily sensationalist..

Re:Random error produces error control mechanism?

[syntaxglitch]

Error control mechanisms, at the very least, would very much run against the flow of blind Darwinian processes.

No, error correction would counter the mutation process. Given that, generally, more mutations are harmful than beneficial, error-correcting genetics would be a short-term benefit in reducing genetic disorders. The downside would come if another species with a higher mutation rate evolves into a more successful form and crowds out the now-obsolete organism with rigid genetics. The overall winners would likely be organisms within some range of error-correction--neither a total free-for-all, nor a very rigid genome. This seems pretty well reflected in real life, unsurprisingly.

Yes, this discovery does not hurt the ID movement at all.

This is also true; no scientific discovery will hurt the ID movement, since it has precisely nothing to do with science...

God-in-the-Gaps

[ACQ]

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.