Slashdot Mirror


RNA Interference Leads To Nobel Prize

gollum123 writes "The Nobel Prize for medicine has been awarded to two US scientists who discovered a phenomenon called RNA interference, which regulates the expression of genes. From the article: 'The breakthrough has also given scientists the ability to systematically test the functions of all human genes. [...] The Nobel citation, issued by Sweden's Karolinska Institute, said: "This year's Nobel Laureates have discovered a fundamental mechanism for controlling the flow of genetic information."'"

6 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Paper tape by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Displaying a comment on a weblog in a browser in a windowing user environment on an OS running on a slew of hardware components each handling its own logic and interfacing with each other is also a very complex task. Yet it is still reduceable to instructions on a paper tape.

  2. Unexpected discovery by DebateG · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The discovery of RNAi is one of science's best stories.

    In the 1980's, Dr. Rich Jorgensen was a botanist interesting in making prettier petunias. He identified chalcone synthase, an enzyme needed to manufacture the purple pigment in the flowers. He reasoned that the more chalcone synthase there was, the purpler the flowers would become.

    Normally, the cell DNA for an enzyme is copied into RNA, which is made into protein. It seemed logical that increasing the RNA would lead to more protein.

    In fact, the statement
    DNA -> RNA -> Protein
    is often called the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.

    Because single stranded RNA was so hard to synthesize, Jorgensen injected massive amounts of double stranded RNA for chalcone synthase into the petunias. Much to his surprise, the petunias didn't become more purple: they became white. Somehow, increasing the enzyme RNA number actually suppressed the protein.

    This Nobel Prize is well-deserved. By elucidating the mechanism of this paradoxical response, they challenged the Central Dogma. Moreover, by allowing scientists to "knock-down" genes, RNAi can be used to study the loss a single gene quickly and cheaply. It is very difficult to find a published biology paper today that doesn't use this technique.

    1. Re:Unexpected discovery by Hrshgn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to agree completely. RNAi is an amazing tool. We are using it every day in our lab. Before you had to generate knock-out animals to suppress the action of a gene. A very expensive and slow method.
      Now you can just add either RNAi directly to cells (a bit expensive), transfect cells with DNA which expresses RNAi (cheap) or even integrate a gene expressing RNAi into the genome of cells (laborious but very handy).

      Hrshgn

  3. my impression of Mello and Fire by myc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IAACES (I am a C. elegans scientist) and have had the opportunity to interact with both Craig Mello and Andy Fire (albeit briefly) during and after seminars. An interesting study in contrast.

    Craig looks more like a rock star than a Nobel Prize winning scientist in person; he's got the faded blue jeans/shirt hanging out look down pat. He's also ~6'5 and has great hair. Looks aside, Craig is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. Some of the science he has done is simply mind-blowing (not necesarily the RNAi stuff). Back in the late 90's when Craig was just beginning to work on RNAi I remember going to a seminar of his and thinking "wow, this stuff will win the Nobel Prize one day."

    Andy on the other hand looks exactly like the egghead stereotype of an absent-minded professor. Balding, wears thick round glasses, sweater and khakis. While not as physically imposing as Craig, Andy has this incredibly modest demeanor that really demonstrates what it means to be a *top notch* academic. No pretenciousness at all. As a "worm person", I will be eternally grateful for Andy for providing a vector kit for the C. elegans research community essentially free of charge. Even without the RNAi and other research accomplishments the worm community has much to thank Andy for.

    --
    NO CARRIER
  4. Re:oh-oh... genetics by ccmay · · Score: 2, Interesting
    for all you Americans read that as "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala genetics lalalalalalalalalalalalaa"

    Sometimes I wonder if Eurotrash sneering at the supposed lack of scientific sophistication here is related to insecurity over the "brain drain" from Europe to America that has helped give us more Nobel prizes than any other nation by far.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  5. Nature article by nucal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right here . Although I must beg to differ, with you - the mechanism wasn't obvious to anyone until this study. For what it's worth, it was in the "Letters" section of nature - it wasn't even a full article:

    Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans

    ANDREW FIRE, SIQUN XU, MARY K. MONTGOMERY, STEVEN A. KOSTAS, SAMUEL E. DRIVER & CRAIG C. MELLO

    Experimental introduction of RNA into cells can be used in certain biological systems to interfere with the function of an endogenous gene,. Such effects have been proposed to result from a simple antisense mechanism that depends on hybridization between the injected RNA and endogenous messenger RNA transcripts. RNA interference has been used in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to manipulate gene expression,. Here we investigate the requirements for structure and delivery of the interfering RNA. To our surprise, we found that double-stranded RNA was substantially more effective at producing interference than was either strand individually. After injection into adult animals, purified single strands had at most a modest effect, whereas double-stranded mixtures caused potent and specific interference. The effects of this interference were evident in both the injected animals and their progeny. Only a few molecules of injected double-stranded RNA were required per affected cell, arguing against stochiometric interference with endogenous mRNA and suggesting that there could be a catalytic or amplification component in the interference process.