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."'"
I'm not sure about a cross, but it sure does look like a Maxipad with wings. I think the "God's a woman" crowd may have something, there.
Here's the schedule for future announcements: http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/
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."
I'm pretty sure condoms have been around for a while.
2^4 * 3 * 20929
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.
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.
DNA doesn't tell you the whole story. A developing zygote doesn't respond only to its own genetic makeup, but also to prepackaged mRNA signals from the parents, whose DNA differs from that of the zygote. The zygote's environment and packaging determines its phenotype as much as its own DNA does in the early stages of development. Viruses that convert RNA to DNA show that the messaging isn't one-way and that DNA can be reprogrammed on the fly. It is this adaptability that makes living things so adaptable and diverse. If DNA was merely a static instruction set, the diversity and complexity of life we see today wouldn't be possible.
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
Ever since the 1920's, scientists knew that DNA was the inheritable component that held the genes. They also knew that protein was the actual workhorse, the microscopic machines that accomplished cellular processes. Eventually, they elucidated that DNA copies itself into RNA, which is then converted into protein. Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, and proposed the mechanism for conversion of DNA to RNA.
Since Watson and Crick's time, we have been using the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology:
DNA -> RNA -> protein
Increase the amount of DNA? That means more protein. Increase the amount of RNA? That means more protein.
The big question in biology is now: given that there is usually just one gene for each protein, why do you have drastically different amounts of protein?
What these guys show is that the Dogma really isn't entirely true. Sometimes you can add certain RNAs and make *less* protein. Moreover, they showed that this mechanism was conserved in organisms ranging from yeast to microscopic worms, to humans. In other words, small RNA molecules not only directed the synthesis of protein, they actually could be used to suppress it. An entirely new level of cellular regulation was elucidated.
But to be quite honest, that wasn't the reason they won the Nobel Prize. It is for the experimental implications. Back before RNAi, if I were studying My Favorite Gene, the classical way to do it would be either to find a small molecule inhibitor (very difficult and expensive to find one) or to genetically modify cells to stop making it (also very time consuming and difficult). Now, with RNAi, I have a third, very fast method. Simply construct RNAi using a pretty standardized cookbook, order it online for around $100, and stick it in the cells. See what happens. Experiments that used to take months to years and cost thousands of dollars could now be done in a few days for a few hundred dollars.
I'll put it in terms you guys can probably understand. Research without RNAi is like debugging without a debugger. Yeah, you can do it, but it's often time-consuming and confusing.
It seems that DNA is the 'paper tape' component of the genetic Turing machine. mRNA seems to be the data bus and RNA interference is the ALU.
In the "Genetic Turing Machine" the 'tape' is comprised of DNA, RNA (in various forms), and proteins; the 'head' is mostly protein and RNA; and the FSM involves DNA, RNA, and protein. Oh, with some other crap, like metals, sprinkled throughout. Information is encoded in DNA and various other epigenetic systems (about which we know very little at this point). Reading and writing from/to this 'tape' is accomplished with mechanisms built from proteins and RNA, proteins whose production is regulated by other proteins and various forms of RNA.
There is no similarity in the fundamental workings of biological systems and computers, except perhaps (depending how you feel about the Church-Turing thesis) their computability power.
Computer metaphors are generally useless, whether you are trying to explain computers using cars, or humans using computers.
Oh, but reducing our bodies to algorithms is simple - all you have to do is model the physicals properties of all the atoms that comprise the body. It's simply a matter of processing power.
sic transit gloria mundi