Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Discover How DNA Is Folded Within the Nucleus

Posted by timothy on from the very-small-laundries dept.

mikael writes "Sciencedaily.com is reporting that scientists have discovered how DNA is folded within the nucleus of a cell such that active genes remain accessible without becoming tangled. The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded."

12 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Fascinating by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could all the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function? It wouldn't actively code for any proteins but the coding structure itself might allow it to make these shapes and/or allow the globule to move without causing knots in the structure.

    1. Re:Fascinating by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is possible, non-coding DNA is already known to be a source of raw material for the evolution of functional genes and contains some gene regulatory regions. The concept that it retains other functions outside of direct coding of proteins isn't a new one. Also, few in the biological scientific community really calls "junk DNA" junk DNA any more because of the inaccuracy of doing so.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're acting as if we are really super sure about how they work and what purpose they serve. We have a very good idea of what is likely, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it sound.

    3. Re:Fascinating by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for? Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless,

      You have no idea "What /THE FUCK/" you're talking about. Please stop spreading misinformation that even in the 70's, when the term "junk DNA" was coined, people had a vague idea probably wasn't right, and which we've known with certainty for 20+ years isn't true.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Fascinating by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since /. requires a car analogy in every discussion, here is one:

      Engine, transmission and wheels are sufficient to move the car. However not many of us would buy a car that consists only of those three parts.

  2. Re:tell me something a child couldn't figure out by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wasn't trying to be flip, I was trying to be sarcastically funny. This wasn't obvious to me at all, and sounded kind of complicated (but then again I'm not a biologist/geneticist/whatever).

  3. Re:Obligatory by wexsessa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "All your base-pair are belong to us" True in some cases, unfortunately, thanks to the USPTO allowing patents on naturally-occurring structures.

  4. Re:tell me something a child couldn't figure out by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nah, I don't think so. It fits in with the sarcastic thing.

  5. Anyone else wish they could read the publication? by virtualXTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else wish they could read the actual publication? It's sad considering this is partly taxpayer funded and given the NIH's and Harvard's push toward open access that the authors didn't choose a more accessible journal for such a groundbreaking piece of work.

  6. Re:Hilbert Curve by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's very hard not to anthropomorphize natural selection. Even Richard Dawkins, who is about the last person in the world who would attribute evolution to some sort of intelligence, has pointed out many times how phenomenally hard it is to talk about the subject without constantly imputing goals and desires to the process.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  7. Re:An obvious question arises... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's all fractal. All the turtles. All the way down.

    So look at the large scale, and it is clearly evident that the DNA folding is simply a self-similar scaling of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    --
    Will
  8. Re:Unfortunately by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To which premise do you refer? That it is carried out by the passing of genetic information to offspring, or that it is driven by competitively succesful adaption? I'm not sure of any other premises, and while the first seems undeniable (the 'how') the second is more questionable (the 'why'). I'm a bit hesitant that we even have the first clue why, and are barking up the wrong tree entirely. The sheer marvel and scale of the extrodinarily diverse forms that life takes needs a damn good 'why', 'natural selection' just passes the buck to the invisible hand of mother nature. It's not a petty question as to why evolution happens, indeed most of the answers explored so far have given us great insight into all life on Earth. So without invoking omnipotent beings (which evolution doesn't even speak of anyway) or pointlessly bickering could I politely enquire what premise troubles you?