Slashdot Mirror


Yale Researchers Find New RNA Structures

Science Daily is reporting that researchers from Yale have discovered "very large RNA structures within previously unstudied bacteria that appear crucial to basic biological functions such as helping viruses infect cells or allowing genes to 'jump' to different parts of the chromosome." Ronald Breaker, professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Yale, stated that this would be equivalent to protein scientists finding a whole new class of enzymes. "The Breaker laboratory has used the explosion of DNA sequence information and new computer programs to discover six of the top twelve largest bacterial RNAs just in the last several years. One of the newly discovered RNAs, called GOLLD, is the third largest and most complex RNA discovered to date, and appears to be used by viruses that infect bacteria. Another large RNA revealed in the study, called HEARO, has a genetic structure that suggests it is part of a type of 'jumping gene' that can move to new locations in the bacterial chromosome."

90 comments

  1. RNA world by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This gives a bit of extra credence to the RNA world theory - ie that RNA was the precursor to DNA and very early life forms relied on it exclusively (yeah ok , some viruses still do but they're not technically alive) - if RNA can be used to do this as well as protein creation etc.

    1. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If viruses are technically not alive, then what made the RNA world 'creatures' technically alive?
      My vote is that life is not white and black like most things out here.
      Viruses are closer to life than... most of the rocks we know.

    2. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem with such strict almost arbitrary definitions of "alive" is what leads people to conclude that viruses are not alive. I find this absurd on many levels because we have time and time again been shown that the universe doesn't fit in nice little compartments we like to put things in.

    3. Re:RNA world by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not necessarily - although I personally think that RNA was the earliest nucleic acid. This could have been a later evolutionary step or side step. It's a big world out there and we don't know jack... TFA (as weak as it is) doesn't tell us much. It could be an oddball messenger RNA or part of a ribonucleoprotein (like a ribosome).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with such strict almost arbitrary definitions of "alive" is what leads people to conclude that viruses are not alive. I find this absurd on many levels because we have time and time again been shown that the universe doesn't fit in nice little compartments we like to put things in.

      They're not "lawmakers" they're legislators. They're not "viruses that infect bacteria" they're bacteriophages. Can the press stop dumbing down the language please? Oh Noes, heaven forbid it, someone might have to grab a dictionary once in a while! Quick, avoid this at all costs!! Dumb down everything!

    5. Re:RNA world by Gerafix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with your thinking is that most people would rather pick up Us Weekly than a dictionary. You really can't expect the masses to learn any scientific terms or concepts, especially when it's two whoppers for five bucks down at Burger King.

    6. Re:RNA world by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Metabolism. RNA vs. DNA isn't the distinguishing factor.

      I do agree though that there is a gray area between alive and not alive.

    7. Re:RNA world by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is in the definition. In biology, there are plenty of concepts that are not binary (speciation is another tricky one). It's better to define life as a sliding scale than as a line in the sand. But this is nothing new. Since the discovery of symbiosis, and in particular parasitism, where we have organisms that may not have all the features of a fully independent living organism, it's been clear that you cannot define life in binary terms.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:RNA world by fifedrum · · Score: 3, Funny

      two whoppers for five bucks! AWESOME!

    9. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your thinking is that most people would rather pick up Us Weekly than a dictionary. You really can't expect the masses to learn any scientific terms or concepts, especially when it's two whoppers for five bucks down at Burger King.

      I like the way a certain radio talk show host says "dumb masses" and he says it in such a way that the two words kinda run together.

    10. Re:RNA world by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "This gives a bit of extra.. "

      what exactly in the article do you mean by "this"?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the press stop dumbing down the language please?

      That's not dumbing down the language. No information is being lost. The only real issue is that you like feeling superior to other people.

    12. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your thinking is that you're following the 'everyone is sheeple 'cept me' line of reasoning to extrapolate the generalised base actions of others, and then using this as a basis to appear superior, perfectly in line with the known proclivities of your peer group ( /. )

      There is no difference, you're doing what everyone else does. Everyone is easily categorised and diminished, the things which you think make you special are just that, things you think make you special.

      Judging others by your specialities is foolish, you presumably have an interest in science. What do you know of Art ? Of ultra distance running ? Of the many beautiful languages and places and women of the world ? Of keeping your nerve suspended by your fingertips from a fall which means certain death ? Of ...

      The burger eating masses contain people who are better than you at everything you're personally proud of, maybe that's why you hate them so ?

    13. Re:RNA world by Gerafix · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is absolutely generalized but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Us Weekly has a much larger readership than that of Nature, for example. One simply has to look at the popularity of certain mythologies in the modern world to ascertain that science or the scientific method is not a significant part of many peoples lives (even if their daily life depends on science). This is of course blatantly obvious.

      Perhaps picking on the burgers was unnecessary but the whole industry does survive on the rather insidious instant gratification by consumption of fatty salty food that exists solely by peoples carelessness or ignorance of what it does to their bodies. Well, that and it's cheap in the short run.

      Not to mention that basic biology is hardly a specialty, anybody with a half-assed high school education should be able to at least follow most of what is on Slashdot. Well... unless you've had an American education ba-dum-dum-ch. How's that for generalization!

    14. Re:RNA world by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      our very distant ancestors were also, at some point, "not technically alive". What would prevent them from relying on the same tricks ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    15. Re:RNA world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Du-mosses!

      (Yes, I know that should actually be singular. Also, was the first way I thought of to display it phonetically.)

    16. Re:RNA world by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Exactly why I advocate adopting a monetary system in base 7.

    17. Re:RNA world by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I doubt they required a more complicated biological system to reproduce like viruses do otherwise life would be stuck in a catch 22 dead end.

    18. Re:RNA world by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Viruses require more complicated biological systems to reproduce themselves. This is hardly going to be how the earliest RNA life reproduced if it was the most complex life around at the time.

    19. Re:RNA world by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Point :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    20. Re:RNA world by markian · · Score: 1

      If viruses are technically not alive, then what made the RNA world 'creatures' technically alive?

      well, they're not technically dead either...

    21. Re:RNA world by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Exactly why I advocate adopting a monetary system in base 7.

      That would be for use on Mondays, Wednesdays and alternating Fridays? Decimal for Tuesdays, Thursdays and the other Fridays. And for the nostalgic amongst us, bring back duodecimal on weekends.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Curious choice of analogies by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ronald Breaker, professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Yale stated that this would be equivalent to protein scientists finding a whole new class of enzymes.

    Thanks. That enzyme analogy is really helpful to people in the bio research field.

    But this is slashdot. We expect more from our analogists. Specifically, we expect a car analogy (no, a pizza analogy does not suffice).

    Perhaps discovering this new class of RNA structures is like discovering a new type of fuel injection system, so we better optimize fuel-air mixture for power and efficiency. Perhaps it's like discovering a new type of rubber for our tires, for better traction and wear. Perhaps it's like discovering a new type of battery so we can all get cheap, quickly charging, long-range electrical cars.

    But most likely it's not like any of those things, and we'll never really understand the implications of this discovery, because the people who really understand it didn't bother to give us the necessary car analogy.

    Bastards.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its like this. There are trucks, and there are station wagons. Then all of a sudden you discover a new type of vehicle called an SUV that is a station wagon, but it looks like truck.

    2. Re:Curious choice of analogies by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here, let me help. This brief blurb discusses Dr. Breaker's research history a bit better and shows where this current research stems from. He is a proponent of the "RNA World" hypothesis and actually has done some seminal research in the field.

      Back to the car.... Hmmm.... OK - the RNA World hypothesis states that the first nucleic acid (the chemical responsible to for transmitting genetic information) was RNA. Breaker's hypothesis is that if that is the case, one should find RNA-based control structures somewhere since they are ancestral and nature loves to preserve ancestral things (don't recreate the wheel very often and if you do, keep a copy of the old wheel stashed somewhere).

      He did find evidence of this in the coenzyme that helps vitamin B12 activity (see the previous link). So, perhaps these new RNA molecules have some sort of control function.

      So, it's like finding a whole class of levers and rods that allow your car to do things when you were expecting that buttons and switches did all of the work.

      Does that help?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It's like researchers discovered a gun powder fired internal combustion engine. We've long suspected that such a thing is theoretically possible, some people even speculate that the first ICE's invented were gun powder fired, but no one has ever seen one working in real life. Furthermore, it's massively innefficient by todays standards so what uses it may have are hard to see.

    4. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's like discovering a new type of Pepperon-

      Oh.

    5. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the equivalent of going to another country and realize everyone there have a joystick instead of a steering wheel

    6. Re:Curious choice of analogies by zx75 · · Score: 1

      It's like finding a whole new wing of the Library of Congress.

      Happy?

      --
      This is not a sig.
    7. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Then all of a sudden you discover a new type of vehicle called an SUV that is a station wagon, but it looks like truck.

      Just like a big series of internets.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    8. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first thing that people have to overcome when studying evolution is the notion that evolution somehow works towards some sort of perfection. Evolution just as often, or more often, creates "good enough" solutions, and is often highly conservative once such solutions are found. While RNA is a far less efficient and even stable molecule than DNA, that says nothing as to its potential aka the RNA world hypothesis. RNA might not be the best moleculr out there (heck, DNA probably isn't either), but at some stage, it was good enough.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Curious choice of analogies by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      So, it's like finding a whole class of levers and rods that allow your car to do things when you were expecting that buttons and switches did all of the work.

      So what you're really saying is it's like finding out that the latest MP3-playing, 8-speaker stereo-containing car has an 8-track hidden under the spare tire.

      ...yay?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:Curious choice of analogies by noidentity · · Score: 1

      These car analogies break down because they describe new design ideas. The summary makes it sound more like a mechanic opening the hood to do an oil change and seeing a new kind of engine that's not described anywhere, that apparently lots of people have had in their cars for thousands of years.

    11. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that really gets me is this: the whole point of an analogy is to rephrase an idea in a way that makes it more accessible to the reader. These guys at Yale make what is, apparently, an interesting discovery. Their discovery is like "protein scientists finding a whole new class of enzymes." Unfortunately, not being a protein scientist, I don't really know what that means. The analogy hasn't helped me, at all.

    12. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. Evolution doesn't create solutions to anything. Evolution just describes what happens--it isn't an animated event for God's sake.

    13. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Would using the term "evolutionary process" make you feel better? As it is, biologists quite often refer to "evolution" as an active process. I don't see the point to your semantic argument here, other than that you have nothing particularly useful to say, but still want to appear as if your smart.

      Grammar/semantic flames, like spelling flames, are for low-grade intellects with too much time on their hands. Go masturbate or play WoW with a pencil up your ass. It'll be better for everyone.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Curious choice of analogies by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Guys ... Although it may seem contrary to folks who grew up in the US, automobiles do not encompass the entirety of human thought and accomplishment. Thus, not everything fits comfortably within the narrow confines of a car analogy. It's like some things are cars and then there is pizza.

      Got it?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, that was basically the point of my post... glad it sunk in.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:Curious choice of analogies by daveime · · Score: 1

      Pizza, isn't that simply "food delivered by car" ?

    17. Re:Curious choice of analogies by ardle · · Score: 1

      I remember meeting someone whose "typical" immune system didn't work properly but who was able to function pretty well with the help of an "older" one. I don't know biology but assume this is more of the same?

    18. Re:Curious choice of analogies by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Next you'll be telling me that we should read the articles before commenting. Pshaw!

    19. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution or the evolutionary process only works to less bad in the sense that bad dies so less bad survives. No concept of perfection in that.

    20. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I've always liked the formulation "the fitter *tend* to survive" rather than "survival of the fittest". You might be the fittest human being that ever lived, but if a boulder falls on your testicles before you have a chance to successfully breed, it's pretty damned irrelevant.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Thus, not everything fits comfortably within the narrow confines of a car analogy.

      Heresy.

      There is nothing that cannot be explained via use of a car analogy. There are no narrow confines... car analogies are infinite in their applicability.

      I defy you to give me one example of a situation not analagous to something in a car, the car industry, or related behavior (of course, it would have to be a subject I'm familiar with in order for me to make an accurate car analogy).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    22. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more like discovering a new shade of blue that you could theoretically color your car but won't because it looks horribly old-fashioned.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    23. Re:Curious choice of analogies by dissy · · Score: 1

      Making a good car analogy is a lot like taking the scenic route instead of the direct route in your car. Sure it takes more gas, but the laughs and memories will be yours for a lifetime!

      PS, I think you left your parking break down...

    24. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Carl.E.Pierre · · Score: 1

      I've always liked the formulation "the fitter *tend* to survive" rather than "survival of the fittest". You might be the fittest human being that ever lived, but if a boulder falls on your testicles before you have a chance to successfully breed, it's pretty damned irrelevant.

      Semantics. *Tries not to link to poster's earlier comments*

    25. Re:Curious choice of analogies by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      Intartoobs, it's pronounced INTARTOOBS.

    26. Re:Curious choice of analogies by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Biological evolution "strives to solve" one problem, how to replicate and survive. There are many solutions to this problem, even if /.ers fail at one of them ;>)

  3. Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by mindbrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm nearly finished the Yale lectures on evolution, ecology and behavior. Professor Stearns addresses the RNA world theory of life origins. The Yale lecture series is really outstanding. If you're a Global Warming skeptic you'll be interested in Professor Stearns suggestion that human induced global warming has the potential for an extinction event on par with the one that drove the extinction of the dinosaurs. The production values in the Yale lectures is really good and the lectures offered give a sort of pocket edition of the human condition.

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      One of the main reasons I don't believe in the man-induced climate change theory is that it comes from the same group of scientists who've allowed themselves to interpret data in support of evolution vs creation. If they are so screwed up on that, they probably are on the climate change thing as well.

    2. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you're a Global Warming skeptic you'll be interested in Professor Stearns suggestion that human induced global warming has the potential for an extinction event on par with the one that drove the extinction of the dinosaurs

      Why would I be interested in that? The potential consequences of a proposition have nothing at all to do with the proposition's plausibility?

      It's statements like yours that give AGW advocates a bad name: making the debate about the consequences rather than the evidence.

      The evidence is mixed: a recent paper that compared temperatures at half a dozen stations world-wide over the better part of the 20th century showed no evidence for warming and contradicted model predictions for those locations; on the other hand ocean temperatures do seem to be increasing. On the computer modelling side, GCMs are in general unphysical and too highly parameterized to give plausible extrapolations from fitting past data, and no robust estimators of future climate exist.

      The public policy questions around AGW depend on the consequences, but the quality of the science--which is unequivocally ambiguous--does not. So those of us who are interested in the science need to be careful to forget all about the consequences when evaluating the evidence. Otherwise the possibility of contaminating our reasoning with unrelated matters is far too high.

    3. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The evidence is mixed: a recent paper that compared temperatures at half a dozen stations world-wide over the better part of the 20th century showed no evidence for warming and contradicted model predictions for those locations; on the other hand ocean temperatures do seem to be increasing.

      You do realize that a lot of glaciers and polar caps are melting?. Oceans, being composed of fluids more viscous than the atmosphere, don't exchange heat as well as the atmosphere.

    4. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the main reasons I don't believe in the man-induced climate change theory is that it comes from the same group of scientists who've allowed themselves to interpret data in support of evolution vs creation. If they are so screwed up on that, they probably are on the climate change thing as well.

      I nominate this extraordinary bit of rubbish for Non Sequitur of the Year. I'd like to think it's a bit of satire, if for no other reason than I need to believe in the fundamental decency and intellectual rigor of humanity.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Global warming pseudo-skeptics are a lot like a kid throwing lit matches in their livingroom, insisting the fires are quite natural and have no correllation with the flaming sticks he's tossing around.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by al.caughey · · Score: 1

      and all the while failing to acknowledge that the drapes are now smoldering... (who knows whether or not the flaming sticks directly caused that)

    7. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And that your sister is almost completely consumed in flames. "Why, that's just natural. Sisters die all the time!"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, they're trying to get us to believe that the world insn't flat!

    9. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      While it certainly seems like satire, I am certain that there are substantial numbers of people who would agree with that statement as truth. As the famous Batwinged Hamburger Snatcher says, "This is exactly why I get stoned a lot."

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    10. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that a lot of glaciers and polar caps are melting?

      Pointing out that X, which is predicted by AGW models, is happening, does not change the fact that Y, which is also predicted by AGW models, is not happening.

      So your point in no way addresses my observation (I am the GP above--dunno how it came out A/C'd) that the evidence is mixed. Just like the observation that the possible consequences of AGW are dire, the observation that some evidence is consistent with AGW predictions fails to address the sceptic's point, which is that there are significant pieces of evidence that do not match AGW predictions, and that the range of AGW predictions is sufficiently broad that you can find a prediction for most phenomena, including local cooling.

      That's all well and good, but AGW proponents cannot point to the cases where the data are consistent with relatively robust predictions and say, "This proves AGW is happening" while at the same time ignoring data--like the local temperature records I mention above--that is inconsistent with similar predictions and say, "This does not disprove AGW is happening."

      That is, the seriousness with which AGW proponents and deniers take any particular data set is entirely dependent on how well is supports their preferred outcome.

      An honest sceptic will point out both the data on both sides, as I did. Replying to such a sceptic with a rhetorical question regarding one particular piece of data on your favoured side simply adds noise to the debate without meaningfully furthering it.

      To further the debate we need more data, better models and more open and accessible data and models: given the huge public policy implications of climate science, the climate science community has an absolute obligation to make all of their raw data and metadata available to everyone. Anything else and there will be a justified suspicion that the data are being massaged or used selectively for political purposes.

      Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, if you're interested in the science you must be in favour of this kind of open process.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    11. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      This table might help you figure out where the major points lie. Really should be an article all by itself, but Firehose is acting silly these days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a very nice example of the ad hominem fallacy. Thank you.

    13. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I've now got it bookmarked for future use.

    14. Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't help convince them when scientists fake numbers either http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-20-skeptics-claim-global-warming-fake-scientists-emails-CRU/

  4. From the original Nature article... by Guppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the published article in Nature:

    In Lactobacillus brevis ATCC 367 and other organisms, GOLLD RNA resides in an apparent prophage. We therefore monitored GOLLD RNA transcription in L. brevis cultures grown with mitomycin C, an antibiotic that commonly induces prophages to lyse their hosts22. Increased GOLLD RNA expression correlates with bacteriophage particle production, and DNA corresponding to the GOLLD RNA gene is packaged into phage particles

    The role of GOLLD RNA is uncertain enough, and the GOLLD-virus relationship close enough, that it might be reasonable to suggest that they have not found a new RNA structure in bacteria, but a new class of RNA structure in a virus (which is odd enough it may give us a new group of viruses). Since these bacteria are uncultured or only recently cultured, they are poorly characterized, we might not really have a good idea of whether there is some "normal" type of this bacteria that is free of the RNA structure, and that the structure is merely an artifact of being infected.

    Of course, given how messy host-virus relationships can be, it's entirely possible you could have a species of bacteria universally infected by this jumbo-RNA-producing virus, or that they might have reached some sort of symbiosis, with GOLLD playing some role beneficial to the host. Likewise, while HEARO hasn't been associated with a prophage, it's role in moving in and out of the genome could suggest it was introduced by a phage at some point in the past, and has since acquired an identity and role in the host of it's own.

    1. Re:From the original Nature article... by HiChris! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was along the lines of my first thought. These large RNAs could just be leftover from some sort of viral infection. Especially considering viral genes can jump in and out of the genome depending on the phase of infections. This could be analogous to the idea that the mitochondria and chloroplast were small bacteria like organisms that were engulfed by a larger cell and then became symbiotic. These large RNAs could be providing some sort of biological advantage and have become "part" of the organism.

    2. Re:From the original Nature article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So does this explain the recent rise in the value of GOLLD?

    3. Re:From the original Nature article... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I wonder why Science Daily qualified them as "very large", only to note later that "One of the newly discovered RNAs, called GOLLD, is the third largest and most complex RNA discovered to date"

      According to Figure 1 from Nature article, it's less than 1000 nucleotides and significantly smaller than ribosomal 16S (which has structure as well). I work with those RNA on computational side and none of the biologists ever referred to them as "very large".

      "Very large" compared to what?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:From the original Nature article... by jstomel · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Very large" compared to other non-coding non-ribosomal functional RNAs. As a biologist I would generally classify the ribosomal RNAs as huge. At 1000 nucleotides it's bigger than most protein complexes.

    5. Re:From the original Nature article... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      'qualified them as "very large", only to note later that "One of the newly discovered RNAs, called GOLLD, is the third largest and most complex RNA discovered to date"'

      I'm not seeing what's wrong with that.

      The third tallest building in the world is 101 stories / 1614 feet tall. That's a very large building.

      I guess you were assuming that "very large" meant "larger than any similar thing we'd seen before"; but to me "significantly larger than typical thigns of the same type" is very large.

    6. Re:From the original Nature article... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It amazes me just how much of a hack life seems to be at times. Stuff like this doesn't surprise me at all any more.

      I began to realize how much of a hack life was when I first learned about HOK and SOK. It is a remarkably simple and brutally efficient way of keeping a plasmid around - if it weren't for the fact that the plasmid actually has some benefits it would be the ultimate selfish gene. :)

    7. Re:From the original Nature article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a biologist I would generally classify the ribosomal RNAs as huge.

      That would be one step before humongous, right?

    8. Re:From the original Nature article... by structural_biologist · · Score: 1

      That would assume that these large RNAs are non-coding functional RNAs, something not clearly answered one way or the other by the paper. One possiblity is that these RNAs are remanants of viruses that have integrated into the bacteria (indeed the fact that the GOLLD RNA resides in an apparent prophage and is expressed under conditions that promote prophage expression supports this conclusion). Then it might be more appropriate to compare the size to viral genomes which can also be very large, highly structured RNAs. For example, the HIV genome is ~10,000 nucleotides long and is also highly structured.

      However, the fact that these RNAs are expressed and conserved in a variety of organisms is a interesting result suggesting that they may have some function. I'm looking forward to seeing whether they can figure out exactly what these RNAs are doing in the bacteria.

    9. Re:From the original Nature article... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There are millions of buildings in the world vs few types of RNA.

      Did you look at the Fig.1 in the Nature article? New "very large" RNA are right in the middle of the range of sizes.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  5. Move definition up by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article: (Move definition up) RNA molecules are best known for carrying information from genes encoded in DNA to ribosomes

    Are there (Move definition down) RNA molecules too?

    Do these articles use the same editors as slashdot?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  6. New? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Are these new RNA structures, or newly discovered RNA structures? My bet is that they are ancient structures that these guys have just recently found.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:New? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The word "discovered" in the first fucking line of the summary may provide a hint.

      As would the smallest amount of common sense.

    2. Re:New? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Take your sarcasmometer to the shop.

      And ask your doctor about Paxil.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    3. Re:New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ask your doctor about Paxil.

      I'd prefer you asked your doctor about frontal lobotomies

    4. Re:New? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's not broken, since you weren't being sarcastic, or you are extremely bad at trying to do so I guess.

  7. Pah! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Funny

    According the Dr. Hubert J. Farnsworth, the R stands for Robot!

  8. Communication by thelonious · · Score: 1

    Ronald Breaker, professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Yale, stated that this would be equivalent to protein scientists finding a whole new class of enzymes. Well, at least they've nailed their analogies! Now I can finally relate to their situation.

  9. SUV= MINIVAN by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Seriously - they are much closer, just a lil longer hood, and some higher, more unstable wheels for all that "off roading" that the SUVs do.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:SUV= MINIVAN by snadrus · · Score: 1

      After all, "off roading" depends on top-heavy design.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    2. Re:SUV= MINIVAN by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That's why they invented the "crossover". In the domain of offroading, a crossover is a mix between a truck and something designed to have the wheels on top.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  10. Annie Li, In memory of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, murderd Yale graduate student Annie Li was on the verge of similar discovery. I wonder if she was posthumously credited for her research contributions. I wonder who stands to make a lot of money from this discovery. I love the media and crap they sling.