New Class of Genes Discovered 106
HarryGenes writes "Reuters is reporting that Scientists Find New Type of Gene in Junk DNA. The research from Harvard Medical School describes a discovery in the Yeast Genome of a new class of gene that regulates the neighboring gene through the production of its RNA product. This has much broader implications than the article lets on to. Assuming these same type of genes exist in Humans and other organisms, the whole science behind gene expression and gene mapping will be changed dramatically. This type of mechanism can explain a lot of the 'unexplainable'. This is really exciting. I have been working in gene mapping for years and always felt that the 'junk' was there for a reason."
The more you know....... (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet there are people prepared to unleash modified genes on the world saying that they **know** there is no risk.
Yeah, But (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been working in gene mapping for years and always felt that the 'junk' was there for a reason.
Sometimes, too, the gene may have moved into the junkyard for a good reason.
Just imagine reactivating some junk human genes to see what happens:
Human females have a more pronounced season of going into and out of heat.
Get an extra furrowed forehead to better protect vision during rainstorms and intense heat on veldt.
Get large hairy ears to better pick up on approaching predators like lions.
Given the current rate of change in human environment due to social and cultural changes, I'd venture to guess we have a lot more junk DNA that needs to exit (eg, propensity to develop diabetes if not on a hunter/gatherer diet) than we have need to reactivate old junk DNA.
If we could engineer useful new DNA, probably creating a visual transmitter capable of expressing information more quickly than voice or hand movement would be high on the list. I would call this the Teletubby gene...
Re:The more you know....... (Score:3, Interesting)
As
Who would have thought that evolution would be developing it's own roundup resistance [cropchoice.com]. Damn that Charles Darwin.
Maybe the Monsanto executives are creationists.
There is real naivete (Score:5, Interesting)
This article is about is genomics knowledge which is one of the best understood areas of biotechnology and molecular biology, yet it's always bugged me that PhDs in biology would simply dismiss what didn't fit into their neat little model as "junk DNA". That "junk DNA" was conserved gave serious doubts about it being junk. That it has to be a "control system" component has pretty obvious.
Until recently though, math and systems theory have not been strengths of biologists in general - when I was in school, biology was what people took to be able to do science without a lot of math. Ask a biologist about Laplace, Linvill or Liapunov and you'll get a blank stare - which is truly scary if they're mucking around with living feedback systems being spread into the broader environment. There's still a generation that probably needs to be purged before the profession can be deemed "systems theory aware".
What's scarier: the whole knowledge-base of proteomics and enzyme/metabolic circuitry is far more primitive that genomics, yet this area represents far more of the biology activity in cells than genomics. Which makes plunging head-long into rolling out things like Monsanto safflower extremely dubious and dangerous.
That said, I'd be the last to advocate ceasing this type of genetic research and technology development - only it is different from most every potentially dangerous technology humanity has developed, so considerable caution and process safe-guards are needed.
so let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Greg Bear's Darwin series (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, But (Score:3, Interesting)
I was struck by this as it is connected with something I have been thinking about for awhile.
Namely the impact of Race and DNA on diet.
We know that issues such as lactose intolerance are regional
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001681.html
I would suspect that tolerance of other foods are as well, given the differing availabilty of food around the world. With the above, it surprises me that instead of things like Atkins, there is not a more racial approach to diet. I.E. A "northern european" diet heavier on dairy, an asian diet heavier on fish etc.
Re:Yeah, But (Score:3, Interesting)
With the above, it surprises me that instead of things like Atkins, there is not a more racial approach to diet. I.E. A "northern european" diet heavier on dairy, an asian diet heavier on fish etc.
Actually, there is.
A while back people started coming out with the notion that the ideal diet (and, for that matter, entire lifestyle including exercise regimen) depended on blood type [about.com], which roughly characterizes some racial features.
Precedent for "junk DNA" (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, a few centuries ago some mathematicians started studying the funny numbers like the diagonal of a unit square, and proved that they weren't the ratio of two integers. The idea that there were such numbers was widely ridiculed. The mathematicians' reaction was to say "We need a name for these new numbers. People are calling us irrational for talking about them. Why don't we just call them `irrational' numbers?" And so it was.
Some time later, in the 1800's, some mathematicians started talking about numbers whose squares were negative. Others criticised this as saying that there were no such numbers. Again, a name for these new numbers was needed, and someone suggested adopting the critics' terminology and calling them `imaginary'. And again mathematicians liked the sound of this, and adopted the term, with `real' the name for the numbers that their critics believed in.
Part of the education of a mathematician or scientist is learning to take a disconnected, "objective" view on such terminological quibbles. Adopting your critics taunts is a good way to get across the idea that "it's just a word" with no connotations other than the technical definition.
In the computer field, we have the term `hacker' that originated as an insult, and is still used as such by outsiders. But to us, it's a useful technical term with no negative connotations.
Just as `irrational' and `imaginary' are considered simply descriptive terms by mathematicians, with no value judgement implied, we can expect that biologists will use `junk DNA' as a technical term for specific kinds of DNA long after they fully understand the function of the `junk'. You'll find it precisely defined in textbooks, and people will use the term without thinking that it's derogatory.
Re:Yeah, But (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, "Evolution" probably took it out for a positive reason, not just because we didn't need it.
I don't think that it's gone. Your lady may want to have sex with you on a regular basis, but she is most fertile on certain days of her cycle. The natural planning method of birth control would work, except for the fact that sperm are able to live for quite some time whilst looking for an egg to fertilize.
If you really pay attention to your woman, you might notice that she does still have cycles, and that she's way hornier at certain times of the month.
I think that the original function of the fertility cycle probably has to do with the timing of which offspring are born. Animals are ruled by the weather.. If the offspring are born at the wrong time (say, during the middle of winter), they may well not survive. Humans have largely mastered the effects of weather, thus eliminating the need for a cycle that prevents us from bearing children in the winter.
Re:Yeah, But (Score:3, Interesting)
The only difference would be that you'd have women walking up to you at various times and rubbing their bodies against yours.
Actually however, our social structure isn't really a superior way to propogate the species. The males sticking around is really a bad thing.
The purpose of a species of course is perpetuate, in many senses sex is the answer to that silly question some people ask "what is my purpose in life?" duh, your purpose is procreate and advance the human species however you can... that's it.
A species in which females are sexually active (in heat) most all the time, and which engages in sex for recreation. But in which the females care for the young and the males move to the next available females means MUCH more procreation (and happier males).
Personally I think lions are an example we should look to for enlightenment. Genetic advances could allow us to increase the ratio of female to male children and a couple generations down the road we'd have a greatly improved world.
Re:The more you know....... (Score:2, Interesting)
Humans master fire:
+ life expectancy goes up.
- Number of people being killed (broken) by fire increases dramatically
- Number of forests destroyed(broken) by fire goes up
Humans master agriculture:
+ life expectancy goes up.
- millions of acres of forest are clearcut(broken) for farming land and buildings for farming villages
- genetic diversity of agricultural plants stagnates(broken) as farmers regrow seed year to year
Humans master building materials:
+ life expectancy goes up.
- millions of acres of land turned into cities(broken) and towns
- More land clearcut(broken) to make room for enlerging populations
- thousands of species go extinct(broken) as their environments are developed and polluted
Etc Etc Etc
The point here is that we've broken way the hell more than we've fixed just to increase our life expectancy such as we have. Entropy is the nature of the universe. It is very nearly impossible to create without destroying, and humans have proven to be very sloppy up to this point.
Blood type (Score:3, Interesting)
My thinking is that the prehistoric people regardless of blood type would have all had to survive on the available local foods. I would think that the lack of choice, i.e. "rabbit or nothing" would have killed off those in the region incapable or less well suited to digesting most of the local quisine.
The question for me is are there other genetic predispositions like lactose tolerance (although to a lesser degree) which would allow some to make better use of certain types of food than others?
Re:The more you know....... (Score:3, Interesting)
A shovel-full of dirt contains a regular frenzy of bacteria swapping genes not unlike getting fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, and earthworms together for a big bisexual orgy. The only difference is that with the bacteria, it actually works from time-to-time because they haven't specialized as much.
Plants are a lot of fun though 'coz they're multi-cellular and we can actually see what's going on. With bacteria, we just have staining, which is a piss-poor substitute for watching that little green mass of cells differentiate over several days.
Re:The more you know....... (Score:2, Interesting)
Like the foresight we used when we put lead in gasoline? Or put CFCs in aerosol cans? Or started using fission for electrical power generation without a plan for storing nuclear waste? When profits enter the picture, foresight is a rare commodity.
First, how about letting us make own own decisions about the risks we want to assume, and labeling GM foods?
Second, there's a huge problem with a socioeconomic system that has people growing modified corn in an area where corn doesn't naturally grow, rather than growing the native crops that can thrive there. (Cf. "golden rice".)
Third, the big risk is not allergic reaction, it's the ecological risks: crop monculture, horizontal gene transfer, increased use of pesticides (think what "Roundup Ready" means), et cetera.
Very ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
You are correct that nowadays biology and mathematics are intertwined, attracting more quantitative people. Where you are mistaken is your implicit assumption that the naivete is on the biologists side. There is a lot of knowledge that needs to be accumulated before the biological literature can be adequately digested. Your post is point in proof - had you been more experienced in genetics you would have realized that no geneticist really believes in junk DNA - it is really a term that laymen have found useful.
As someone who does both, I would also argue that it is much easier to pick up the mathematics than the biology. If you are a quantitative person it is very easy to learn what a Laplacian is, and to apply it to your biological problem. While it may be just as easy to look up junk DNA - it is very difficult to get to the point where you realize that is what should be questioned. The problem I see is not so much biologists who waste time because their projects are mathematically unsound, but more so, mathematically trained people spinning wheels on research which is not relevant or based on dubious biological tenets. However, I do think it is a transition thing as specialists in both fields learn (the hard way) about the pitfalls.