Yale Researchers Find New RNA Structures 90
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
from the micro-steps-for-mankind dept.
from the micro-steps-for-mankind dept.
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."
RNA world (Score:5, 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.
Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RNA world (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RNA world (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!
From the original Nature article... (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.
Re:From the original Nature article... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RNA world (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:Yale Evolution and Behaviour Lectures (Score:3, 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.