11–20 of 65 posts
A reminder that these sorts of genome-wide studies are not particularly reliable due to the problem of multiple comparisons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270946/
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
> I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems. Boot sequence. Amazing. I've always been interested in how the DNA transcription looks like a Turing machine with the RNAP being the head and the one DNA strand being the tape. Is there any research in that kind of computational analogy or is i…
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
Had the exact thought when I read the headline. What arrogance. "I don't understand what these genes do. Must be junk"
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
Michael Levin and team at Tufts are instigating regenerative healing by “boot strapping” the process through manipulation of electric fields surrounding cells.
Understanding the extent of network effects will be a big idea in the future. Proving our statistics are probable causes versus mathematical object identification and social debate over the effects.
We’re moving beyond mere taxonomy and catalog of reality into seriously weird science.
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
It is also important to point out that the fraction of non-coding DNA in a genome depends on the organism and is not correlated to complexity. There are multicellular organisms with less than 5% of it as well as unicellular organisms with amounts of DNA orders of magnitude higher than humans.
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
FWIW the study focuses on the coding region of the human genome, i.e., the other 2%. It is also important to point out that the fraction of non-coding DNA in a genome depends on the organism and is not correlated to complexity. There are multicellular organisms with less than 5% of it as well as unicellular organisms with amounts of DNA orders of magnitude higher than humans.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/eukaryotic-genome-c...
A reminder that these sorts of genome-wide studies are not particularly reliable due to the problem of multiple comparisons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270946/
These studies are interesting from a general genomics perspective, but not so much yet from a personal one (with the exception of a few traits that are determined by one or a few well-understood genetic variants. Hopefully this space will expand over the next few decades).
Does anyone remember the days when some geneticists were saying that 98% of DNA is "junk" DNA? When I heard it I knew it couldn't be true but it's probably going to take another 50 years to figure out how much really does get used. I can't help but suspect that a lot of the genome is a part of the boot sequence that helps you go from one cell up to all the differentiated organs and tissues and systems.
Bio-electrics are starting to look at biology the way you describe. Michael Levin and team at Tufts are instigating regenerative healing by “boot strapping” the process through manipulation of electric fields surrounding cells. Understanding the extent of network effects will be a big idea in the future. Proving our statistics are probable causes versus mathematical object identification and social debate over the ef…