TL;DR for biologists: synonymous codon variation is heavily constrained by the need to maintain transcription factor binding motifs. While I found the article very interesting as a new postgraduate student, it seems like such a straightforward deduction that I find it difficult to believe no one has ever put it into words until now.
After talking to someone who knows quite a bit about this stuff, apparently most people in the genomics/bioinformatics community kinda already knew about this, just that the researchers who wrote the paper were the first one to officially categorize them.
Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
31–40 of 108 posts
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#32It looks like there is software in DNA, not just firmware. We are just starting to understand that gene expression is very important too, code that express(is executed) or not based on the environment, and that junk DNA is probably "not understood code" .
Properly referred to as "noncoding DNA"... until it is proved to be coding something.
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#33I am not a biologist, but this discovery seems ground-braking to me. What strikes me as an interesting question (I hope someone of you can answer) is: How long will it be, before physicians/gene specialists/biologists/etc. will use the new way of DNA interpretation in cases for regular people? How long before this discovery can be used in mainstream medicine? My (uneducated) guess is: there has to be a huge reevaluat…
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#34It looks like there is software in DNA, not just firmware. We are just starting to understand that gene expression is very important too, code that express(is executed) or not based on the environment, and that junk DNA is probably "not understood code" .
Junk dna is just header files and whitespace.
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#35It's been pretty clear for some time that codon choice is not random (hence codon optimization is useful when taking a gene from one organism to another), and over the last few years it's also been clear that codon bias can be evolutionarily constrained. For a while, it mostly thought to be based on tRNA levels (basically anticodons). However, it's been increasingly clear that there are other constraints to protein coding sequences than just the decoded protein sequence (aka the genetic code).
For example, we published a paper a few weeks back [1] showing that in bacteria (and probably higher organisms), the N-terminus of genes has a lot of rare codons and this is due to other constraints such as relieving mRNA structure to allow better translation of proteins. I think in the coming years, we will find that other regulatory elements also shape this code, including sequences that control splicing, small RNAs, mRNA degradation and transport, et cetera
Anyways, it's a pretty fun time in biology. The tools we have now make studies that were ridiculously impossible just a few years ago, a reality for an individual lab. I can't wait to see what the next few years bring.
[1] http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Goodman_Sci_13.pdf\
EDIT: Since my comment has hijacked the most useful comment linking to the original study, I'll link to the comment here:
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#36I am not a biologist, but this discovery seems ground-braking to me. What strikes me as an interesting question (I hope someone of you can answer) is: How long will it be, before physicians/gene specialists/biologists/etc. will use the new way of DNA interpretation in cases for regular people? How long before this discovery can be used in mainstream medicine? My (uneducated) guess is: there has to be a huge reevaluat…
Almost immediately. While it won't have therapeutic applications for some time, the first benefit will be helping scientists better understand the cause of certain diseases.
>ground-braking
That's like aerobraking, right? ;)
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#37TL;DR for biologists: synonymous codon variation is heavily constrained by the need to maintain transcription factor binding motifs. While I found the article very interesting as a new postgraduate student, it seems like such a straightforward deduction that I find it difficult to believe no one has ever put it into words until now.
After talking to someone who knows quite a bit about this stuff, apparently most people in the genomics/bioinformatics community kinda already knew about this, just that the researchers who wrote the paper were the first one to officially categorize them.
1. Amino acid coding
2. Transcription factor binding and transcriptional regulation
3. Post-transcriptional regulation and RNA degradation
4. Intron/Exon Splice sites
5. Chromosome structure and methylation
6. Origins of replication
All of these have been shown to be controlled at least in part by the DNA's sequence. This story seems to be about a (very interesting) new wrinkle in (2) above.
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#38I looked over the paper pretty quickly, but on a quick read it looks really nice. The data are really impressive, and they seemed to have pulled out really interesting trends for how transcription factors are affecting coding sequence. Furthermore, they map how variants found across the various cell lines they used (81!) to show that these variants actually are causal for transcription factor binding changes. For tho…
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I figured I might get downvoted, but when I read the headline the konami code stuck in my head and I couldn't resist. It made me laugh, and I thought it might make others laugh. Which to me has (a little) value. But now, you are pot and I am kettle (or vice versa). Your comment adds no value or, I'd argue less value, because at least I was trying to be funny.
Don't try to be funny here. Be insightful.
RokStdy, don't be discouraged. You've done nothing wrong.
Re: Scientists discover second code hiding in DNA
#40I looked over the paper pretty quickly, but on a quick read it looks really nice. The data are really impressive, and they seemed to have pulled out really interesting trends for how transcription factors are affecting coding sequence. Furthermore, they map how variants found across the various cell lines they used (81!) to show that these variants actually are causal for transcription factor binding changes. For tho…
Agreed. It's an interesting trend. I also just skimmed over it; however, I wonder how significant is their initial TF binding occupancy data. There are a bunch of papers recently that looked at binding sites and found that they don't really correlate well with transcription. The cell is just a stochastic bag of molecules. TFs bind whereever they can. I wonder if they are just seeing noise.