Decoding the Language of Genomes
caltechletters.org
Decoding the Language of Genomes
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: Decoding the Language of Genomes
#2This approach appears to work well for E. coli and other organisms with streamlined genomes and large population sizes. One of the challenges with studying gene expression in humans is that it is quite noisy with regard to identifiable function (i.e., contribution to reproduction, however indirectly).
Biologists tend to treat gene expression as functional. In E. coli, this is much more likely to be true than for humans. First, E. coli is a single-cell organism so there is not conflict in differential regulation across cell types. Second, E. coli has a large population relative to its information content, which allows natural selection to operate more efficiently.
mRNA transcription (i.e., gene expression) by itself is relatively inexpensive, so natural selection only weakly optimizes expression in multicellular organisms with small populations. Protein production is much more expensive and is under stronger selection.
Re: Decoding the Language of Genomes
#3> Throughout the last five years, we have failed repeatedly. We have mislabeled tubes and used ethanol instead of water to dilute DNA. We have dropped flasks, shattering glass and spilling bacteria on the floor. We have been frustrated, again and again. But we continued on, inching closer to mastery over the molecular wiring of genomes. In the future, we’d like to extend this work to other organisms; perhaps even humans.
This. I love the honesty about the scientific process. This is completely lost to most science students while they cram facts before an exam. The road to most beautiful discoveries is often paved with lots of fumbles.
Re: Decoding the Language of Genomes
#4> Throughout the last five years, we have failed repeatedly. We have mislabeled tubes and used ethanol instead of water to dilute DNA. We have dropped flasks, shattering glass and spilling bacteria on the floor. We have been frustrated, again and again. But we continued on, inching closer to mastery over the molecular wiring of genomes. In the future, we’d like to extend this work to other organisms; perhaps even hum…
I agree. Unfortunately, the typical undergraduate experience in biology involves a lot of rote memorization and cookbook experiments, not actual discovery. Probably filters out some people who would actually make good scientists.
Re: Decoding the Language of Genomes
#5> Throughout the last five years, we have failed repeatedly. We have mislabeled tubes and used ethanol instead of water to dilute DNA. We have dropped flasks, shattering glass and spilling bacteria on the floor. We have been frustrated, again and again. But we continued on, inching closer to mastery over the molecular wiring of genomes. In the future, we’d like to extend this work to other organisms; perhaps even hum…
I agree. Unfortunately, the typical undergraduate experience in biology involves a lot of rote memorization and cookbook experiments, not actual discovery. Probably filters out some people who would actually make good scientists.
It filtered me out. I spent several years in a non-science field and always had that itch I couldn't quite scratch with my day-to-day work. I left my career earlier this year to pursue a new one in science. Went back to school for the first time in a while, not cramming but actually taking the time to learn. I love it.
Re: Decoding the Language of Genomes
#6Rob Phillips is a very unconventional scientist. Think Vin Diesel but a genius.