The more that we learn about the genetic processing mechanism, and the more that we learn about DNA code, the sooner we'll be able to program custom solutions to cancer into our bodies, among other things.
It's both fascinating and exciting!
Posted on 02/21/2005 11:58:57 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – The crystallized form of a molecular machine that can cut and paste genetic material is revealing possible new paths for treating diseases such as some forms of cancer and opportunistic infections that plague HIV patients.
Purdue University researchers froze one of these molecular machines, which are chemical complexes known as a Group I intron, at mid-point in its work cycle. When frozen, crystallized introns reveal their structure and the sites at which they bind with various molecules to cause biochemical reactions. Scientists can use this knowledge to manipulate the intron to splice out malfunctioning genes, said Barbara Golden, associate professor of biochemistry. Normal genes then can take over without actually changing the genetic code.
The results of the Purdue study are published in the January issue of the journal Nature Structural and Molecular Biology.
"In terms of human health, Group I introns are interesting because they cause their own removal and also splice the ends of the surrounding RNA together, forming a functional gene," Golden said. "We can design introns and re-engineer them so they will do this to RNA in which we're interested."
Once thought of as genetic junk, introns are bits of DNA that can activate their own removal from RNA, which translates DNA's directions for gene behavior. Introns then splice the RNA back together. Scientists are just learning whether many DNA sequences previously believed to have no function actually may play specialized roles in cell behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.uns.purdue.edu ...
Ping
The more that we learn about the genetic processing mechanism, and the more that we learn about DNA code, the sooner we'll be able to program custom solutions to cancer into our bodies, among other things.
It's both fascinating and exciting!
It was interpreted as "junk" because the long complex strings never seemed to have any association with known proteins, therefore, making the appearance of not having much worth.
In another term - it would be as if I typed a huge jumble of letters. They would seem to be junk compared to the language.
Makes one wonder what other genetic "junk" in fact isn't. The designer just may have known a few things we don't know - yet. 8^>
You bonehead!!!
Don't you KNOW that the amino acid soup just started to align itself into new and wonderful things - and here we are!!!
Had the scientific community listened to the evolutionists who described this as "Junk DNA", we wouldn't have these cures.
So much for he predictive usefulness of evolution.
I feel so, I dunno, spanked!
16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp
Actually it was the geneticists who said it was junk. The evolutionary biologists were the ones who said that the intron regions were conserved, and therefore, not junk.
Evolutionary biology provides the only current way to look at DNA as functional or not based on whether the region in question allows for rapid mutations. Functional areas of DNA are more conserved in general.
Thanks for the reply.
The problem is, many people ran with that term and used it and others like "vestigial" to further the ToE.
Hmmm... or in other words: "Nothing about introns makes sense except in the light of evolution!"
The existence of large amounts of non-coding DNA (up to 97% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution. Two evolutionary theories attempted to explain the reason for the existence of non-coding DNA. One theory stated that non-coding DNA was "junk" that consisted of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. The second theory stated that non-coding DNA was "selfish", in that it consisted of DNA that preferentially replicated more efficiently that coding DNA, even though it provided no selective advantage (in fact was somewhat detrimental since it was parasitic). There have always been problems with these arguments, which have been ignored by many of those making these claims. The main question presented by proponents of the "junk" or "selfish" DNA theories is, "Why would a perfect God create flawed DNA which is primarily composed of useless, non-coding regions?" The definitive answer has finally arrived, although for many years there have been strong suggestions of what the non-coding DNA is doing in our genomes.
Now we change "our" tunes, I see.
This is how you have your cake and eat it too.
Prior to the discovery that "junk" DNA had a purpose(IOW it had no use), the situation made sense in light of evolution. Now that the "junk" DNA has been discovered to have a purpose(IOW it has a use), the situation makes sense in light of evolution. LOL. Talk about falsifiability.
The truth is odds over 1 in 10 to the 50th power are considered "impossible" by statisticians. The Odds of single bacterium forming from "pre-existing soup" have been estimated to be at least 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power!
Evolutionist/Materialist:
"1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power??? So you're telling me there's a chance!"
I must admit...I got this from here: link, but thought it was hilarious and had to share.
It is worse than that. Chemistry has a habit of producing compounds that are not desired. That is the reason specific reagents, conditions, and reaction times are required in chemical syntheses for specific compounds. Now imagine what a chemical "soup" would contain, certainly nothing desirable for the formation of polymeric amino acid compounds. IOW, you don't even get the soup you need in order to make proteins.
Thanks for the ping!
"Nothing about introns makes sense except in the light of evolution!"After all these years I still don't know what the evolutionary argument for the existence of junk DNA was supposed to have been.Now we change "our" tunes, I see.
This is how you have your cake and eat it too.
I do remember reading an article that said that bacteria don't have exons, and another reference that said that exons tend to roughly correspond to functional areas of a protein. I hypothesized that if nothing else, the presence of introns increased the odds that when a section of a chromosome gets duplicated such that only a portion of a gene was duplicated, it would at least be a whole functional subunit that got duplicated. This would increase the chances that something functional would result from the duplication.
Really, now? It seems to me the argument was that, necessarily, "junk" was a basic component of a "random" process. In fact, most of DNA should be a complete wasteland of unused and "decaying" parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.