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!
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^>
This is good news.... but also we have a responsibility to make sure that thie technology is not misused (especially by would be bio terrorists. If we can make nano strains that go around changing things for the good, imagine the horrors of being able to destroy with the same technology. Stay Safe.
Ahem. The harnessing of the intron's splicing ability to excise out bad RNAs is more evidence that the original life was RNA-based. (Or at least in only makes sense in light of the RNA-world theory):
Introns' unique capability of cutting and pasting apparently has been conserved since life evolved.LOL!"It's thought that RNA, or a molecule related to RNA, possibly were the first biomolecules, because they are capable of both performing work and carrying around their own genetic code," Golden said.
Do you realize, Michael (and Andrew), that the only thing here that's new is that they're harnessing the intron's ability to splice itself out of the RNA sequence. This ability has been known for like 25 years.
bump
"Now that we don't look upon these introns as genetic "junk" (where did that term originate, anyway?),"
It goes back to the old days when scientists first started to clone eucaryotic genes and they found these introns. They cloned them into bacteria that don't have introns. So they needed to get rid of the "junk" to get the genes expressed in bacteria. Then they found eucaryotic hosts for cloning eucaryotic genes and discovered that the introns were important, but "junk" still stuck.
Are "junk" bonds really "junk" - I don't think so and neither do millions of investors, but because from one frame of reference some were "junk" the name has stuck there also.
Americans like colorful language, unlike say British English. That's why American is so much more vibrant in finding new ways to say things that stick, even if they don't always make sense.