Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DNA could modify itself with no outside help, say biologists
Princeton University ^ | March 28, 2006 | Chad Boutin

Posted on 03/29/2006 1:47:22 PM PST by SampleMan

Spirals of DNA, once thought to be merely the passive memory banks that preserve life’s blueprints, may also actively modify themselves under certain conditions, according to Princeton University scientists.

A team of molecular biologists has found that some single strands of DNA are capable of removing a genetic building block from the spiral, a task previously thought to be impossible without the involvement of a separate catalyst such as RNA or proteins. Such removal, called depurination, occurs only at a single point within a particular genetic sequence, one that appears at least 50,000 times in the human genome. The team’s discovery that the removal occurs consistently in laboratory samples indicates that DNA is a more dynamic substance than was previously thought, and it raises the possibility that other unexpected behaviors still await discovery in this well-studied molecule.

“No one ever dreamed genomic DNA may have another function besides memory storage, but it apparently does,” said Jacques Fresco, the Damon B. Pfeiffer Professor in the Life Sciences at Princeton. “We don’t really know yet why or how it happens, but it makes us wonder what else DNA might be doing without our knowledge.”

Dr. Ann Skalka, senior vice president for basic science at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, said the findings merit continued attention.

“This fascinating and unanticipated new property of DNA has the potential to cause substantial damage to our cells, leading to cancer or other diseases, unless it is controlled or exploited for some beneficial purpose,” she said. “We will stay tuned.”

Fresco’s team published its findings in the March 21 issue of the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also contributing to the research are Princeton researcher Olga A. Amosova and Richard Coulter, currently at West Chester University.

The double-stranded helical structure of DNA is a shape familiar to many, and these long, stringy molecules are in most circumstances unchanging and highly stable -- valuable characteristics for objects whose function is to preserve the master plan of the organism that carries them. Altering the sequence of a DNA strand is often necessary for innumerable bodily functions, such as growth and healing, but scientists previously thought that such alterations require other chemical catalysts or enzymes to do the clipping and rearranging.

When DNA does undergo such changes, its two strands sometimes separate from one another like a broken zipper splitting down the middle, the teeth of one side pulling away from the other. But in some cases, each side will then often bunch up so its teeth can latch on to others from the same side, forming small “loops” of a single-stranded DNA that extend out from the side of the double-stranded helix’s “stem.”

“For genes to express themselves and create change within the body, you absolutely have to get the two strands of DNA apart first, and it’s only through separation that DNA forms these stem-loops,” said Amosova, a research molecular biologist and Fresco’s long time collaborator. “Such separation occurs, for example, when genes are doing something to regulate the body.”

But the team found that if a stem-loop forms from a particular sequence of DNA, one of the genetic “teeth” will fall spontaneously from that side of the zipper, and the weakened strand will eventually break apart in that spot unless it is repaired by enzymes in the cell. Fresco said this sort of activity seems akin to self-mutilation at first glance.

“To a scientist, this kind of self-inflicted genetic damage appears unhealthy, the sort of thing that would cause undesirable mutations and could kill off the organism,” Fresco said. “Cells have evolved a complex DNA repair system to constantly repair such damage. But evolution has not, as we’d expect, put a stop to it. So we theorize it must be happening for some good reason that we have yet to uncover.”

Of the more than 3 billion DNA building blocks in the human genome, the 18-residue sequence that gives rise to the cleavage occurs in about 50,000 places -- a very significant number, Fresco said.

“We can only speculate now as to what aspects of biology this self-cleavage could influence, but the general function of stem-loops combined with the number of sites where depurination can occur does make us curious enough to look further,” Amosova said. “Such a self-depurination capability may, for example, be beneficial in sections of the genome involved in antibody production, where losing a building block from the sequence could lead to higher mutation rates in the antibody-coding genes. This, in turn, could lead to a larger variety of antibodies to protect the body more effectively.”

More generally, Amosova said, losing a building block increases the flexibility of the otherwise highly rigid DNA molecule, which in some circumstances needs to be bent.

“Flexibility could help with DNA packaging, which happens any time you need to stuff DNA into a tight place,” she said. “In particular, viruses typically pack a lot of DNA strands into their shells, leaving virtually no space unused. It may also play a role in the folding of DNA in chromosomes.”

Still, Fresco said, it remains too early to tell where the discovery will lead, though the team will look for some possible biological role for their finding.

“Thus far we have observed this effect under laboratory conditions that closely resemble those within the cell. Now, we would like to observe them directly in the cell nucleus,” he said. “If we have indeed found one way that DNA can change itself spontaneously, there might be others, and we plan to hunt for them.

“Additionally, I might mention that this discovery was made while we were exploring ways to repair the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia,” Fresco said. “We noticed that the depurination occurs right next to the site of the mutation responsible for the disease, but we don’t yet know if there’s any relation between these two facts. We certainly hope we’ve noticed an effect that will eventually offer some new approaches to many diseases.”


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biology; dna; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 last
To: RunningWolf
"Nice try? Talking to ones self? Whats that about?"

:)

"Its your work as it were, and you posted it to me. And it is not all I talk about."

:)

"Actually this is not to the whole group, but if I don't paint with a broad brush, it might be seen by ****** as a 'personal attacks' at the evos. So you, Sjive, Bwag, etc carry on with your poison agenda."

I win again, Mordo. :)
201 posted on 04/01/2006 5:00:10 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

An unfortunate failure on my part at levity.

The article brought up a possibility on mutation that I had been told I was an ignoramous about on a previous thread. And I thought it was a light hearted jab to get the ball rolling.

Would have worked in person, but I forgot about the mechanics of the internet, and that any one statement must stand by itself without context, especially when you change threads and audience.

Does that suffice?


202 posted on 04/01/2006 5:04:23 AM PST by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
An unfortunate failure on my part at levity.

I had just left another forum where most posters ridicule evolution and science in general, so my mindset was not where it should have been.
203 posted on 04/01/2006 6:03:19 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: WKB
WKB

I doubt you should worry to much about finding disfavor in their eyes/judgment. Even Elsie 'is a troll' to them. Even other people that somewhat by into toe, but do not by into their god-hating ideology are labeled 'troll' by them.

Whatever 'crimes' you have committed before them, it is infinitesimal compared to the ridicule and mockery they seem to derive a perverse pleasure in heaping on people of faith. And they do it in the name of science/toe.
But as I have pointed out, 90% 95%/guess> of what they put out on these threads has 0% to do with any science, but instead is a direct and usually vile vulgar obscene attack on Christian symbology.

These is something in scripture on those sorts too I think.

Wolf
204 posted on 04/01/2006 6:14:51 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

These is something in scripture on those sorts too I think.


Matt. 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


Hey don't worry about me. If I had any feelings they would stay hurt. :>)


205 posted on 04/01/2006 6:22:16 AM PST by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Hello SampleMan

I have read your posts and I used to approach and have a pov towards toe from somewhat a similar place as you. However I came to the conclusion that people who have become seduced by this false theory will see nothing but toe.

I had pretty much forgotten about toe for many years until getting into these threads after discovering them from posters on the GGG threads.

I see now that the usual swarm has descended upon you. I see you have went into the post history and have made observations that they deny as always. They will never own up to the obvious IMO.

I know they will never give me any credit for this, but I did come for dialog. But dialog is not what you have with this sort apparently, they will post all sorts of troll imagery and even worse (sac-religious imagery etc) in the name of their 'science' at you me and anyone who even remotely confronts their ideologies.

Well good luck with them.

Wolf
206 posted on 04/01/2006 6:39:01 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Quark2005; WKB
An excellent point. The same type of reasoning explains, IMHO, why the story of Noah is so much like the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh in its details, yet so unlike it in its message.

Exactly.

The distinctions between theism and polytheism would have been less powerfully made, and less clear an object lesson to the original hearers of Genesis, if they had been introduced along with an entirely new cosmology.

It is precisely because the cosmology is otherwise the same as that of surrounding, polytheistic, cultures that the central point -- animals, celestial objects, etc, are mere objects devoid of inherent divinity, and only their (singular and transcendent) Creator is worthy of worship -- is made stark and obvious by comparison.

Well, stark and obvious to the original hearers anyway. Modern antievolutionary creationists seem to entirely miss the point, focusing obsessively on the details of the cosmology rather than on the central teaching to which the cosmological details are only incidental. In this miss-focus, Hyers argues, creationists actually compromise scripture through the demeaning (and pointless) task of trying to make it fit with modern, secular science.

207 posted on 04/01/2006 11:21:01 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
a direct and usually vile vulgar obscene attack on Christian symbology

So "Intelligent Design," Creation "Science," etc, are really only "Christian symbology"?

208 posted on 04/01/2006 11:26:35 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes
cleavage...did you say cleavage?, I'm all ears....er eyes...pictures please...

Seems kinda odd, but if that's what turns you on:



DNA Cleavage by Restriction Enzyme EcoRV

The restriction enzyme EcoR V is shown (colored in green and blue for each monomer in the homodimer). The DNA is colored in standard CPK colors and is shown as bound to the enzyme prior to cleavage.

Of course there are many, many modes of DNA cleavage; by aromatic amines, photochemical, acid driven. Didn't know if you have a particular fetis..., ah, preference.

209 posted on 04/01/2006 11:58:52 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; Lurking Libertarian; Quark2005; RunningWolf; metmom
Exactly.

The distinctions between theism and polytheism would have been less powerfully made, and less clear an object lesson to the original hearers of Genesis, if they had been introduced along with an entirely new cosmology.

It is precisely because the cosmology is otherwise the same as that of surrounding, polytheistic, cultures that the central point -- animals, celestial objects, etc, are mere objects devoid of inherent divinity, and only their (singular and transcendent) Creator is worthy of worship -- is made stark and obvious by comparison.

Well, stark and obvious to the original hearers anyway. Modern antievolutionary creationists seem to entirely miss the point, focusing obsessively on the details of the cosmology rather than on the central teaching to which the cosmological details are only incidental. In this miss-focus, Hyers argues, creationists actually compromise scripture through the demeaning (and pointless) task of trying to make it fit with modern, secular science.

One is the Bible the other is not. This ain't rocket or evo science boys DUH!!!!

210 posted on 04/01/2006 6:15:40 PM PST by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson