Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Scientists vie to break junk DNA's secret code

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 06/10/2003)

Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.

The discovery is of potentially huge significance, since it could lead to an entirely new explanation for certain diseases and symptoms. A race is now on among teams of scientists worldwide to investigate this cryptic code.

While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.

In the latest issue of the journal Science, Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School, Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, and colleagues have reported compelling evidence that up to three per cent of our genetic material has a crucial role that is not understood.

They made the unexpected discovery that some DNA regions of humans, dogs and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical. These regions of what were once called junk have been dubbed "conserved non-genic sequences", or CNGs, a reference to how they are not conventional genes.

Prof Antonarakis said: "I suspect that mutations in CNGs may contribute to numerous genetic disorders." Defects in CNGs could result in illness while the symptoms of Down's syndrome, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome, might be linked to the presence of additional CNGs.

"Many laboratories are now working on identifying pathogenic mutations," he said.

[f.Christian]

You know the difference between history and anthropology is writing - reading ... what do you have --- gypsy science ?

[PatrickHenry]

The original Patrick Henry died a generation before Darwin published. He didn't know about evolution, or relativity, or the internet.

[VadeRetro]

OTOH, it only takes a few of his posts before I realize sense is an illusion.

[VadeRetro]

You know the difference between history and anthropology is writing - reading ...

Actually, I never dreamed.

[f.Christian]

The real Patrick Henry existed before evolution dumb downed the world --- look what happened to you !

[PurVirgo]

Lexicon is the particular company I am referring to. I believe they created knockout mice to research the viability of somatic gene therapy.

Yes, I'm aware that the majority of genes are not phenotypically expressed - appearance, or physical manifestation, is such a small percentage of who we are as a species.

I think the purpose was the after mapping (and knowing the function of) the operons, was to find out what would happen if introns were knocked out too. I think the resultant mice was more (way more) than they had ever expected.

As far as organism size vs. genetic information - I find that interesting as well!! I didn't know that about the amoeba.

What I find most interesting is the inability of prokaryotic organisms to process introns. Like when they used E. coli to make human insulin.

[f.Christian]

American History comes far enough after the rise of hominids that it should be basically unaffected.

What rise of the hominids ... retrogrades - reprobates --- rejects !

[PurVirgo]

oh... ok. *sheepish grin*

I concede your point then.

[RightWingNilla]

The original Patrick Henry died a generation before Darwin published. He didn't know about evolution, or relativity, or the internet.

Come on, that's no excuse.

[PatrickHenry]

Gone for the evening P L A C E M A R K E R

[VadeRetro]

What rise of the hominids ...

OK, make it "... after whatever happened to the hominids..."

[f.Christian]

fC ...

When are evolutionists -- liberals - atheist - wiccans ... going to find their own country --- lesser aclu america !

rm7 ...

To: Hermann the Cherusker

**Your claiming of those Deists as Protestants proves my point that Protestantism doesn't really care what a man believes, and certainly not if he believes in Christ or not, so long as it is not Catholicism. **

Thank you for the opportunity to post this. Note only one Catholic..

Denominational Affiliations of the Framers of the Constitution

Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. Contrary to myth, the following list, published by Bradford, indicates that only 3 out of 55 of the framers classified themselves as Deists.

Note: only those Denominations whose Confessions of Faith were expressly Calvinistic at this time have been identified as "Calvinist" denominations. While many "Old-School" Lutherans and "Whitfield" Methodists at this time would have identified themselves with a Calvinistic view of Predestination, their affiliation has for the sake of charity been assumed to be non-Calvinist.

New Hampshire

* John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

Massachusetts

* Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist Connecticut
* Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

New York


* Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
* Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist

New Jersey

* William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Pennsylvania


* Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
* Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Wilson, DEIST
* Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
* George Clymer, QUAKER
* Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Delaware

* John Dickinson, QUAKER
* George Read, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Bassett, METHODIST
* Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN

Maryland

* Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Virginia


* George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN (Non-Communicant)
* James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

North Carolina

* William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Hugh Williamson, DEIST
* William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

South Carolina

* John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Georgia

* Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Few, METHODIST

327 posted on 09/30/2003 9:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7



fC ...

The definition of an anti christ is pretty much someone who uses the power of the state to force their beliefs ... specious - esoteric - sectarian --- upon others !

Pretty much atheist - statist totalitarians ... power mongerers --- controllers - social engineers (( aclu - evo whacks )) !

[gore3000]

I'll discuss science when you learn some.

More insults from an evo loser. Why don't you just refute my posts since I am so wrong?

[VadeRetro]

His name was Charles Carroll, not Daniel. Also, you have a curious definition of antichrist.

Out for the night.

[PurVirgo]

Believe it or not - I agree with you here too. Even though I am a spiritual person, it's hard for me to deny the evidence of science.

But it's a hard line to walk because of what you just said. Only, I have friends who also like to throw in my face that science proves that there is no God - and I just can't accept that.

[RightWingNilla]

Lexicon is the particular company I am referring to. I believe they created knockout mice to research the viability of somatic gene therapy.

My point was that someone must have identified that region as something interesting to knockout beforehand. I am sure it wasnt just some nondescript junk DNA.

Yes, I'm aware that the majority of genes are not phenotypically expressed - appearance, or physical manifestation, is such a small percentage of who we are as a species.

Ahhh...but realize that there was a good reason for knocking out these genes in mice in the first place. These are expressed sequences that show promising results in tissue culture cells, enough to justify making a $100,000 mouse. And in many (if not most) of these cases, there is no effect on viability or even a phenotype in these animals.

I think the purpose was the after mapping (and knowing the function of) the operons, was to find out what would happen if introns were knocked out too. I think the resultant mice was more (way more) than they had ever expected.

I think you have your terminology confused a bit here. The term "operon" refers to clusters of genes in prokaryotes that are all expressed simultaneously (i.e. lac operon). Perhaps you meant exons - the protein coding portion of the gene?

Introns do serve important functions. First of all they seperate exons and allow for alternate splicing and shuffling exons for a given mRNA to potentially generate several different proteins. Also we are finding more and more that introns hold important regulatory sequences which control the rate of gene expression.

[gore3000]

there will be no straight answer to this simple question.

Because you are attempting to side track a scientific discussion with irrelevancies. If the earth were a trillion years old it would not mean that evolution is true. Evolution can only be true if there be evidence for it and evidence of how it transforms species into more complex species. That is the question which evolutionists cannot answer and thus try to sidetrack. Sorry, I will not be sidetracked.

[PurVirgo]

WOW!! I didn't think that other people thought the way I do too!!

hehe, guess I don't get to be unique anymore ;)

[gore3000]

Seriously though, they ruin civil discussion for everybody.

That is their aim, to destroy a thread with spam, insults and lies. They call themselves followers of science yet all they are is ruthless, ignorant barbarians.

[RightWingNilla]

Only, I have friends who also like to throw in my face that science proves that there is no God - and I just can't accept that.

Thats a very ignorant thing to say. Your friends should realize that science while tremendously useful has its limitations.