DNA Mapping Finished?

[LadyTevar]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/14/ge ... index.html

[Admiral Valdemar]

The idiot politicians and media said that years ago, thing is, that was the first draught which is normally done quickly to map the main bulk of the genome (via the shotgun method).

NOW it is finally finished in entirety.

[LadyTevar]

The idiot politicians and media said that years ago, thing is, that was the first draught which is normally done quickly to map the main bulk of the genome (via the shotgun method).

NOW it is finally finished in entirety.

And two years ahead of schedule too... Impressive.

So, wonder what the first usage will be, hmm?

[neoolong]

That's pretty cool. And not having many more genes than a small worm is kinda funny.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's pretty cool. And not having many more genes than a small worm is kinda funny.

There are plants that are almost as "advanced" as far as base pair count goes. Really, it's a better show of complexity by comparing how much DNA does something useful.

[Kuroneko]

Well, now that we know what it is, the question becomes much harder: what exactly does it actually do?

[Trytostaydead]

That's pretty cool. And not having many more genes than a small worm is kinda funny.

There are plants that are almost as "advanced" as far as base pair count goes. Really, it's a better show of complexity by comparing how much DNA does something useful.

Actually, most of our DNA is useless and excised (introns). If you want streamlined efficiency AND complexity, nothing beats a virus.. god, those things are beautiful.

[His Divine Shadow]

So, lets remove all that junk DNA, wonder what would happen...

[InnerBrat]

So, lets remove all that junk DNA, wonder what would happen...

If you removed all of it, it'd probably stop working, as I bet there's some with purposes. And phenotypical mutations would be far more common, which would probably have devestating effects on the population.

[His Divine Shadow]

If you removed all of it, it'd probably stop working, as I bet there's some with purposes. And phenotypical mutations would be far more common, which would probably have devestating effects on the population.

If it had a function, it wouldn't be classified as not having one, I think we can be pretty sure on this point.

And I believe mutations would decrease since there are no longer loads of useless genes that can go wrong somehow.

[InnerBrat]

If you removed all of it, it'd probably stop working, as I bet there's some with purposes. And phenotypical mutations would be far more common, which would probably have devestating effects on the population.

If it had a function, it wouldn't be classified as not having one, I think we can be pretty sure on this point.

No, its not been classified as having a function.

And I believe mutations would decrease since there are no longer loads of useless genes that can go wrong somehow.

Copying errors would not chaneg in actual frequency, but they would have to occur in coding DNA.
Mutations in non-coding DNA does not lead to phenotypical mutation, by definition

[His Divine Shadow]

No, its not been classified as having a function

Then it's not junk DNA, which is what I'm talking about, there is junk DNA that is not used, this can be removed.
Let's not talk about anything else.

Mutations in non-coding DNA does not lead to phenotypical mutation, by definition

It sure doesn't tend to lead to good things at any rate, just removing the junk DNA will mak sure it doesn't mutate into something nasty.

[LadyTevar]

No, its not been classified as having a function

Then it's not junk DNA, which is what I'm talking about, there is junk DNA that is not used, this can be removed.
Let's not talk about anything else.

And as soon as we do that, we'll find out that the 'junk' DNA did something after all.

Mutations in non-coding DNA does not lead to phenotypical mutation, by definition

It sure doesn't tend to lead to good things at any rate, just removing the junk DNA will mak sure it doesn't mutate into something nasty.

Of course, that 'junk' DNA also could be the reason why there aren't more mutations.

[His Divine Shadow]

And as soon as we do that, we'll find out that the 'junk' DNA did something after all.

Ahh, an unsupported assumption, prove it.
*removed*
EDIT:
To clarify then, what I'm seeing here is that you are saying that all this "junk" DNA would really do something, as in all of it, most it certainly, but all of it? And that as soon as one finds out what it does, it will no longer be useless? Seems a pretty certain thing to say, even if probability levels are high that they might do something

Of course, that 'junk' DNA also could be the reason why there aren't more mutations.

Why? I don't see why, less DNA means less genes that can mutate.
If anything, mutations ought to go down.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Please don't use the term "junk DNA", only the media and people with the minimalist grasp on biology say that and none of you are stupid. It is simply redundant from what we can tell, the exons are what code for things, the introns which make the majority of genes are somewhat pointless from what we can tell at the moment.

And taking it out would be a bad thing unless you knew for sure it wasn't needed.

And for efficiency, a bacteria or virus is usually the best, bacterial/yeast plasmids or Lamba vectors have no introns (I'm sure I read that some viri can have equivalent of introns though unless it was a retrovirus, I'll ask my prof. when I get back to uni).

[SirNitram]

And as soon as we do that, we'll find out that the 'junk' DNA did something after all.

Ahh, an unsupported assumption, prove it.
Seems like a fallacy of some kind to me, more of anti-genetic engineering mindsets I suppose...

I suggest you hop to and actually do some research, HDS. Very, very, very few scientists have said Junk DNA is truly Junk. It is, however, the name the media latched onto. I don't give a shit if you don't like this sequence of events, but STFU. It is the opinion of many experts in the field there is some purpose to it. You are the one making the unsupporting claim that there is no purpose to this stuff.

Of course, that 'junk' DNA also could be the reason why there aren't more mutations.

Why? I don't see why, less DNA means less genes that can mutate.
If anything, mutations ought to go down.

You've been watching too much Star Trek. Multiple copies for redundancy.

[SirNitram]

Please don't use the term "junk DNA", only the media and people with the minimalist grasp on biology say that and none of you are stupid.

Actually, it looks like HDS is that stupid, from his posts...

[His Divine Shadow]

I suggest you hop to and actually do some research, HDS. Very, very, very few scientists have said Junk DNA is truly Junk. It is, however, the name the media latched onto. I don't give a shit if you don't like this sequence of events, but STFU. It is the opinion of many experts in the field there is some purpose to it. You are the one making the unsupporting claim that there is no purpose to this stuff.

Oh there is DNA out there with no purpose to it, for example, there is for example this piece of useless DNA that came from a virus some of our ancestors had and it's now part of our DNA, it's purpose makes a certain kind of yeast I think it was, taste sweet, it really serves no purpose.

But I don't see why I should have a problem with the sequence of events.

You've been watching too much Star Trek. Multiple copies for redundancy.

I don't recall anything like that from Star Trek, then again I don't watch star trek, anyway redundancy, as far as I'm aware, is mostly managed during impregnation when genes switch places with each other.

But if you know of any examples of multiple copies for redundancy, outside of when chromosones exchange genes, please tell me.

This was also a problem with the Y cromosone when a piece broke of some millions of years ago, it could no longer exchange genes with the other chromosone(this happened twice IIRC) and is as such now a literal waste land, it's lost around 97% of it's original functions, it's only really there now to make the fetus into a male, most of the genes on the Y chromosone have as I've read, degraded and are no longer in "use".
Please feel free to correct me on this.

[Admiral Valdemar]

More DNA in the form of introns would be better as it would decrease the probability of exon DNA being mutated and causing real problems.

[His Divine Shadow]

More DNA in the form of introns would be better as it would decrease the probability of exon DNA being mutated and causing real problems.

Do elaborate, or maybe you have some links?

Anyway, can you elaborate on wheter there are any redundant copies in DNA today(as nitram spoke of) and a system that ensures that it works?

Beyond the exchange of genes that happen when two individuals mate that is.

[Admiral Valdemar]

More DNA in the form of introns would be better as it would decrease the probability of exon DNA being mutated and causing real problems.

Do elaborate, or maybe you have some links?

Anyway, can you elaborate on wheter there are any redundant copies in DNA today(as nitram spoke of) and a system that ensures that it works?

Beyond the exchange of genes that happen when two individuals mate that is.

It's basic maths, probability to be exact. If you have, say, 10 cars in a car park and one car thief, then your car has a higher chance of being broken into and buggered. If you have 1000 cars, then you car has a lower chance of being burgled. Same analogy applies to genes, UV or other carcinogens or mutagens will have less chance of attacking and harming good DNA if there is loads of bunk DNA to take the damage as well. That DNA isn't phased out of the genome because it is obviously helping us.

As for redundant DNA, there are bacteria that can be found in harsh places where radiation is extremely high that have 2 or more copies of each gene (e.g. Deinococcus radiodurans). These bacteria can survive thousands of times the radiation (they are also incredibly resistant to other factors, dehydration for instance) needed to kill a human and carry on adapting as has been shown in recent lab tests that conclude life could be found on the Martian surface. Radiation is a key player in cancer thanks to UV light.

As for mating, how do you mean "beyond exchange of genes"? Mating is the process of preserving genetic diversity and passing on working genes to keep a "fit" organism in the circle of life. There are different ways to do this sexual reproduction (meiosis) but I don't really know of anything else done during the process other than the exchange of genomic material.

[His Divine Shadow]

As for mating, how do you mean "beyond exchange of genes"? Mating is the process of preserving genetic diversity and passing on working genes to keep a "fit" organism in the circle of life. There are different ways to do this sexual reproduction (meiosis) but I don't really know of anything else done during the process other than the exchange of genomic material.

Well when mating the chromosones exchange genes, I was under the impression from Nitram that there where extra duplicates that where if damaged, replaced or changed in a similar way.

[SirNitram]

As for mating, how do you mean "beyond exchange of genes"? Mating is the process of preserving genetic diversity and passing on working genes to keep a "fit" organism in the circle of life. There are different ways to do this sexual reproduction (meiosis) but I don't really know of anything else done during the process other than the exchange of genomic material.

Well when mating the chromosones exchange genes, I was under the impression from Nitram that there where extra duplicates that where if damaged, replaced or changed in a similar way.

No, at least, not to my knowledge. I was referring to the same thing Valdemar did with his good probability example: The bunk DNA acts to reduce chances the vital DNA is harmed. That, of course, is assuming large amounts of it is bunk. I've studied enough chemistry to know you should never rule something out just because it doesn't do the normal thing. Dismissing it as junk is as foolish as the media hounds who leapt all over Junk DNA as a term.

[VilliageIdiot]

Well when mating the chromosones exchange genes, I was under the impression from Nitram that there where extra duplicates that where if damaged, replaced or changed in a similar way.

IIRC, the exchange of genes occur during crossing over in meiosis I, where holomolgous chromosomes exchange alleles. Repairing of DNA occured during the G2 of the cell cycle (or was that S?). As far as the actual fertilization goes, AFAIK no genetic changes occur. At least, that's according to Campbell.

Anyway, can you elaborate on wheter there are any redundant copies in DNA today(as nitram spoke of) and a system that ensures that it works?

I may be taking this out of context. IIRC, there are plenty of proof reading enzymes that check for mistakes in DNA replication and repair enzymes that go in to correct the mistakes once spotted. If the mutation is too severe, the cell undergoes apotosis (sp?). I'm not quite sure what the proceedures are for prokaryotes (yes, fell asleep in class, bad me), but I think there are also repair enzymes to help decrease mutations. Then again, mutations don't necessarily render the system helpless.

This was also a problem with the Y cromosone when a piece broke of some millions of years ago, it could no longer exchange genes with the other chromosone(this happened twice IIRC) and is as such now a literal waste land, it's lost around 97% of it's original functions, it's only really there now to make the fetus into a male, most of the genes on the Y chromosone have as I've read, degraded and are no longer in "use".

I'm not sure about the evolutionary history of the Y-chromosome. Since there's two alleles for each genetic trait (on the homologous chromosome), loss/defect of one allele wouldn't cause too much of a system malfunction (with exceptions to dominant mutations). Was this the redundancy you were talking about?

Re: "Junk DNA"
From what I've gleaned in lecture, the current known purpose introns serve is DNA splicing and decreasing chances of mutation in the genes (exons). If anyone knows different, please correct me.

And I believe mutations would decrease since there are no longer loads of useless genes that can go wrong somehow.

Genes, IIRC, are not useless. All genes code for proteins that affects our phenotypic traits. Getting rid of genes is only going to increase the problem, not solve it. DNA, OTOH, have large amounts of repetitive/nonsensical sequences, the purpose of which are not quite undertsood. I think the recent consensus is that humans have only about 40,000 genes, only about 2% of the entire DNA genome.