Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics


"Larry Moran" <lamoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e89dl5$2bp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 02:09:51 -0400 (EDT),
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

And protein coding genes are only the tip of the iceberg. We are coming
to realize that there is a lot more to genetics than protein sequences.
If you adopt a traditional geneticists viewpoint on the definition of a
gene, you might define a gene to be a sequence of nucleotides that is
(1) large enough to have a function,
(2) small enough to usually retain coherence in recombination,
(3) important enough to make a difference, and
(4) variable enough so that we notice the differences.

By this definition, our estimates of the number of genes in the human
species has not shrunk in the genomic era; instead it has increased.
Not all genes code for proteins. Many regulate the production of those
proteins. Transcriptional control has been known about for a long
time, but we are discovering that it is more complicated than we thought.
We have also known about post-transcriptional control for a long time,
but we dismissed it as uncommon. We are learning that it is not at all
uncommon, and much more diverse and complicated than expected. And we
are just coming to realize just how important the various forms of
copy-number variation are.

Who is "we" Kemo sabe? :-)

There's a lot of nonsense that's been published in the past few years.
Some of it is the standard hyperbole of scientists who want to make
their particular research program look revolutionary. But some of it is
motivated by scientists who just can't get over the blow to their ego
when we discovered that humans only have 23,000 genes.

A worthwhile bit of cautionary advice. Usually I am just as much of
a skeptic of the significance of new research as Larry is. But here,
I may have been carried away by the excitement. Thx for reining me
in, Larry.

Don't believe everything you read in the popular science literature.
Look at the original papers to get the facts.

Or what I will probably do is wait ten years, and then learn about this
stuff from the textbooks. That way I get only the significant facts.
Or, at least the facts that the textbook author thinks are significant.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Haldanes Dilemma and quantitative genetics
    ... to realize that there is a lot more to genetics than protein sequences. ... If you adopt a traditional geneticists viewpoint on the definition of a ... Not all genes code for proteins. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Duplicate genes that get modified to perform other functions.
    ... >>>families are the result of duplication and modification, ... so why should they believe in the nested hierarchy among genes? ... > lose 3% of common transcription factors for every 1% divergence of their ... Transcription factors are proteins that bind to the promoter ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and Predictions
    ... > likely due to the fact that this chaperone machine is IC (IC ... > stress genes and proteins that verified this prediction. ... > has demonstrated that if the hsp70 gene is absent, hsp40 and grpE ... I know a little bit about hsp70 genes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Birds of a feather not related to each other
    ... W.A.>>>One word, Benjamin: Proteins. ... >>cells in the process of the development of any organ. ... Genes actually don't>code for much. ... > one semester of organic chemistry ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Alternative Splicing
    ... > for human and mouse HSP70 genes. ... > proteins play an important role as essential chaperones in all ... > The patterns of alternative splice variants are predicted from the ... I've made a serious mistake and the human/mouse HSP70 genes ...
    (talk.origins)