NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, not quite. I can paste the quote, too.

From tomorrows edition of Nature (www.nature.com), this article (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380_fs.html).

A fundamental tenet of classical mendelian genetics is that allelic information is stably inherited from one generation to the next, resulting in predictable segregation patterns of differing alleles. Although several exceptions to this principle are known, all represent specialized cases that are mechanistically restricted to either a limited set of specific genes (for example mating type conversion in yeast) or specific types of alleles (for example alleles containing transposons or repeated sequences). Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.

Wow. Just fucking...Wow.

Translation?

i love u

can you explain that to those of us that don't speak bio-engineeringese?

:eek: That's bloody amazing! :eek:

Yes WoW (world of warcraft) is a totally awesome game...wait...what're we talking about??

can you explain that to those of us that don't speak bio-engineeringese?

Basically, a plant was found to have genes not present in either parent. The hypothesis to explain it is that said plant has a "backup" cache of its grandparents' genes somewhere, as a kind of insurance against harmful mutations. That's what I get from it anyway. :)

Sure (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407017)

And ignore my (the first) response- it's wrong. These plants apparently either carry "backup DNA," had very unlikely mutations, or evolution is trying something I can't even guess at. Plants fixed "degenerate" mutation present in both the parents, which should have bred true.

Basically, a plant was found to have genes not present in either parent. The hypothesis to explain it is that said plant has a "backup" cache of its grandparents' genes somewhere, as a kind of insurance against harmful mutations. That's what I get from it anyway. :)

woah. . .that's pretty damn cool. Once it was translated.

Umm...I'll explain it in computer terms.

Imagine computer problems are a genetic mutation. What this discovery says is that, basically, when a gene goes through a genetic mutation, living things have an ancestral blueprint that acts as a system restore.

So basically, when a gene mutates, this ancestral blueprint has the ability to repair it.

It's got some pretty far reaching properties for any fields touching on genetics.

For example, a drug that acts on a certain gene would become ineffective if said gene was repaired by the blueprint.

Ummmmmm, I don't follow. Can someone put that in simpler terms.

Plant mutates - mutation is not good. The plant has 'backup' genes that restore the original genes of the plant.


It basically starts over as a new plant.

Once it was translated.
Am I a geek if I understood it properly before anybody "translated" it?

:D

Am I a geek if I understood it properly before anybody "translated" it?

:D
yes. Yes you are.

EDIT: Duhnuhnuhnuh nuh nuh nuhnuh GEEK SQUAD!!!!

(for those of us that have best buy)

Yes you are, but then again so am I. :p

The really cool thing about this is that I've often seen pro-creationists argue that biologists are all a part of some vast evolution conspiracy that won't allow any investigation into counterarguments.

Well, you know that Mendel guy? Had a love of bean plants?

Well we just rocked his damned world.

So all you creationists out there, I thumb my nose at you and give you a hardy, "Nyah!"

Am I a geek if I understood it properly before anybody "translated" it?

yes. Yes you are.

EDIT: Duhnuhnuhnuh nuh nuh nuhnuh GEEK SQUAD!!!!

(for those of us that have best buy)

*shakes fist at Bio 100 course* :D

*shakes fist at Bio 100 course* :D
It's even scarier for me when you consider that I flunked highschool and never got out of first year classes due to not attending, and almost everything I know now is due to buying textbooks and reading them for the sheer hell of it.

Hell, most people would pay to not read those textbooks...

:D

I'm just waiting for the first post by a creationist along these lines:

"So... they found one single instance of a mutation being reversed in a later generation in a single individual... therefore DNA repairs itself when it mutates and never changes in the end... therefore evolution is impossible! AHA!!"

You know it's only a matter of time.

I'm just waiting for the first post by a creationist along these lines:

"So... they found one single instance of a mutation being reversed in a later generation in a single individual... therefore DNA repairs itself when it mutates and never changes in the end... therefore evolution is impossible! AHA!!"

You know it's only a matter of time.

Or for sure.

Nevermind small details, like the parents not being reset.

The really cool thing about this is that I've often seen pro-creationists argue that biologists are all a part of some vast evolution conspiracy that won't allow any investigation into counterarguments.

Well, you know that Mendel guy? Had a love of bean plants?

Well we just rocked his damned world.There's a one in a trillion chance that this is perfectly natural extension of normal mutations- it is recessive, so there's only need for one real mutation in the normal plant. One extremely lucky mutation, somewhere the original double-checking enzymes missed, where it would have to be activated in exactly the right cells on top of it being the right mutation... Erm...

One in ten trillion, maybe. Though, given enough time, the improbable becomes inevitable- that's what evolution is. I demand the experiment be reproduced in full by a double-blind study outside a laboratory before I buy into this!

There's a one in a trillion chance that this is perfectly natural extension of normal mutations- it is recessive, so there's only need for one real mutation in the normal plant. One extremely lucky mutation, somewhere the original double-checking enzymes missed, where it would have to be activated in exactly the right cells on top of it being the right mutation... Erm...

One in ten trillion, maybe. Though, given enough time, the improbable becomes inevitable- that's what evolution is. I demand the experiment be reproduced in full by a double-blind study outside a laboratory before I buy into this!

um... from what i read... this occurance happend in 10% of the subjects studied.. where did you get on in ten trillion from ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/science/23gene.html?th&emc=th

But up to 10 percent of the plants' offspring kept reverting to normal. Various rare events can make this happen, but none involve altering the actual sequence of DNA units in the gene. Yet when the researchers analyzed the mutated gene, known as hothead, they found it had changed, with the mutated DNA units being changed back to normal form.

um... from what i read... this occurance happend in 10% of the subjects studied.. where did you get on in ten trillion from ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/science/23gene.html?th&emc=th

I believe he was being facetious.

*raises hand* I didn't need a translation either. :D

Perhaps someone should start a "Geek Squad" thread. :p

Oh, and on topic...that's amazing. I really need to read that article again when I'm more awake...*bookmarks thread*

Wow is right...that's pretty damn cool. I understood it without the translation, too - can I be part of the sexy squad?

Well, to all those who are gloating because they didn't need a translation, I can gloat one step further. I was the first one to translate it. :D

I am somewhere in the creationist army, and uh yeah...maybe when I am more awake I can try to argue a dying cause. heh



Didn't Nature publish an article some months ago on whether evolution was possibly wrong or something?? I really wanna read that.

Well, not quite. I can paste the quote, too.

From tomorrows edition of Nature (www.nature.com), this article (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380_fs.html).



Wow. Just fucking...Wow.

Only problem I have, is that this is 'bad science'.

The assumption that a plant can reverse genetic damage, when there are other theories possible... why do only 10% of the plants revert? How is it they revert to a previous copy? The mechanism isn't understood - so for members of the scientific community to be arguing it as a 'new messiah' is irresponsible.

Perhaps the 'flower' code for a healthy plant is present in the traditionally understood areas - but also encoded into multiple genes elsewhere?

Thus - when the genetic aberration gets sufficiently BAD enough... say in... 10% of the plants... the flower information is utterly invalid, and the encoded information is 'dominant' by virtue of the fact that it is ALL that is left?

Maybe this one plant CAN rewrite genetic code, but I don't see this as evidence... certainly not yet, and certainly not without other considerations being ruled out.

OMG that's amazing...they didn't tell us that in science class...

Did anyone check the seeds, it may be possible that some sort of reparative chemical is sent through there, similar to the antibodies we get from out mother's womb.
If so, the females may make or keep copies sent to them by their parents for the next generation.

RNA-sequence cache? That would be impressive, considering how unstable RNA is. But that would imply reverse-translation...

Only problem I have, is that this is 'bad science'.

The assumption that a plant can reverse genetic damage, when there are other theories possible... why do only 10% of the plants revert? How is it they revert to a previous copy? The mechanism isn't understood - so for members of the scientific community to be arguing it as a 'new messiah' is irresponsible.

Perhaps the 'flower' code for a healthy plant is present in the traditionally understood areas - but also encoded into multiple genes elsewhere?

Thus - when the genetic aberration gets sufficiently BAD enough... say in... 10% of the plants... the flower information is utterly invalid, and the encoded information is 'dominant' by virtue of the fact that it is ALL that is left?

Maybe this one plant CAN rewrite genetic code, but I don't see this as evidence... certainly not yet, and certainly not without other considerations being ruled out.

It can't be that bad if it managed to get into Nature, though I'll admit that the conclusions they draw seem to be a little unfounded (see my previous post).

Didn't Nature publish an article some months ago on whether evolution was possibly wrong or something?? I really wanna read that.

It's possible you saw this National Geographic cover:

http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~ahare/natgeo1.jpg

... but never had the chance to look inside at the article:

http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~ahare/natgeo2.jpg

(I have that issue sitting on my kitchen table at home... good read...)

It can't be that bad if it managed to get into Nature, though I'll admit that the conclusions they draw seem to be a little unfounded (see my previous post).

From what I could gather... the data was collected over a fairly short period of time, a brief hiatus, and then something like an 18 month resumption?

And - still talking about only ONE place having produced the result, I believe?

I think perhaps Nature might have jumped the gun a little, in the hopes of getting a 'scoop'.

Grandfather Genes?? Cool.. Looks like I'm not the gardeners son afterall. Though I look very similar to him.

I believe he was being facetious.About 85% that, 15% not wanting to completely throw out any hypotheses until their chances go from "negligible" to "bordering infintesimal." The Ten Trillion, as guessed, came out of my ass as "Large, round, hard to calculate number."

We think we've found something new, possibly revolutionary- we think that about once a week with biology. The actual new, instead of "misinterpreted," are probably less than half of it. Since I have a strong dislike towards registering for something online (wasn't there an offical NS NYTimes account floating around some time ago?), I don't have an article informative enough to throw out my alternative theories.

Any proof that it's not something special about this one mutation that makes it one generation/skip generations in certain cases, such as different parental groups affecting it somehow?

Since I have a strong dislike towards registering for something online (wasn't there an offical NS NYTimes account floating around some time ago?),

Check out BugMeNot (http://www.bugmenot.com/).

Translation?
It can "remember" genes it's ancestors had but it's parents didn't and add them to it's own genetic makeup.

Only problem I have, is that this is 'bad science'.

The assumption that a plant can reverse genetic damage, when there are other theories possible... why do only 10% of the plants revert? How is it they revert to a previous copy? The mechanism isn't understood - so for members of the scientific community to be arguing it as a 'new messiah' is irresponsible.

Perhaps the 'flower' code for a healthy plant is present in the traditionally understood areas - but also encoded into multiple genes elsewhere?

Thus - when the genetic aberration gets sufficiently BAD enough... say in... 10% of the plants... the flower information is utterly invalid, and the encoded information is 'dominant' by virtue of the fact that it is ALL that is left?

Maybe this one plant CAN rewrite genetic code, but I don't see this as evidence... certainly not yet, and certainly not without other considerations being ruled out.

They suggested a plausible theory. They didn't state it as being a fact. It is no different than offering alternate theories to explain any of a million other data sets. We can theorize just about any explanation to just about anything we want to.

The evidence in this study supports the possibility of this theory. It doesn't prove it. Just like any and every other scientific study and accompanying theory.

Great ... now I can't eat carrots. Damn you!

Well, not quite. I can paste the quote, too.

From tomorrows edition of Nature (www.nature.com), this article (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380_fs.html).

Wow. Just fucking...Wow.
I posted this yesterday and got a collective yawn from General. :(

They suggested a plausible theory. They didn't state it as being a fact. It is no different than offering alternate theories to explain any of a million other data sets. We can theorize just about any explanation to just about anything we want to.

The evidence in this study supports the possibility of this theory. It doesn't prove it. Just like any and every other scientific study and accompanying theory.

A plausible theory... but not even close to being the MOST simple, based on the evidence thus far connected.

That's my problem here - they have made a reach for a 'miracle' explanation, when there are much more mundane explantaions still available... and they have rushed it to print, basically making a big deal ENTIRELY about a speculation.

It MIGHT turn out they are right... but it's just bad science.

Sounds like a prognosis made by David Suzi...

The father of invention called "DNA"

Troy* ;)

I'm just waiting for the first post by a creationist along these lines:

"So... they found one single instance of a mutation being reversed in a later generation in a single individual... therefore DNA repairs itself when it mutates and never changes in the end... therefore evolution is impossible! AHA!!"

You know it's only a matter of time.
If i'm not mistaken, that time hath already come'n'gone.
Eutrusca posted on this yesterday methinks, and was dignified enough to leave the article with very little creationist revisionism, but a few who commented on it went that way with it.

EDIT: yeah, only a couple of posts above this one ... ;)

Great ... now I can't eat carrots. Damn you!

Scientific American.com .... February 09, 2005
Carrot Compound Shows Promise for Slowing Cancer

The compound falcarinol helps protect carrots from fungal diseases. Kirsten Brandt of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in England and her colleagues investigated the effects of the natural pesticide on rats suffering from precancerous tumors. The researchers studied 24 animals that were divided into three groups: one group ate regular feed that did not contain falcarinol, another group consumed the feed plus carrots and the last group dined on the feed with falcarinol added to it. According to a report published in the February issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, after 18 weeks the rats that received falcarinol (either from carrots or feed additives), were one third less likely to develop full-scale cancerous tumors than were rats in the control group.
Falcarinol can be toxic in large amounts, but it would take 400 kilograms of carrots to reach a lethal dose. The scientists used raw carrots for the study, so it is not yet known if cooked carrots or carrot juice will exhibit the same beneficial effect, and the mechanism for the vegetable's apparent cancer-fighting effects remains unclear. "We now need to take it a step further by finding out how much falcarinol is needed to prevent the development of cancer," says Brandt, "and if certain types of carrots are better than others, as there are many varieties in existence, of different shapes, colors and sizes." --Sarah Graham

Don't be too hasty!