Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Extra Characters to the Biological Code

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Even if compressed I’ve always thought that the known informational content was not enough data. This makes sense because from an engineering point of view because there doesn’t seem to be enough data storage space in a few billion base pairs of nuclear DNA to specify all the detail in a mammal or similarly complex animal. It’s enough room to store a component library of the nuts and bolts required to build individual cells of different types but not the whole animal.

Obviously no one can argue against the assertion that we do not fully comprehend the biological code. Unlike with computer code we cannot simply determine at a glance which informational content defines what biological function. The title of geneticist Sermonti’s book is “Why a Fly is not a Horse”. In it he writes the only thing we know for certain about why a horse is a horse and not a fly is because its mother was a horse.

Thus, based on our current level of knowledge, any calculations that quantify biological informational content are going to be rough estimates. Personally, when measuring the functional sequence complexity of code encoding proteins I’ve long biased any calculations I do by rounding up to several extra informational bits. And this action seems justified by this recent news:

“Anyone who studied a little genetics in high school has heard of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine–the A, T, G and C that make up the DNA code. But those are not the whole story. The rise of epigenetics in the past decade has drawn attention to a fifth nucleotide, 5-methylcytosine (5-mC), that sometimes replaces cytosine in the famous DNA double helix to regulate which genes are expressed. And now there’s a sixth: 5-hydroxymethylcytosine.

In experiments to be published online April 16 by Science, researchers reveal an additional character in the mammalian DNA code, opening an entirely new front in epigenetic research.

The work, conducted in Nathaniel Heintz’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology at The Rockefeller University, suggests that a new layer of complexity exists between our basic genetic blueprints and the creatures that grow out of them. “This is another mechanism for regulation of gene expression and nuclear structure that no one has had any insight into,” says Heintz, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “The results are discrete and crystalline and clear; there is no uncertainty. I think this finding will electrify the field of epigenetics.”

Genes alone cannot explain the vast differences in complexity among worms, mice, monkeys and humans, all of which have roughly the same amount of genetic material. Scientists have found that these differences arise in part from the dynamic regulation of gene expression rather than the genes themselves. Epigenetics, a relatively young and very hot field in biology, is the study of nongenetic factors that manage this regulation.”

Go to Science Daily for more.

Comments
Joseph:
Had they tried that with an egg of a TOTALLY different species the outcome would have either resembled the egg species or would not have developed.
This outcome is consistent with the research finding here:
Cytoplasmic Impact on Cross-Genus Cloned Fish Derived from Transgenic Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Nuclei and Goldfish (Carassius auratus) Enucleated Eggs1 Abstract In previous studies of nuclear transplantation, most cloned animals were obtained by intraspecies nuclear transfer and are phenotypically identical to their nuclear donors; furthermore, there was no further report on successful fish cloning since the report of cloned zebrafish. Here we report the production of seven cross-genus cloned fish by transferring nuclei from transgenic common carp into enucleated eggs of goldfish. Nuclear genomes of the cloned fish were exclusively derived from the nuclear donor species, common carp, whereas the mitochondrial DNA from the donor carp gradually disappeared during the development of nuclear transfer (NT) embryos. The somite development process and somite number of nuclear transplants were consistent with the recipient species, goldfish, rather than the nuclear donor species, common carp. This resulted in a long-lasting effect on the vertebral numbers of the cloned fish, which belonged to the range of goldfish. These demonstrate that fish egg cytoplasm not only can support the development driven by transplanted nuclei from a distantly related species at the genus scale but also can modulate development of the nuclear transplants.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1095/biolreprod.104.031302steveO
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Sorry: "post-translational" In fact it's one of the same modifications, simple methylation.tragic mishap
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
bFast, I think Wikipedia is a bit behind on this one. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181447.htm From the article: “an epigenetic trait is a stably inherited phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence.” So if the fifth and sixth nucleotides alter the shape of the chromosome, then they would technically be epigenetic traits, since they are basically modified cytosine and don't change the base sequence. Which means that they aren't really a "fifth" and "sixth" base, just a modified base. It's just like post-transcriptional modifications to proteins.tragic mishap
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Alternative gene splicing (AGS)- More evidence for ID. AGS is a process that can take one gene and make several different proteins from it by editing. This editing not only takes out the unneeded introns and splices the exons together. It can also rearrange the exons or edit specified exons out to get other products. The 1 gene = 1 protein position has been abandoned years ago...Joseph
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
magnan:
But presumably the cytoskeleton and ribosomes and other cellular apparatus (and their extra-nuclear developmental coding information) are constructed from plans ultimately in the nuclear DNA.
I doubt that. The CELL is complete. The CELL is what replicates, along with ALL of its structures. There isn't any data which would demonstrate tat DNA alone can account for everything in a cell. THAT is the main issue with abiogenesis. DNA needs everything in the cell before it can be replicated. DNA is NOT a replicator.
The bottom line is nobody knows where the information is coded.
True, but I have a pretty good idea.
There doesn’t seem to be enough conserved DNA in the nucleus.
DNA is just a medium just as a disk is a medium for carrying computer info. The sequence is only important to carry out the coded instructions per the prescribed genetic code.Joseph
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
bFat:
The “disk” is the nucleotides. The information is the assembled order of those nucleotides.
There isn't any evidence for that. I understand that is what the anti-ID position requires but it does not hold water when compared with the data.Joseph
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Khan, The definition of "species" is ambiguous. IOW the two animals could be more closely related than we think. Perhaps I shopuld have been more clear. Had they tried that with an egg of a TOTALLY different species the outcome would have either resembled the egg species or would not have developed. Are sharks fish? And do shark fins have skeletal bones?Joseph
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
11 - sparc:
That said, I don’t see a fifth and sixth nucleotide type to be epigenic. Nor do I see that a fifth or sixth nucleotide offers much more opportunity for information increase.
Actually 5-Methylcytosine is well known as the 5th base. And yes, it adds information (X-inactivation, parental imprinting).
I don't want to speak for bFast, so he will need to comment. But my interpretation is that having additional bases does not affect the disability of random mutation to generate new information, not that the additional bases can't be contain information like the others. If genes are really like a "cube" of information, where characters make up specified information horizontally, vertically, "into the paper", diagonally (in 3 dimensions), and even in reverse, I am completely unable to comprehend the belief that random mutation could ever arrive at that result. I thought it was far-fetched when I was taught each gene had one specific function.uoflcard
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
A doughnut to go with that coffee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicingAdel DiBagno
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
bfast [10]:
What have exons got to do with it? What is your calculation 4 exons = 15 different proteins. Basic genetic theory says that a gene codes for a protein, no matter how many exons it contains.
Wake up and smell the coffee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon_shufflingAdel DiBagno
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
That said, I don’t see a fifth and sixth nucleotide type to be epigenic. Nor do I see that a fifth or sixth nucleotide offers much more opportunity for information increase.
Actually 5-Methylcytosine is well known as the 5th base. And yes, it adds information (X-inactivation, parental imprinting).
I say that because according to Jonathan Wells if we take the DNA of one species and put it in to an egg of another, is anything develops it will resemble the egg’s species.
Hasn't that been sorted out more than 50 years ago? You may google Acetabularia mediterranea, Acetabularia wettsteinii and Hämmerling.sparc
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
If on average, genes were broken up into 4 exons, then they could code for 15 different proteins.
What have exons got to do with it? What is your calculation 4 exons = 15 different proteins. Basic genetic theory says that a gene codes for a protein, no matter how many exons it contains. Joseph:
I hold that the information in living organisms is very similar to the information “on” a computer disk- the disk is not the information.
The "disk" is the nucleotides. The information is the assembled order of those nucleotides. Kahn, point well made. It would seem that the fundimental difference between a cow and a gaur is held in the dna. I'd love to see a mouse egg implanted with a lizzard's genes. If such worked, it would suggest that there is very little evolution going on in the exonic material.bFast
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Of note:Evolution Is Not Even A Proper Scientific Theory - The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Dr. Arthur Jones - http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=26e0ee51239e23041484 If you were to write a (very large) book similar to the DNA code, you could read many parts of the book normally and it would have one meaning, you could read the same parts of the book backwards and it would have another completely understandable meaning. Yet then again, a third equally coherent meaning would be found by reading every other letter of the same parts. A fourth level of meaning could be found by using a simple encryption program to get yet another meaning. A fifth and sixth level of meaning could be found in the way you folded the parts of the book into specific two and three dimensional shapes. Please bear in mind, this is just the very beginning of the mind bending complexity scientists are finding in the DNA code. Indeed, a study by Trifonov in 1989 has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt for up to 12 different codes of encryption!! No sentence, paragraph, book or computer program man has ever written comes close to that staggering level of poly-functional encryption we find in the DNA code of man. Here is a quote on the poly-functional nature of the DNA from renowned Cornell Geneticist and inventor Dr. John Sanford from his landmark book, “Genetic Entropy”: There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes).bornagain77
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Joseph: "IOW the information rides on the DNA, RNA, ribosomes, cytoskeleton and other structures in each cell." This seems to be the case. But presumably the cytoskeleton and ribosomes and other cellular apparatus (and their extra-nuclear developmental coding information) are constructed from plans ultimately in the nuclear DNA. If this is the case, then why is much of the non coding (formerly called "junk") DNA not conserved? This would seem to imply that the cellular information bearing structures carrying developmental data are not in the nucleus OR in the cytoskeleton, ribosomes, etc. By this reasoning much of the information to actually construct complex metazoans is neither in the nuclear DNA, or in the known molecular machines and structures unless they replicate from coding information carried outside the nuclear DNA. But the cloning experiments mentioned by Khan imply otherwise. At each step in the development of the organism each cell apparently knows which genes to transcribe, how and how much, in accordance with the body plan. The total "transcriptome" search space is beyond huge. Most Darwinists seem to ignore the issue. If they attempt to address the issue, one favorite conjecture is that "the primary source of information determining what proteins (and therefore what traits) a cell will produce is the location (at that point in development) of the cell, especially the cells it is touching and the cells that are nearby" (Allen MacNeill). Of course this actually begs the question, since the information ultimately still has to be somehow encoded in a single cell. The bottom line is nobody knows where the information is coded. There doesn't seem to be enough conserved DNA in the nucleus.magnan
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Joseph,
I say that because according to Jonathan Wells if we take the DNA of one species and put it in to an egg of another, is anything develops it will resemble the egg’s species
You'll have to get a better source. if you transfer the dna from species 1 to a denucleated egg of species 2, then species 1 will develop. this is how they cloned a gaur with a cow surrogate mother: http://www.advancedcell.com/press-release/advanced-cell-technology-inc-announced-that-the-first-cloned-endangered-animal-was-born-at-730-pm-on-monday-january-8-2001 Did Jonathan Wells also say that fish fins have no bones?Khan
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
The egg seems to carry more information about the form than the DNA. I say that because according to Jonathan Wells if we take the DNA of one species and put it in to an egg of another, is anything develops it will resemble the egg's species. As for epigenetics- just look at our body! The cells have the same DNA yet can be very different. Also I do not believe the information is the sequence. I hold that the information in living organisms is very similar to the information "on" a computer disk- the disk is not the information. IOW the information rides on the DNA, RNA, ribosomes, cytoskeleton and other structures in each cell. And just like a computer disk you will not see it through a microscope.
“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
Joseph
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Mr bFast, If on average, genes were broken up into 4 exons, then they could code for 15 different proteins. So the ratio you quote can be explained by a lower average number of introns than 3. On the other hand, these epigenetic discoveries address when and where gene expression occurs.Nakashima
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Patrick, I read the first sentence of your post and wondered why someone would compress you.Barry Arrington
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
tragic mishap:
It takes more than genes. Epigenetics is still about DNA, just not about gene sequences.
Hmmm. From Wikipedia:
In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, ... instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
Ie, if you take all of the dna of a horse, and clone it into the cell of a rat, the non-DNA stuff of the cell is likely to cause you to get something quite different from a horse. That said, I don't see a fifth and sixth nucleotide type to be epigenic. Nor do I see that a fifth or sixth nucleotide offers much more opportunity for information increase. However, the non-DNA structure of cells may contain vast quantities of information. That said, the coder of DNA is much more brilliant than us software developers. There are about 20,000 genes in the average human, but about 100,000 different proteins. The kind of code overloading that goes on in dna is incredible.bFast
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
It takes more than genes. Epigenetics is still about DNA, just not about gene sequences.tragic mishap
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Very interesting! It seems that the 'it-takes-more-than-dna' approach is gaining momentum. I wonder what effects this has on the '98% similarity' argument.QuadFather
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply