Central Dogma: Missing, and presumed dead

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 29, 2014

Genomics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to “Proteome ‘more complex than previously thought’”, from Science:

“The prevalent view was that information transfer was from genome to transcriptome to proteome. What these efforts show is that it’s a two-way road—proteomics can be used to annotate the genome. The importance is that, using these datasets, we can improve the annotation of the genome and the algorithms that predict transcription and translation,” said Steen. “The genomics field can now hugely benefit from proteomics data.”

Hey, aren’t these the cement shoes of the Central Dogma? Remember when One gene coded for one protein?

See also: Information killed the Central Dogma too

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Cells may stray from 'central dogma' The ability to edit RNA to produce 'new' protein-coding sequences could be widespread in human cells. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110519/full/news.2011.304.html
This was published 3 years ago - has this been confirmed or disproved since then?Dionisio_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

James Shapiro, as much flack as he has caught from orthodox neo-Darwinists (especially Coyne) must be grinning from ear to ear.
Coyne Disses Shapiro, but Shapiro Inspires Koonin -- and Natural Selection Is the Main Issue Paul Nelson August 28, 2012 Excerpt: Coyne ended his post by complaining that Shapiro's dissent from textbook neo-Darwinism "was an embarrassment to me, for Shapiro works at my university and, in my view, his writings impugn our reputation for excellence in evolutionary biology." [Jim Shapiro's] contention that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated represents a point of view that has a growing set of adherents. (A few months ago, I was amazed to hear it expressed, in the strongest terms, from another highly eminent microbiologist.) My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a "creative" and crucial role in evolution and, on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/coyne_disses_sh063541.html Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22 is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 The Genome is a Read-Write Memory System - James Shapiro - video https://vimeo.com/74618934
also of note:
“The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences video debate - Denis Noble and Sydney Brenner will propose and oppose respectively the motion that: “There is no privileged level of causation: an organism is not defined by its genome” http://www.virtual-liver.de/wordpress/en/2012/07/16/the-virtual-liver-network-keynote-debate/
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov, a molecular biologist par excellence, states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years:
Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637
bornagain77_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

The roll continues. Unless you want to explain what on earth this finding has to do with the central dogma?wd400_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply