Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jonathan Wells Jonathan Wells, the author of The Myth of Junk DNA, offers some thoughts on the limitations of what DNA does. Read this before you pay attention to any more DNA fundamentalism:

We have rigorous experimental evidence that DNA does not even code completely for proteins; in most cases the final forms of proteins are not fully specified by DNA sequences.

After transcription, most multi-exon eukaryotic genes undergo alternative splicing, which changes the sequence. [1] We know of one DNA sequence (a “gene” in now-obsolete parlance) in Drosophila from which over 18,000 different proteins are derived, mostly through alternative splicing. [2]

After alternative splicing, some mRNAs undergo editing, in which various subunits are modified or removed and new subunits are added. [3] Because of alternative splicing and RNA editing, the sequences of most mRNAs are different from the original DNA sequence. Instead, their final forms are specified by processes mediated by huge epigenetic complexes (spliceosomes and editosomes) that respond to extracellular cues and operate differently in different developmental stages.

Even after RNAs are translated into proteins, the latter change in ways that cannot be traced back to DNA sequences. First, proteins with the same amino acid sequences can adopt different three-dimensional folding patterns; these are called “metamorphic proteins.” [4] Second, most proteins are glycosylated: That is, complex carbohydrates are chemically bonded to them to generate enormous diversity in protein functions. [5] Since carbohydrate molecules are branched, they carry many more orders of magnitude of information than linear molecules such as DNA and RNA. This has been called the “sugar code,” and although it is highly specified it is largely
independent of DNA sequence information. [6]

So DNA does not completely specify proteins; but even if it did, it would not specify their spatial locations in the cell or embryo. After a protein is transcribed in the nucleus, it must be transported to the proper location in the cell with the help of cytoskeletal arrays and membrane-bound targets that are not themselves specified solely by DNA sequences. The pattern of spatial information in the membrane — called the “membranome” — is known not to be specified by DNA [7] Since spatial localization is essential for proteins to function properly, this adds yet another layer of complexity to the specification of form and function. [8]

Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.

[1] Kornblihtt AR, Schor IE, Alló M, Dujardin G, Petrillo E, et al. (2013) Alternative splicing: A pivotal step between eukaryotic transcription and translation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:153-165. doi:10.1038/nrm3525

[2] Sun W, You X, Gogol-Döring A, He H, Kise Y, et al. (2013) Ultra-deep profiling of alternatively spliced Drosophila Dscam isoforms by circularization-assisted multi-segment sequencing. EMBO J Jun 21, 2013. doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.144

[3] Peng Z, Cheng Y, Tan BC, Kang L, Tian Z, et al. (2012) Comprehensive analysis of RNA-Seq data reveals extensive RNA editing in a human transcriptome. Nat Biotechnol 30:253-260. doi:10.1038/nbt.2122

[4] Bryan PN, Orban J (2010) Proteins that switch folds. Curr Opin Struct Biol 20:482-488. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2010.06.002

[5] Furukawa K, Ohkawa Y, Yamauchi Y, Hamamura K, Ohmi Y, et al. (2012) Fine tuning of cell signals by glycosylation. J Biochem 151:573-578. doi:10.1093/jb/mvs043

[6] Gabius H-J (2000) Biological information transfer beyond the genetic code: The sugar code. Naturwissenschaften 87:108-121. doi:10.1007/s001140050687

[7] Cavalier-Smith T (2004) The membranome and membrane heredity in development and evolution. In: Hirt RP, Horner DS, eds. Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryote Phylogeny. CRC Press (Boca Raton, FL) pp 335-351.

[8] Wells J (2013) The membrane code: A carrier of essential biological information that is not specified by DNA and is inherited apart from it. In: Marks RJ II, Behe MJ, Dembski WA, Gordon BL, Sanford JC, eds. Biological Information: New Perspectives. World Scientific (Singapore) pp 474-488.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Do I really have to repeat myself again? While it was interesting to learn that we think epigenetics has a role in splicing, the fact still remains that the amino acid sequence of the final gene product is still exactly what would be predicted from the corresponding nucleotide sequence in the DNA. Like I said, RNA editing is the only process that supports his claim and it is not only rare but largely has no effect on the ultimate primary sequence. And like I said, you can call it "bankrupt" all you want, but I have seen with my own eyes, the increase in mentioning of both abiogenesis and evolution in university-level basic biology classes.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
Sorry computer lag resulted in a double post.Jehu
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
BTW, Darwinism is intellectually bankrupt.Jehu
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
BTW, Darwinism is intellectually bankrupt.Jehu
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
AVS
In that first sentence he is trying to bolster his claim that protein sequences are not fully specified by DNA sequence.
His claim is accurate. Alternative splicing is determined in part by epigenetic inputs, hence protein sequences are not fully specified by DNA. That is not exactly a big win for ID, but whatever I am not the one making the objection.Jehu
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Well I'm glad we could finally agree on something..somewhat. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that to understand biology at a high level, you need a high degree of training in the field. You can't just take a computer scientist and ask them to analyze a scientific paper out of the journal of biological chemistry. Most of the people who claim to "not like that theory" don't have much of a background in biology to begin with. The individuals behind the ID movement with a background in biology know exactly how to take advantage of it. They craft their arguments around what science hasn't figured out yet and blow any shortcomings they can find out of proportion. They know their audience well and cater to them, preying on the scientific illiteracy and lack of knowledge in biology of the majority of them. The evidence behind evolution has been accumulating for decades and no matter how much you guys scream "darwinism is bankrupt," the truth is its being taught more and more, at least at the college level, slowly gaining a stronger and stronger foothold in the public. It doesn't seem like you guys are doing much I'm sorry to say.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
AVS, "you’d realize I was saying that it puts you at a disadvantage in thinking about biology. Computer engineering lends itself better to a different way of thinking than biology does, just as math and chemistry lend themselves to different ways of thinking." There is a bit of truth hidden in that statement. However, these "different ways of thinking" should compliment each other, not clash with each other. In the other fields of science, all of them, you find that coming at the question from a different perspective compliments rather than questions. Mathematicians (think Hoyle or Dembski) don't like the theory. Engineers don't like the theory (they love biology because it contains incredible feats of engineering.) Us software developers don't like the theory. The theory only makes sense to people who fantasize that the impossible can be achieved if there is enough time. Please understand what a software engineer is, we are logic engineers. Developing computer software is assembling a rack of logical pathways. Developing computer software that works requires that the logic be flawless and complete. Evolutionary biology, by your reasoning, cannot be properly understood with logic. I agree that evolutionary biology cannot be understood with logic -- because it is illogical. BTW AVS, I don't believe that you have answered the questions I posed to you in #113.Moose Dr
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Yeah, because you understand biology, right Joe? Good one. And why don't you ask scordova himself then? It'll probably be the first time he agrees with me. Everything I have said completely refutes Wells' dishonest presentation of biological processes. The fact that you think you have corrected me in much of anything is laughable. On the troll scale, you're not far from our old pal Erik. If you think of something intelligent to say, let me know. I won't hold my breath.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
AVS- There isn't anything you said that refutes Wells. Meaning there isn't anything you said that needs addressing except to correct, as I have been doing.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
AVS:
Thank you for proving the point I made about his wording being ambiguous. both Scordova and I seem to think he is referring to the amino acid sequence, not the mRNA.
LoL! It is only "ambiguous" if you don't understand biology. Most likely Sal just got caught up in your BS. It was very clear to me. Go figure.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Ah yes, he did. My mistake, I knew I'd heard about it recently. Anyways, let me know when you guys can refute anything I have said. See ya.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Thank you for proving the point I made about his wording being ambiguous. both Scordova and I seem to think he is referring to the amino acid sequence, not the mRNA. I never claimed any of these processes are carried out by DNA directly, but the processes I have mentioned are all completely dependent on the initial DNA sequence, in either the the form of mRNA or amino acid sequence due to the fact that they rely completely on sequence-specific binding.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
AVS:
I guess I’ll demonstrate my intellectual honesty for you all and let you guys know that the cellular process you are looking for is called RNA editing.
Wells talks about RNA editing in the OP. So thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. You are one sick troll, AVS. Thanks for the laughs...Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
AVS:
No Joe, it’s sequence specific binding and it’s how this little thing called biochemistry works.
LoL! DNA is inert. It doesn't do anything if left alone. And sequence specific binding doesn't mean blind processes did it nor that if you get all the right chemicals together that it all just starts happening. So no, AVS, you are just a bluffer with nothing but you to back you up.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
AVS- Alternative splicing does change the sequence- the introns and perhaps some exons are taken out. He is talking about the DNA sequence is different from the processed mRNA sequence: After transcription, most multi-exon eukaryotic genes undergo alternative splicing, which changes the sequence. AFTER TRANSCRIPTION, NOT TRANSLATION. So why are you talking about amino acid sequences? It's as if you are just a poseur.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
I guess I'll demonstrate my intellectual honesty for you all and let you guys know that the cellular process you are looking for is called RNA editing. This is the only process that you can truly say "changes the sequence" of the final, expressed amino acid chain. And even this process is regulated by complementary base-pairing to the mRNA strand, which requires specific sequences in the original DNA strand.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Telepathy? No Joe, it's sequence specific binding and it's how this little thing called biochemistry works. I wouldn't expect you to now anything about that though.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
The sentence you have bolded is his claim, and the following sentences, the first of which is about alternative splicing which I was referring to at that time, are the evidence he uses to back this claim. Please do not take what I say out of context.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
AVS:
And as I hope you know, the protein and mRNA strands are all controlled by the DNA.
So the DNA controls alternative gene splicing and mRNA processing? Is it some kind of telepathy?Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
AVS:
You do realize that the amino acid sequence after, protein splicing, still exactly matches what would be predicted from the corresponding coding segments of DNA, right?
So what? No one is saying otherwise. AVS tilting at windmills and losing. Very entertaining.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
AVS:
In that first sentence he is trying to bolster his claim that protein sequences are not fully specified by DNA sequence.
Liar- or moron. He is talking about the final 3-dimentional shape- its spatial structure, is not determined by the DNA sequence that codes for it: We have rigorous experimental evidence that DNA does not even code completely for proteins; in most cases the final forms of proteins are not fully specified by DNA sequences. That is because with longer chains chaperones are required or the functional shape is never realized. Look AVS, if you can't even get the first part right perhaps you should just leave and come back when you are all grown up.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Scordova, you're late to the game so I'll cut you some slack. I guess you haven't noticed but an important part of my original argument was that the modification of proteins, whether it's by enzymes that add sugars, phosphates, or lipids, or enzymes that splice or cleave the protein, or it's enzymes that alternatively splice the mRNA, or enzymes that are helping transport the protein, every single one of these enzymes recognize a specific amino acid sequence on the protein or mRNA strand. And as I hope you know, the protein and mRNA strands are all controlled by the DNA.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
From wiki Posttranslational Modification of Proteins. I guess that means what happens to proteins after the ribosomes using the mRNA from DNA has made them. :-)
After translation, the posttranslational modification of amino acids extends the range of functions of the protein by attaching it to other biochemical functional groups (such as acetate, phosphate, various lipids and carbohydrates), changing the chemical nature of an amino acid (e.g. citrullination), or making structural changes (e.g. formation of disulfide bridges). Also, enzymes may remove amino acids from the amino end of the protein, or cut the peptide chain in the middle. For instance, the peptide hormone insulin is cut twice after disulfide bonds are formed, and a propeptide is removed from the middle of the chain; the resulting protein consists of two polypeptide chains connected by disulfide bonds. Also, most nascent polypeptides start with the amino acid methionine because the "start" codon on mRNA also codes for this amino acid. This amino acid is usually taken off during post-translational modification.
scordova
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
If my attack is dishonest, surely someone should be able to prove me wrong, no?AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Did you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just trolling too?AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
A friendly note to UD participants... AVS is here because he's been caught in a ridiculous and dishonest representation of what Wells has said. He has been specific, and the text is right here on this very thread. It's not going anywhere. So how do you deal with a stupid lie when you don't have the character to recant it? You tell it again, of course. You gather up some different words and a different angle and say it all over again - just like he did in 121. So AVS is now back, thrown out a couple of kisses, and if that doesn't work, he's surely ready to incite someone (anyone) to get back in it with him so he can tell his whole thing again. Why not just let him stand in it this time? He's definitely a thumper - so he's not going anywhere. Let him have his famous indignant last words. Allow him to fool himself he can change the dishonest attack he's already laid down.Upright BiPed
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
AVS:
Yet another person who tells me I have no idea what I am talking about, and yet I am the only person to actually demonstrate any knowledge of biology in the 60 comments above this one. It’s quite comical.
You don't know what life is and you don't know that causes life, and you don't know that you don't know what you don't know. Now that's comical.Mung
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Also, the splicing event is signaled by a stretch of amino acids in the precursor protein which are encoded by none other than the original DNA sequence. This means the information for protein splicing, as well as the information that signals sugar modification that I mentioned before, is encoded by the DNA itself.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
You do realize that the amino acid sequence after, protein splicing, still exactly matches what would be predicted from the corresponding coding segments of DNA, right? As far as this conversation is concerned there is no difference between splicing before or after translation, the final gene product still matches what was originally encoded in the DNA for each extein. Splicing does not change the primary sequence of the protein so that it no longer exactly matches what would be predicted from the corresponding coding segments of DNA.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
From wiki: Protein Splicing
Protein splicing is an intramolecular reaction of a particular protein in which an internal protein segment (called an intein) is removed from a precursor protein with a ligation of C-terminal and N-terminal external proteins (called exteins) on both sides. The splicing junction of the precursor protein is mainly a cysteine or a serine, which are amino acids containing a nucleophilic side chain.
This slide compare protein splicing to RNA splicing: http://tools.neb.com/inbase/intro.php#T More: http://tools.neb.com/inbase/intro.php#Ascordova
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply