Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Sound of The Neutral Theory Exploding

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

KABOOM!
Silent Mutations Are Not Always Silent
“Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function”… 12/21/06

Silent Mutations Speak Up
“Biologists have realized that the genetic code harbours a layer of information that they have largely ignored. Again.” 12/21/06

A mutation in a human gene that does not change the resulting amino acid can nevertheless change a protein’s function, according to an online report from Science. The research marks the first time that the phenomenon has been confirmed in mammals.

This time, the focus is on ‘silent’ mutations, single letter changes that were, as their name suggests, generally thought to have little impact on that gene’s instructions for making protein.

But a study published in Science this week shows that two silent mutations are nothing of the sort1. They seem to change the rate at which a drug-pumping protein folds and may help decide whether certain cancers become drug resistant.

Silent — also called synonymous — mutations arise because of the rules of the genetic code. Three chemical letters of DNA, called a codon, instruct the cell to insert a particular amino acid into the string that makes up a protein. But often several different codons code for the same amino acid.

A silent mutation is one that changes the triplet, but leaves the amino acid unchanged. “We were all educated that silent mutations should be ignored, and people really don’t pay attention to them,” says Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. But it is becoming clear that proteins made of identical amino acids can nevertheless behave differently.

It should be noted that synonymous (silent) mutations are an important part of the neutral theory of molecular evolution and are also an important part of molecular clock theory. If silent mutations are not so silent this handily explains why molecular clocks are such inconsistent timepieces.

One possible explanation is that ribosomes process codons at different rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement. Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the bead comes out changes then the shape it folds into changes as well. Another possibility is post-processing of the protein product where RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after the ribosome finishes producing it.

Whatever the mechanism it really makes hash out of neutral theory and molecular clock theory.

Also note I’ve blogged in the past about how a design theoretic view predicts things like this. In this comment I described how the NTSC video signal evolved as intelligent designers added additional ways of encoding information to the carrier without effecting the preexisting ways and said we should look for DNA to have multiple encoding schemes one atop the other.

Comments
Come on Dave. None of this is a problem for Darwinism. You are just failing to see the big picture. All of this is actually predicted by Darwinism. You crazy creationists :P On a more serious note. I was reminded of the way you can work out which OS a machine is running over the internet by sending different sorts of network packets at the machine. In theory they should all be identical implementation of the TCP/IP stack, but they all handle the error cases slightly differently and this gives away heaps of information about the machine. Interesting discovery.jwrennie
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
I’m not sure that the “mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin” is the same as the neutrality Dave is referring to, but this is a very significant paper for Designinst.
I suppose it may not be the same neutrality that Dave is referring but it deals with neutral mutations in general. The point is that during epistasis (when the action of one gene is modified by one or more other genes) what may appear to be a neutral mutation is actually negative. In this way seemingly neutral mutations can accumulate until a threshhold is reached and then "the deleterious effects of [the] mutations become fully pronounced."Jehu
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
When will this theory officially break down?IDist
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
The following quote from the abstract in my opinion is a design hypothesis. "a new model in which the mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin, or threshold, that buffers the deleterious physico-chemical effects of mutations on fitness. Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic-once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed." It is interesting that this paper explains how mutated organisms can survive, even with damaged DNA. They forgot to mention the wonderful benefits of mutations building upon mutations to produce amazing novelty, that is the bedrock of NDE.idnet.com.au
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Jehu, I think that "the conclusion that genomes will only tolerate a limited amount of deviation from a single starting point" would constitute strong "scientific" evidence for Design. I'm not sure that the "mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin" is the same as the neutrality Dave is referring to, but this is a very significant paper for Designinst. I predict that Nature will accept Design theory before Science.idnet.com.au
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
DaveScot: I'm looking forward to the book coming out! As to probabilities, doesn't strike a devastating blow to OOL scientists? Now they not only have to explain how the code for proteins came about, but how, simultaneously, a code to regulate their transcription rate had to come about at the same time. Although, for now, they're seeing this in humans, and it could be argued that first the code, then the super-code. Any thoughts along these lines? Will be interesting to see how all this plays itself out.PaV
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Also confounding neutral drift theory, the December 14th issue of Nature had an article finding that the combined effect of neutral mutations is deleterious. From the abstract,
Subjecting TEM-1 to random mutational drift and purifying selection (to purge deleterious mutations) produced changes in its fitness landscape indicative of negative epistasis; that is, the combined deleterious effects of mutations were, on average, larger than expected from the multiplication of their individual effects. As observed in computational systems, negative epistasis was tightly associated with higher tolerance to mutations (robustness). Thus, under a low selection pressure, a large fraction of mutations was initially tolerated (high robustness), but as mutations accumulated, their fitness toll increased, resulting in the observed negative epistasis. These findings, supported by FoldX stability computations of the mutational effects, prompt a new model in which the mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin, or threshold, that buffers the deleterious physico-chemical effects of mutations on fitness. Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic- once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.
I think all of this leads to the conclusion that genomes will only tolerate a limited amount of deviation from a single starting point. This is what observable genetics and the fossil record have been telling us. The link: "Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17122770Jehu
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
A mutation in a human gene that does not change the resulting amino acid can nevertheless change a protein’s function, according to an online report from Science.
Wow! Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.Jehu
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
PaV Programmers really don't do this kind of thing. It's more the bailiwick of electronic design (I've done both programming and electronic design work in the past - ED and and especially analog ED being further in the past). Although some examples can be called out in digital signal processing. I wrote either here or to a private listserv in the past about how signals can be dug out of what appears for all practical purposes to be random noise. The Global Positioning System modulates signals on carriers broadcast by satellites where the signal on the receiving antenna is so weak it hardly rises above the thermal noise in the antenna. By performing fast fourier transforms on the signal the intelligence from a dozen satellites at once can be recovered from the random noise. Since much of the DNA molecule in eukaryotes appears to be random junk (noise) one might, from a design theoretic view, expect that there is intelligence somehow riding on that noise. I later found that indeed a few of the more outside-the-box thinkers involved in computational biology have been analyzing junk DNA through FFTs looking for patterns to emerge and found some intriguing results. Next year a book is coming out where some of my engineering insights into computational biology should be appearing. DaveScot
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Glad you posted this. I saw it the other day and have alluded to it on several posts already. But I really like the way you anticipated all of this back in Nov. Dave, as a programmer, what does this "code within a code" do to the probabilities of randomness bringing biological diversity about? Is it close to a knockout punch?PaV
December 23, 2006
December
12
Dec
23
23
2006
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply