If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Nematode worms 1 -- Humans 0. Human genome shrinks to only 19,000 genes, less than nematode worms   (medium.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, nematodes, genomes, genes, genetics, cell type, Human Genome Project, genomics, genome sequencing  
•       •       •

1639 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jan 2014 at 12:42 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-03 11:40:12 AM
In the way back when, when storage and CPU cycles were limited, it was considered a good thing to have more compact code. It was a sign of elegant and skilled coding.
 
2014-01-03 12:23:09 PM

unlikely: In the way back when, when storage and CPU cycles were limited, it was considered a good thing to have more compact code. It was a sign of elegant and skilled coding.


Aye.  From a more civilized age.  Today's coding is just clumsy and random.
 
2014-01-03 12:53:04 PM
On the other hand, the non-coding DNA is a lot more important than we originally thought. For example RNA sometimes does stuff directly instead of just serving as an intermediate step in protein synthesis.
 
2014-01-03 12:57:58 PM

unlikely: In the way back when, when storage and CPU cycles were limited, it was considered a good thing to have more compact code. It was a sign of elegant and skilled coding.


IBM paying Microsoft per line of code to write OS/2 is one reason why Microsoft shifted to developing Windows instead.

Windows of course is a paragon of compact code.
 
2014-01-03 01:01:19 PM

Ivo Shandor: On the other hand, the non-coding DNA is a lot more important than we originally thought. For example RNA sometimes does stuff directly instead of just serving as an intermediate step in protein synthesis.


Yep

We also have control and condition DNA codes.
DNA is some neat stuff and we still don't know what all of it does yet.
It is an exciting time to study in the field.
 
2014-01-03 01:25:11 PM
The amount of genetic code has little bearing on our ranking in any scale you can imagine. See:

Chromosome counts

In short, a fern has more chromosomes than the next TEN organisms in the list put together. What does that signify? Nothing at all.
 
2014-01-03 01:40:31 PM

hogans: The amount of genetic code has little bearing on our ranking in any scale you can imagine. See:

Chromosome counts

In short, a fern has more chromosomes than the next TEN organisms in the list put together. What does that signify? Nothing at all.


Well, it seems to suggest that order comes from chaos.  Ferns and some of the earliest forms of "complex" life that we know of on the planet.  It does seems that the older the species the more chromosomes it has though I haven't actually researched anything to know if that's true.  It would be an interesting characteristic of life to determine how it originated from essentially a goop of millions of possibilities to find order in the face of near infinite probability.  And from there, it has whittled down the possibilities by the success of the various combinations of all those millions of possibilities giving rise to more and more successful and capable forms of life.
 
2014-01-03 01:48:00 PM
 
2014-01-03 02:01:53 PM

DubtodaIll: Well, it seems to suggest that order comes from chaos.



"Oh, blow it out your ass, Howard!"
 
2014-01-03 02:06:51 PM

Ivo Shandor: On the other hand, the non-coding DNA is a lot more important than we originally thought. For example RNA sometimes does stuff directly instead of just serving as an intermediate step in protein synthesis.


The second sentence is correct, but the first sentence is a misstatement of "what we thought" about the human genome, genes, and indeed the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. It keeps getting batted around, even by scientists that should know better. We've known about genes for functional RNA that doesn't code for protein for decades. It isn't like tRNA or rRNA are shocking revelations. Even more recent things like snoRNA, guide RNA, etc aren't new. We have of course discovered new classes more recently, like lincRNA, miRNA, etc, and have shown functionality of some of those. Non-coding DNA just means it doesn't code for protein, it was never equivalent to the term Junk DNA.

But despite what ENCODE likes to tout in their press releases, this still doesn't make up the bulk of the genome.
 
2014-01-03 02:27:05 PM

unlikely: In the way back when, when storage and CPU cycles were limited, it was considered a good thing to have more compact code. It was a sign of elegant and skilled coding.


Came here to say something like this.

/not all bits are equal.
 
2014-01-03 02:48:43 PM

hogans: The amount of genetic code has little bearing on our ranking in any scale you can imagine. See:

Chromosome counts

In short, a fern has more chromosomes than the next TEN organisms in the list put together. What does that signify? Nothing at all.


Better example of why more isn't necessarily better: Chromosome 21 trisomy.
 
2014-01-03 03:01:40 PM

DerAppie: Better example of why more isn't necessarily better: Chromosome 21 trisomy


Even better example:  Chromosome 18 trisomy.  Edward's syndrome.

/puts his NEPAman molecular biology degree back in the closet.
 
2014-01-03 03:41:12 PM
It's not the length of the genome, it's how you express it.
 
2014-01-03 05:56:12 PM

hogans: In short, a fern has more chromosomes than the next TEN organisms in the list put together. What does that signify? Nothing at all.


Don't some animals have sequences that are the equivalent of Jack's book in The Shining?
 
2014-01-03 06:00:06 PM

PirateKing: It's not the length of the genome, it's how you express it.


I sincerely hope someone submits a paper to PNAS with that title.
 
2014-01-03 06:01:28 PM
Nematode?

www.walkingwithnora.com
 
2014-01-03 07:00:54 PM
FTA: "The task of spotting protein-coding genes is by no means easy. The best method is to take a sample from a cell, ionise the proteins it contains and send them through a mass spectrometer. The proteins in the sample can then be determined by matching the measured masses to the predicted protein masses."

Well that is certainly a stupid way to "count" molecules. Take a look at the structure of a protein molecule.  They are huge with god only knows how many chiral centers?!?  You can't just pretend each unique mass in the sample represents one and only one optical isomer... CORN rule notwithstanding.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report