Now: The Rest of the Genome

[groovedaddy]

Over the summer, Sonja Prohaska decided to try an experiment. She would spend a day without ever saying the word “gene.” Dr. Prohaska is a bioinformatician at the University of Leipzig in Germany. In other words, she spends most of her time gathering, organizing and analyzing information about genes. “It was like having someone tie your hand behind your back,” she said.

But Dr. Prohaska decided this awkward experiment was worth the trouble, because new large-scale studies of DNA are causing her and many of her colleagues to rethink the very nature of genes. They no longer conceive of a typical gene as a single chunk of DNA encoding a single protein. “It cannot work that way,” Dr. Prohaska said. There are simply too many exceptions to the conventional rules for genes.

It turns out, for example, that several different proteins may be produced from a single stretch of DNA. Most of the molecules produced from DNA may not even be proteins, but another chemical known as RNA. The familiar double helix of DNA no longer has a monopoly on heredity. Other molecules clinging to DNA can produce striking differences between two organisms with the same genes. And those molecules can be inherited along with DNA.

The gene, in other words, is in an identity crisis.

This crisis comes on the eve of the gene’s 100th birthday. The word was coined by the Danish geneticist Wilhelm Johanssen in 1909, to describe whatever it was that parents passed down to their offspring so that they developed the same traits. Johanssen, like other biologists of his generation, had no idea what that invisible factor was. But he thought it would be useful to have a way to describe it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/science/11gene.html?th&emc=th

[TZ]

1. Poorly written article

The role of RNA has long been known to be an important function (there are even different designations for different types of RNA..mRNA..messanger RNA).
Now challenging the one gene one protein idea is different, but I don't think it will shock the scientific world anymore..the multifunction gene idea has been something played around with for awhile.
Also from the study of retroviruses we know that RNA has a lot more potential than was ever thought before.
We are learning a lot about genetics right now and while a lot of the more basic theories are going out the window like the simplistic one gene one protein theory..and junk DNA actually does have a role...we are also gaining a lot of interesting insights and applications (DNA vaccines, gene therapy..etc)