"Excuse me, I have a comment to make..."
Dear Reader
of the news column on "junkDNA", http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html :
You are very welcome to make your comment for "equal time" - or a lively debate.
Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz
postgenetics_AT_junkdna_DOT_com
pellionisz_AT_junkdna_DOT_com
posted by Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz at 2:00 PM
4 Comments:
I am not sure I fully understand the "methylation prediction of Fractogene". Do you mean to say that de novo methylation is growth-specific?
4:26 PM
Dear Anonymous,
Yes. The concept of FractoGene is that DNA contains information as PostGenes (fractal set of "genes" and "non-coding DNA'). They are used in a *recursive* process to generate and refine protein structures. While "genes" contain the information necessary to define the (fractal) templates, "auxiliary information" (contained in the ensuing PostGenes) is necessary for their recursive refinement. Such information is predicted to contain specific subsets that should be carefully "silenced" after its perusal, in order for the iterative growth process not to "over-repeat" ("hang" in a cancerously "unregulated" manner).
As the "Methylation Prediction" announced on 17 of October 2005, experimental tests of this process are possible e.g. in developing Purkinje brain cells.
Obviously, "there is more to it". If interested, I would like to hear from you.
Dr. Pellionisz
pellionisz@junkdna.com
9:48 AM
I would like to get your thoughts on what might be a conservative function (i.e. non-operational) for non-encoding DNA; that it act as a buffer against viral or other external sources of nucleic acid infection. In analogy with statistical mechanics, there can be many more variations of genomes with the same protein expression due to the `junk' DNA, and as viruses, etc propel the genome through this space, the odds of remaining within a constant phenotype increases with the non-coding variations possible within the genome.
1:59 PM
Dear R. Cacioppo,
Your question is very important. First, a clarification of what you mean by "conservative function (i.e. non-operational) for non-encoding DNA".
If you mean a passive role (what you say a "buffer") against viral or other external sources of nucleic acid infection - from an information theorist viewpoint is possible but not very likely.
Why not? Because 1.3% of DNA (in human) being "operational" and 98.75 "buffer" is unlikely to have withstood the Darwinian pressure through evolution.
It is like an army of 3 generals and hoards of reserves in the "hinterland" - but no "soldiers".
You are likely to mean some much more sophisticated true "function" by saying:
"In analogy with statistical mechanics, there can be many more variations of genomes with the same protein expression due to the `junk' DNA, and as viruses, etc propel the genome through this space, the odds of remaining within a constant phenotype increases with the non-coding variations possible within the genome."
Yes, philosophycally I tend to agree with my FractoGene to your views. The "only" difference is, that you are talking about "variations" of coding- and non-coding segments.
Variation is a very distinct and well-defined mathematical expression.
FractoGene theory specifies the coding and non-coding "PostGenes" *not* in a mathematical relationship of "variation", but in a perhaps more meaningful manner; "genes and non-coding sequences constituting fractal sets", where genes provide the primary information (determining fractal templates of proteins), while the subsequent non-coding sequences provide the auxiliary information of how to refine the fractal growth in the course of recursive fractal iteration.
The just published experimental evidence on FractoGene (http://www.junkdna.com/fractogene/05_simons_pellionisz.html) provides you with further details.
Sincerely,
Dr. Pellionisz
(General background at http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html)
8:09 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home