Rna Quotes

Mai tu sarie amn, tu hae'si, tu kii'rna dae. There is nothing as painful, or as simple, as doing what is right.

I haven't learned How or why Universe contrived to implode And intellectually code The myriadly unique Chromosomically orchestrated DNA-RNA, Quadripartite moleculed, Binary paired, Helically extended And unzippingly dichotomied Regenerative symphonic jazz, as A one and two, Three and four Me---You, Thee---They And more Thine and mine, Sweet citizen, THYMINE-CYTOSINE GUANINE-ADENINE

At one time, we thought that the way life came together was almost completely random, only needing an energy gradient to get going. But as we’ve moved into the information age, we’ve come to realize that life is more about information than energy. Fire has most of the characteristics of life. It eats, it grows, it reproduces. But fire retains no information. It doesn’t learn; it doesn’t adapt. The five millionth fire started by lightning will behave just like the first. But the five hundredth bacterial division will not be like the first one, especially if there is environmental pressure. That’s DNA. And RNA. That’s life. …

It is unclear how much longer people will write on dried and flattened wood. Trees do so much for humans and for our planet that it hardly seems fair to ask them to carry our thoughts as well. From "Life from an RNA World: The Ancestor Within.

I created the Katie Fforde Bursary because I was a "nearly there" writer for a long time. I found it a bit of a struggle to pay my annual subscription to the Romantic Novelists' Association so when I finally became published, I wanted to give something back. That's the bursary, a year's subscription and a place at the conference. It does seem to give people a valuable boost to their confidence. People can find out more about the Romantic Novelists' Association at www.rna-uk.org

Matter and energy are equivalent, according to the equation E=mc2, where E stand for energy, m for mass and c for the speed of light,' 'Merapa explained. 'Matter can't be transported at the speed of light but energy can. Therefore, during a time shift transformation, matter is converted to energy then condenses back. In other words all the molecules in your body have been changed from matter to energy then back again.' 'Wow. It's a wonder it's not fatal,' Dirck said. 'Sometimes it is. If any transcription errors occur between the DNA and RNA in your vital organs you're all but dead.

A DNA sequence for the genome of bacteriophage ΦX174 of approximately 5,375 nucleotides has been determined using the rapid and simple 'plus and minus' method. The sequence identifies many of the features responsible for the production of the proteins of the nine known genes of the organism, including initiation and termination sites for the proteins and RNAs. Two pairs of genes are coded by the same region of DNA using different reading frames.

Biovirus TA TA TA targets organisms, hacking and reprogramming ATGACTTATCCACGGTACATTCAGT cellular DNA to produce more virus virus virus virus virus virus virus virus. Its enzymic cut-and-past recombinant wetware-splicing crosses singularity when retroviral reverse-transcriptase clicks in (enabling ontogenetic DNA-RNA circuitry and endocellular computation).

It also showed that the only real block to bi-maternal reproduction is the DNA methylation pattern at key genes. It disproved a previous hypothesis that sperm were required because the sperm themselves carried certain necessary accessory factors such as particular proteins or RNA molecules required to kick-start development properly.16

Influenza is caused by three types of viruses, of which the most worrisome and widespread is influenza A. Viruses of that type all share certain genetic traits: a single-stranded RNA genome, which is partitioned into eight segments, which serve as templates for eleven different proteins. In other words, they have eight discrete stretches of RNA coding, linked together like eight railroad cars, with eleven different deliverable cargoes. The eleven deliverables are the molecules that comprise the structure and functional machinery of the virus. They are what the genes make. Two of those molecules become spiky protuberances from the outer surface of the viral envelope: hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Those two, recognizable by an immune system, and crucial for penetrating and exiting cells of a host, give the various subtypes of influenza A their definitive labels: H5N1, H1N1, and so on. The term “H5N1” indicates a virus featuring subtype 5 of the hemagglutinin protein combined with subtype 1 of the neuraminidase protein. Sixteen different kinds of hemagglutinin, plus nine kinds of neuraminidase, have been detected in the natural world. Hemagglutinin is the key that unlocks a cell membrane so that the virus can get in, and neuraminidase is the key for getting back out. Okay so far? Having absorbed this simple paragraph, you understand more about influenza than 99.9 percent of the people on Earth. Pat yourself on the back and get a flu shot in November. At

Nature isn’t benign,” Lederberg said at the meeting’s opening. “The bottom lines: the units of natural selection—DNA, sometimes RNA elements—are by no means neatly packaged in discrete organisms. They all share the entire biosphere. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary program. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn new tricks, not necessarily confined to what happens routinely, or even frequently.

RNA viruses are limited to small genomes because their mutation rates are so high, and their mutation rates are so high because they’re limited to small genomes. In fact, there’s a fancy name for that bind: Eigen’s paradox. Manfred Eigen is a German chemist, a Nobel winner, who has studied the chemical reactions that yield self-organization of longer molecules, a process that might lead to life. His paradox describes a size limit for such self-replicating molecules, beyond which their mutation rate gives them too many errors and they cease to replicate. They die out. RNA

دل لالچی ہے۔ دل فتنہ پسند ہے۔ دل بہانے باز ہے۔ آخر انسان کا دل غلط کام کرنے کے لیے اتنا للچاتا کیوں ہے؟ بیماری میں بد پرہیزی کھانا کھانے کے لیے۔ انٹرنیٹ پر خوامخواہ وقت ضائع کرنے کے لیے۔ بے پردگی کی حدود میں داخل نئے فیشن کے لیے۔ غیر اسلامی کپڑے اور عادات و اطوار اپنانے کے لئے۔ ایسا کوئی دن نہیں جاتا جب کسی سماجی، معاشرتی، مذہبی اصول کو توڑنے کا خیال دل میں نہ آئے۔دل کا یہ بہلاوا کہ یہ تو ایک چھوٹی سی بے ضرر سی بات ہے۔ اسلام کے خلاف نہیں۔ کوئی یہ نہیں سمجھتا کہ چھوٹی چھوٹی غلطیاں کرتے کرتے ، بڑے گناہ بھی چھوٹے لگنے لگتے ہیں۔ شبانہ مختار کے ناول 'بچھڑنا نصیب تھا' سے اقتباس

When the genetic code was solved, in the early 1960s, it turned out to be full of redundancy. Much of the mapping from nucleotides to amino acids seemed arbitrary—not as neatly patterned as any of Gamow’s proposals. Some amino acids correspond to just one codon, others to two, four, or six. Particles called ribosomes ratchet along the RNA strand and translate it, three bases at a time. Some codons are redundant; some actually serve as start signals and stop signals. The redundancy serves exactly the purpose that an information theorist would expect. It provides tolerance for errors. Noise affects biological messages like any other. Errors in DNA—misprints—are mutations.

Shadow is the blue patch where the light doesn’t hit. It is mystery itself, and mystery is the ancients’ ultima Thule, the modern explorer’s Point of Relative Inaccessibility, that boreal point most distant from all known lands. There the twin oceans of beauty and horror meet. The great glaciers are calving. Ice that sifted to earth as snow in the time of Christ shears from the pack with a roar and crumbles to water. It could be that our instruments have not looked deeply enough. The RNA deep in the mantis’s jaw is a beautiful ribbon. Did the crawling Polyphemus moth have in its watery heart one cell, and in that cell one special molecule, and that molecule one hydrogen atom, and round that atom’s nucleus one wild, distant electron that split showed a forest, swaying?

Here I should issue a caveat. In origins-of-life research (and probably in most other disciplines as well), scientists gravitate to models that highlight their personal scientific specialty. Organic chemist Stanley Miller and his cohorts saw life’s origins as essentially a problem in organic chemistry. Geochemists, by contrast, have tended to focus on more intricate origins scenarios involving such variables as temperature and pressure and chemically complex rocks. Experts in membrane-forming lipid molecules promote the “lipid world,” while molecular biologists who study DNA and RNA view the “RNA world” as the model to beat. Specialists who study viruses, or metabolism, or clays, or the deep biosphere have their idiosyncratic prejudices as well. We all do it; we all focus

His thought about the bird halts as the CRAB in his wrist glows. CRAB—Conservable RNA Augmented Body, the faithful servant for a citizen, as the advertisements from the World Government say. This parasitic bio-computer, installed in his left wrist, bears his identity. A hologram projects on it when he fists that hand near his chest. A text message visible in his inbox: You’re missing the Independence Day Speech, auto-signed with Ren. Yuan ignores it. The next text plays in his brain when he is not looking at the CRAB: Come on! The war-hero can’t miss the speech in Alphatech when the war hero himself is its owner! Ren. Yuan doesn’t reply to Ren Agnello, the CEO of Alphatech—the world’s leading transport and robotics industry, of which the Monk is the founder. Well, one of the two founders.

How does the body push the comparatively tiny genome so far? Many researchers want to put the weight on learning and experience, apparently believing that the contribution of the genes is relatively unimportant. But though the ability to learn is clearly one of the genome's most important products, such views overemphasize learning and significantly underestimate the extent to which the genome can in fact guide the construction of enormous complexity. If the tools of biological self-assembly are powerful enough to build the intricacies of the circulatory system or the eye without requiring lessons from the outside world, they are also powerful enough to build the initial complexity of the nervous system without relying on external lessons. The discrepancy melts away as we appreciate the true power of the genome. We could start by considering the fact that the currently accepted figure of 30,000 could well prove to be too low. Thirty thousand (or thereabouts) is, at press time, the best estimate for how many protein-coding genes are in the human genome. But not all genes code for proteins; some, not counted in the 30,000 estimate, code for small pieces of RNA that are not converted into proteins (called microRNA), of "pseudogenes," stretches of DNA, apparently relics of evolution, that do not properly encode proteins. Neither entity is fully understood, but recent reports (from 2002 and 2003) suggest that both may play some role in the all-important process of regulating the IFS that control whether or not genes are expressed. Since the "gene-finding" programs that search the human genome sequence for genes are not attuned to such things-we don't yet know how to identify them reliably-it is quite possible that the genome contains more buried treasure.

The trends speak to an unavoidable truth. Society's future will be challenged by zoonotic viruses, a quite natural prediction, not least because humanity is a potent agent of change, which is the essential fuel of evolution. Notwithstanding these assertions, I began with the intention of leaving the reader with a broader appreciation of viruses: they are not simply life's pathogens. They are life's obligate partners and a formidable force in nature on our planet. As you contemplate the ocean under a setting sun, consider the multitude of virus particles in each milliliter of seawater: flying over wilderness forestry, consider the collective viromes of its living inhabitants. The stunnig number and diversity of viruses in our environment should engender in us greater awe that we are safe among these multitudes than fear that they will harm us. Personalized medicine will soon become a reality and medical practice will routinely catalogue and weigh a patient's genome sequence. Not long thereafter one might expect this data to be joined by the patient's viral and bacterial metagenomes: the patient's collective genetic identity will be recorded in one printout. We will doubtless discover some of our viral passengers are harmful to our health, while others are protective. But the appreciation of viruses that I hope you have gained from these pages is not about an exercise in accounting. The balancing of benefit versus threat to humanity is a fruitless task. The viral metagenome will contain new and useful gene functionalities for biomedicine: viruses may become essential biomedical tools and phages will continue to optimize may also accelerate the development of antibiotic drug resistance in the post-antibiotic era and emerging viruses may threaten our complacency and challenge our society economically and socially. Simply comparing these pros and cons, however, does not do justice to viruses and acknowledge their rightful place in nature. Life and viruses are inseparable. Viruses are life's complement, sometimes dangerous but always beautiful in design. All autonomous self-sustaining replicating systems that generate their own energy will foster parasites. Viruses are the inescapable by-products of life's success on the planet. We owe our own evolution to them; the fossils of many are recognizable in ERVs and EVEs that were certainly powerful influences in the evolution of our ancestors. Like viruses and prokaryotes, we are also a patchwork of genes, acquired by inheritance and horizontal gene transfer during our evolution from the primitive RNA-based world. It is a common saying that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' It is a natural response to a visual queue: a sunset, the drape of a designer dress, or the pattern of a silk tie, but it can also be found in a line of poetry, a particularly effective kitchen implement, or even the ruthless efficiency of a firearm. The latter are uniquely human acknowledgments of beauty in design. It is humanity that allows us to recognize the beauty in the evolutionary design of viruses. They are unique products of evolution, the inevitable consequence of life, infectious egotistical genetic information that taps into life and the laws of nature to fuel evolutionary invention.

The very act of thinking involves the redistribution of atoms, specifically the transference of mental information via mRNA (messenger RNA) in the neurons to protein chains at the ends of the dendrites where the new memories are held.22 Thus, the more a person uses his mind, the more protein in his dendrites and the more complex his brain. According to this view, “all thought is psychokinetic” because the very act of thinking, by definition, involves a mental event being changed into a physical one: a thought becomes a memory, that is, mind over matter.23

of now, the main difference has been found in the HAR1 (human accelerated region 1), a segment of a recently discovered RNA gene. The RNA that is expressed in early development (HAR1F) is specific to the reelin-producing Cajal-Retzius cells in the brain. HAR1F comes to expression together with reelin in the seventeenth to nineteenth weeks of fetal development, a crucial stage in the formation of the six-layered cerebral cortex. The mutations in this human gene are probably over a million years old and could have played a crucial role in the emergence of modern humankind. Throughout our evolution, an enormous

Genetik kod basittir: DNA'dan RNA inşa edilir, RNA'dan da protein inşa edilir. DNA'daki her baz üçlüsü, proteinde bir aminoasidi belirler. Oysa genomik kod karmaşıktır: Genin üzerinde, genin ne zaman ve nerede ifade edileceği ile ilgili bilgileri barındıran DNA parçaları vardır: Genlerin genom üzerindeki yerlerinin neye göre belirlenmiş olduğunu da bilmiyoruz. Genler arasındaki DNA bölgelerinin gen fizyolojisini nasıl düzenlediğini ve koordine ettiğini de bilmiyoruz. Dağların ötesinde dağların olması gibi, kodların ötesinde de kodlar vardır.

Almost a hundred years later, after numerous studies, including sequencing the virus’s RNA, scientists still do not know exactly why the Spanish flu was so deadly, and that ignorance obviously makes experts uncomfortable.

In the standard Darwinian view, for evolution to occur, you need genetic material (DNA or RNA), and you need a random or chance mutation in this genetic material in an extremely rare form that is not lethal—because virtually all of them are—and further, one that actually contributes to the organism’s capacity to successfully reproduce. This also means that you need this same incredibly rare mutation (or a series of them) to occur in a male organism and a female organism simultaneously, and—even more unlikely—they have to find each other and then mate.

Kısa bir süre sonra bakteri savunma sisteminin en az iki kritik bileşen içerdiği anlaşıldı. Bunlardan birincisi ''arayıcı'' idi - virüsün DNA'sıyla örtüşerek tanıyan bakteri RNA'sı. Bu tanıma ilkesi de hayret vericiydi: ''Arayıcı'' RNA, virüs DNA'sının ayna görüntüsüydü - yin ve yang gibi. Böylece istilacı virüsün DNA'sını fark edebiliyordu. Düşmanın resmini sürekli cebinde taşır gibi veya bakteri örneğinde, düşmanın resminin negatifini genomunda taşır gibi.

A virus particle is a very small capsule made of proteins locked together in a mathematical pattern. The pattern of the interlocking proteins in a virus is far more complicated than a snowflake. The protein capsule is sometimes wrapped in an oily membrane. Inside the capsule there is a small amount of DNA or RNA, the molecules that contain the genetic code of the virus. The genetic code is the virus’s operating system, or wetware, the complete set of instructions for the virus to make copies of itself. Unlike a snowflake or any other kind of crystal, a virus is able to re-create its form. It would be as if a single snowflake started copying itself as it falls, and those copies of the snowflake copy themselves, creating ever-growing numbers of identical copies of the first snowflake, until the air is filled with falling snow, and each flake is a perfect replica of the first flake.

Fittingly, the rabies virus is shaped like a bullet: a cylindrical shell of glycoproteins and lipids that carries, in its rounded tip, a malevolent payload of helical RNA. On entering a living thing, it eschews the bloodstream, the default route of nearly all viruses but a path heavily guarded by immuno-protective sentries. Instead, like almost no other virus known to science, rabies sets its course through the nervous system, creeping upstream at one to two centimeters per day (on average) through the axoplasm, the transmission lines that conduct electrical impulses to and from the brain.

The amount of DNA not coding for RNA, sometimes called junk DNA (a dangerous term for something one does not understand), is also much greater in eukaryotes.

The circular flow of biological information - Genes encode RNAs to build Proteins to form/regulate Organisms that sense Environments that influence Proteins, RNA that regulate Genes.

What is that 95 percent? Some is junk—remnants of pseudogenes inactivated by evolution.fn4,3 But buried in that are the keys to the kingdom, the instruction manual for when to transcribe particular genes, the on/off switches for gene transcription. A gene doesn’t “decide” when to be photocopied into RNA, to generate its protein. Instead, before the start of the stretch of DNA coding for that gene is a short stretch called a promoterfn5—the “on” switch. What turns the promoter switch on? Something called a transcription factor (TF) binds to the promoter. This causes the recruitment of enzymes that transcribe the gene into RNA. Meanwhile, other transcription factors deactivate genes.

If the adaptor hypothesis were true (and it was), this meant that the role of DNA and RNA would be reduced to simply carrying genetic information: they had no direct structural role as templates; they were merely a medium

The plants here aren't like anything on Earth," I tried to explain one night. "They have cells I can't explain. On Earth, all seeds have one or two embryonic leaves, but here they have three or five or eight." "And RNA," Grun said, "not DNA. Nothing has DNA except us.

life’s business in a fundamentally different way—using a molecule other than DNA or RNA as genetic material, for example, or a different set of amino acids to build proteins.

We come, we come with roll of drum: ta-runda runda runda rom! The Ents were coming: ever nearer and louder rose their song: We come, we come with horn and drum: ta-rna rna rna rom! Bregalad picked up the hobbits and strode from his house.

At one time, we thought that the way life came together was almost completely random, only needing an energy gradient to get going. But as we’ve moved into the information age, we’ve come to realize that life is more about information than energy. Fire has most of the characteristics of life. It eats, it grows, it reproduces. But fire retains no information. It doesn’t learn; it doesn’t adapt. The five millionth fire started by lightning will behave just like the first. But the five hundredth bacterial division will not be like the first one, especially if there is environmental pressure. That’s DNA. And RNA. That’s life. … Dr. Steven Carlisle, from the Convention panel Exploring the Galaxy

Por ejemplo, el impulso que corresponde a la nota «mi» captada por el oído, se desliza rápidamente de una neurona a otra hasta alcanzar a todas aquellas que contienen las moléculas de ácido RNA correspondiente a esta excitación particular. Las células fabrican de inmediato moléculas de la proteína correspondiente regida por este ácido, y realizamos la audición de dicha nota.

Only 2 per cent of our genome codes for proteins. A massive 42 per cent is composed of retrotransposons. These are very odd sequences of DNA, which probably originated from viruses in our evolutionary past. Some retrotransposons are transcribed to produce RNA and this can affect the expression of neighbouring genes. This can have serious consequences for cells. If it drives up expression of genes that cause cells to proliferate too aggressively, for example, this may nudge cells towards becoming cancerous.

In addition to X inactivation, long ncRNAs also appear to play a critical role in imprinting. Many imprinted regions contain a section that encodes a long ncRNA, which silences the expression of surrounding genes. This is similar to the effect of Xist. The protein-coding mRNAs are silenced on the copy of the chromosome which expresses the long ncRNA. For example, there is an ncRNA called Air, expressed in the placenta, exclusively from the paternally inherited mouse chromosome 11. Expression of Air ncRNA represses the nearby Igf2r gene, but only on the same chromosome12. This mechanism ensures that Igf2r is only expressed from the maternally inherited chromosome.

The Air ncRNA gave scientists important insights into how these long ncRNAs repress gene expression. The ncRNA remained localised to a specific region in the cluster of imprinted genes, and acted as a magnet for an epigenetic enzyme called G9a. G9a puts a repressive mark on the histone H3 proteins in the nucleosomes deposited on this region of DNA. This histone modification creates a repressive chromatin environment, which switches off the genes.

There is increasing evidence that at least some of the targeting of epigenetic modifications can be explained by interactions with long ncRNAs. Jeannie Lee and her colleagues have recently investigated long ncRNAs that bind to a complex of proteins. The complex is called PRC2 and it generates repressive modifications on histones. PRC2 contains a number of proteins, and the one that interacts with the long ncRNAs is probably EZH2. The researchers found that the PRC2 complex bound to literally thousands of different long ncRNA molecules in embryonic stem cells from mice13. These long ncRNAs may act as bait. They can stay tethered to the specific region of the genome where they are produced, and then attract repressive enzymes to shut off gene expression. This happens because the repressive enzyme complexes contain proteins like EZH2 that are capable of binding to RNA.

There’s an amazing family of genes, called HOX genes. When they’re mutated in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) the results are incredible phenotypes, such as legs growing out of the head14. There’s a long ncRNA known as HOTAIR, which regulates a region of genes called the HOX-D cluster. Just like the long ncRNAs investigated by Jeannie Lee, HOTAIR binds the PRC2 complex and creates a chromatin region which is marked with repressive histone modifications. But HOTAIR is not transcribed from the HOX-D position on chromosome 12. Instead it is encoded at a different cluster of genes called HOX-C on chromosome 215. No-one knows how or why HOTAIR binds at the HOX-D position. There’s a related mystery around the best studied of all long ncRNAs, Xist. Xist ncRNA spreads out along almost the entire inactive X chromosome but we really don’t know how. Chromosomes don’t normally become smothered with RNA molecules. There’s no obvious reason why Xist RNA should be able to bind like this, but we know it’s nothing to do with the sequence of the chromosome. The experiments described in the last chapter, where Xist could inactivate an entire autosome as long as it contained an X inactivation centre, showed that Xist just keeps on travelling once it’s on a chromosome. Scientists are basically still completely baffled about these fundamental characteristics of this best-studied of all ncRNAs.

A single miRNA can influence many of these differently spliced versions simultaneously. Alternatively, a single miRNA can also influence quite unrelated proteins that are encoded by different genes but have similar 3′ UTR sequences. This can make it very difficult to unravel exactly what a miRNA is doing in a cell, as the effects will vary depending on the cell type and the other genes (protein-coding and non-protein-coding) that the cell is expressing at any one time.

In conditions where there are an abnormal number of chromosomes, for example, it won’t just be protein-coding genes that change in number. There will also be abnormal production of ncRNAs (large and small). Because miRNAs in particular can regulate lots of other genes, the effects of disrupting miRNA copy numbers may be very extensive.

However, there are two things we can say quite firmly. One is that human and chimp proteins are incredibly similar. About a third of all proteins are exactly the same between us and our knuckle-dragging cousins, and the rest differ only by one or two amino acids. Another thing we have in common is that over 98 per cent of our genomes don’t code for protein. This suggests that both species use ncRNAs to create complex regulatory networks which govern gene and protein expression. But there is a particular difference which may be very important between chimps and humans. This lies in how ncRNA is treated in the cells of the two species.

miRNAs play major roles in control of pluripotency and control of cellular differentiation. ES cells can be encouraged to differentiate into other cell types by changing the culture conditions in which they’re grown. When they begin to differentiate, it’s essential that ES cells switch off the gene expression pathways that normally allow them to keep producing additional ES cells (self-renewal). There is a miRNA family called let-7 which is essential for this switch-off process

ncRNAs have recently been implicated in Lamarckian transmission of inherited characteristics. In one example, fertilised mouse eggs were injected with a miRNA which targeted a key gene involved in growth of heart tissue. The mice which developed from these eggs had enlarged hearts (cardiac hypertrophy) suggesting that the early injection of the miRNA disturbed the normal developmental processes. Remarkably, the offspring of these mice also had a high frequency of cardiac hypertrophy. This was apparently because the abnormal expression of the miRNA was recreated during generation of sperm in these mice. There was no change in the DNA code of the mice, so this was a clear case of a miRNA driving epigenetic inheritance

There is a small ncRNA called BC1 which is expressed in specific neurons in mice. When researchers at the University of Munster in Germany deleted this ncRNA, the mice seemed fine. But then the scientists moved the mutant animals from the very controlled laboratory setting into a more natural environment. Under these conditions, it became clear that the mutants were not the same as normal mice. They were reluctant to explore their surroundings and were anxious37. If they had simply been left in their cages, we would never have appreciated that loss of the BC1 ncRNA actually had a quite pronounced effect on behaviour. A clear case of what we see being dependent on how we look.

Tourette’s syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder where the patient frequently suffers from involuntary convulsive movements (tics) which in some cases are associated with involuntary swearing. Two unrelated individuals with this disorder were shown to have the same single base change in the 3′ UTR of a gene called SLITRK139. SLITRK1 appears to be required for neuronal development. The base change in the Tourette’s patients introduced a binding site for a short ncRNA called miR-189. This suggests that SLITRK1 expression may be abnormally down-regulated via such binding, at critical points in development. This alteration is only present in a few cases of Tourette’s but raises the tantalising suggestion that mis-regulation of miRNA binding sites in other neuronal genes may be involved in other patients.

The basic point is so important I’ll repeat it: RNA viruses mutate profligately.

The energies of the electromagnetic spectrum include microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, extremely low-frequency waves, sound harmonic frequencies, ultraviolet rays, and even infrared waves. Specific frequencies of electromagnetic energy can influence the behavior of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis; alter protein shape and function; control gene regulation and expression; stimulate nerve-cell growth; and influence cell division and cell differentiation, as well as instruct specific cells to organize into tissues and organs. All of these cellular activities influenced by energy are part of the expression of life. And

A, C, G, T for short. A cell carries out a series of chemical reactions to translate a gene’s sequence of bases into a protein. A cell first makes a copy of the gene, creating a single-stranded series of bases called ribonucleic acid, or RNA. That RNA molecule is taken up by a molecular factory called a ribosome, which reads the sequence of RNA and builds a corresponding protein.

Man with all his noble qualities still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

He settled on 16S rRNA, which is produced by a gene of the same name. It forms part of the essential protein-making machinery that is found in all organisms, and so provided the unit of universal comparison that Woese craved. By 1976, he had profiled 16S rRNA from around 30 different microbes. And in June of that year he started work on the species that would change his life – and biology as we know it.

These increases in brain cholesterol and pituitary activity were clues that were rich in their implications, and in the late 1960’s a research team at the University of California at Berkeley began to look for specific differences in the neural structures of gentled and ungentled rats. They found that greater tactile stimulation resulted in the following differences: These animals’ brains were heavier, and in particular they had heavier and thicker cerebral cortexes. This heaviness was not due only to the presence of more cholesterol—that is, more myeline sheaths—but also to the fact that actual neural cell bodies and nuclei were larger. Associated with these larger cells were greater quantities of cholinesterase and acetylcholinesterase, two enzymes that support the chemical activities of nerve cells, and also a higher ratio of RNA to DNA within the cells. Increased amounts of these specific compounds indicates higher metabolic activity. Measurements of the synaptic junctions connecting nerve cells revealed that these junctions were 50% larger in cross-section in the gentled rats than in the isolated ones. The gentled rats’ adrenal glands were also markedly heavier, evidence that the pituitary-adrenal axis—the most important monitor of the body’s hormonal secretions—was indeed more active.34 Many other studies have confirmed and added to these findings. Laboratory animals who are given rich tactile experience in their infancy grow faster, have heavier brains, more highly developed myelin sheaths, bigger nerve cells, more advanced skeletal muscular growth, better coordination, better immunological resistance, more developed pituitary/adrenal activity, earlier puberties, and more active sex lives than their isolated genetic counterparts. Associated with these physiological advantages are a host of emotional and behavioral responses which indicate a stronger and much more successfully adapted organism. The gentled rats are much calmer and less excitable, yet they tend to be more dominant in social and sexual situations. They are more lively, more curious, more active problem solvers. They are more willing to explore new environments (ungentled animals usually withdraw fearfully from novel situations), and advance more quickly in all forms of conditioned learning exercises.35 Moreover, these felicitous changes are not to be observed only in infancy and early maturation; an enriched environment will produce exactly the same increases in brain and adrenal weights and the same behavioral changes in adult animals as well, even though the adults require a longer period of stimulation to show the maximum effect.36

Consider how the principles of the law of accelerating returns apply to the epochs we discussed in the first chapter. The combination of amino acids into proteins and of nucleic acids into strings of RNA established the basic paradigm of biology. Strings of RNA (and later DNA) that self-replicated (Epoch Two) provided a digital method to record the results of evolutionary experiments. Later on, the evolution of a species that combined rational thought (Epoch Three) with an opposable appendage (the thumb) caused a fundamental paradigm shift from biology to technology (Epoch Four). The upcoming primary paradigm shift will be from biological thinking to a hybrid combining biological and nonbiological thinking (Epoch Five), which will include “biologically inspired” processes resulting from the reverse engineering of biological brains.

The ribosome did not contain the recipe for the protein; it was a tape reader. It could make any protein so long as it was fed the right tape of “messenger” RNA.

The study of stem cell niches in mammalian systems presents an 'arduous endeavor'; in comparison, the fly germarium is relatively easy to manipulate. In the 1990s, H. Lin, A.C. Spradling, and others used of a number of approaches to study Drosophilia GSCs and their niche, including killing specific cells in the germarium with precisely directed lasers; transplantation of cells from the ovary of one fly to another; and genetic perturbations that included the dialing up or down of Hh pathway signaling. The researchers found that following laser ablation of cells surrounding the GSCs - that is killing the niche cells - all the GSCs went on to form eggs, and the system was quickly depleted of its GSC reserve. Moreover, through genetic analyses the researchers identified specific genes required in the niche cells to maintain GSCs within the niche, as would be deduced for a gene that, when disrupted in niche cells, has the same effect as laser ablation of those cells. These studies are credited with providing the first clear experimental evidence of a stem cell niche, as well as defining what genes - what signaling pathways and other cellular activities - are important to the process. Many of the same pathways relevant in other cell types proved relevant to communication between the niche and GSCs, including the Hh pathway. The genes required for suppression of transposon mobilization by the piRNA system also have relevance to the GSC niche; disruption of the piwi gene, for example, can lead to uncontrolled proliferation of GSCs.

Cara Mengobati HIV Meskipun sampai saat ini belum ada obat untuk menyembuhkan HIV, namun ada jenis obat yang dapat memperlambat perkembangan virus. Jenis obat ini disebut antiretroviral (ARV). ARV bekerja dengan menghilangkan unsur yang dibutuhkan virus HIV untuk menggandakan diri, dan mencegah virus HIV menghancurkan sel CD4. Beberapa jenis obat ARV, antara lain: Efavirenz Etravirine Nevirapine Lamivudin Zidovudin Selama mengonsumsi obat antiretroviral, dokter akan memonitor jumlah virus dan sel CD4 untuk menilai respons pasien terhadap pengobatan. Hitung sel CD4 akan dilakukan tiap 3-6 bulan. Sedangkan pemeriksaan HIV RNA dilakukan sejak awal pengobatan, dilanjutkan tiap 3-4 bulan selama masa pengobatan. Untuk Info Segera Hubungi Kami HP/WA 081 329 878 999 Pasien harus segera mengonsumsi ARV begitu didiagnosis menderita HIV, agar perkembangan virus HIV dapat dikendalikan. Menunda pengobatan hanya akan membuat virus terus merusak sistem kekebalan tubuh dan meningkatkan risiko penderita HIV terserang AIDS. Selain itu, penting bagi pasien untuk mengonsumsi ARV sesuai petunjuk dokter. Melewatkan konsumsi obat akan membuat virus HIV berkembang lebih cepat dan memperburuk kondisi pasien. Bila pasien melewatkan jadwal konsumsi obat, segera minum begitu ingat, dan tetap ikuti jadwal berikutnya. Namun bila dosis yang terlewat cukup banyak, segera bicarakan dengan dokter. Dokter dapat mengganti resep atau dosis obat sesuai kondisi pasien saat itu. Pasien HIV juga dapat mengonsumsi lebih dari 1 obat ARV dalam sehari. Karena itu, pasien perlu mengetahui efek samping yang timbul akibat konsumsi obat ini, di antaranya: Diare. Mual dan muntah. Mulut kering. Kerapuhan tulang. Kadar gula darah tinggi. Kadar kolesterol abnormal. Kerusakan jaringan otot (rhabdomyolysis). Penyakit jantung. Pusing. Sakit kepala. Sulit tidur. Tubuh terasa lelah. Untuk Info Segera Hubungi Kami HP/WA 081 329 878 999 Jika Anda memiliki HIV dan hamil, berkonsultasilah dengan dokter yang memiliki pengalaman tentang pengobatan HIV. Tanpa pengobatan, sekitar 25 dari 100 bayi yang lahir dari ibu dengan HIV juga terinfeksi. Namun, penggunaan obat-obatan HIV, operasi Caesar, tidak menyusui dapat mengurangi risiko penularan menjadi kurang dari 2 dari 100.

We propose an alternative methodology based on RNA-programmed Cas9 that could offer considerable potential for gene-targeting and genome-editing applications.

If you stop and think through what it means to grow, the process is astonishing. Each part of the body has to change its shape and size to match every other part. There’s no central blueprint for the construction of an adult human. Each cell has to decide for itself, using nothing more than chemical signals and its own network of genes, RNA molecules, and proteins.

Deeper phylogenetic relationships that are notoriously difficult to reconstruct with conventional sequence comparison methods are being resolved with miRNAs. The reason is that normal gene sequences continue to evolve after a lineage split, and, thus, the phylogenetic signal can erode by later evolution. In contrast, miRNAs stay put and, this, are like molecular fossils identifying related lineages. The only drawback is that miRNA inventories are expensive to determine and some of the data is based on the lack of certain miRNAs in certain species, which can always be a detection artifact.

Thus, it appears that unicellulars are biological individuals whose cohesiveness presupposes the constant action of an immune system. According to the view defended in the previous sections, it means that they are true 'organisms'. If this is correct, it means that the reflection offered about the emergence and maintenance of individuality in multicellular organisms through the activity of an immune system needs in fact to be raised at the level of the much more ancient transition from independent replicators to the first prokaryotic cell. Because this transition is not very well known, and because basically nothing is known of the possible role of the immune system in this transition, I will leave this discussion for now, pending more experimental evidence in the near future. I think, though, that it raises the fascinating hypothesis that immunity has been a key element in both the evolutionary transition to multicellularity and the very ancient evolutionary transition to the first cell - often conceived of as the first 'true' biological individual. It also suggests that each cell in multicellular organisms like us may have its own immune system. RNA silencing has been convincingly described as the 'genome's immune system'. Within this perspective, one can conceive a hierarchy of immunological individuals, or 'organisms': a multicellular living thing like us is an organism insofar as it possesses an immune system, and in addition it comprises billions of cells, which themselves are organisms insofar as they each possess their own immune system. It is an attractive hypothesis, though it probably needs to be complemented by an analysis of the way in which the whole organism regulates immune responses at the level of each cell.

specific genes. All you had to do was select the desired twenty-letter DNA sequence to edit and then convert that sequence into a matching twenty-letter code of RNA. Once inside the cell, the RNA would couple with its DNA match using base pairing, and Cas9 would slice apart the DNA.

DNA is believed to have emerged through a transformation of RNA, possibly by a virus that converted an RNA gene into a DNA gene. That

Initially compartmentalization might have been accomplished by a nonbiological transitional entity, a protocell, perhaps formed within pores in rocks. (We’ll consider this in more detail below.) But a protocell in a rock pore, even one containing DNA, would not be capable of sustaining complex life. The evolution of true cells depended on some form of compartmentalization outside of such confined spaces. The eventual solution was a lipid casing (membrane) that sequestered RNA, DNA, and the proteins they make, allowing these entities to exist free-floating in the oceans, where they could self-replicate, diversify (that is, evolve), and give rise to all of the organisms that have ever lived.

The other theory argues that replication based on nucleic acids (RNA and/or DNA) came after biological entities could support metabolism. Günter Wächtershäuser proposed a version of this metabolism-first theory in which hot water from volcanoes flowed over mineral-rich rocks to ignite (catalyze) chemical reactions that fused simple carbon-based compounds into larger ones. While catalytic enzymes, which are proteins, did not yet exist, minerals, such as those in rocks, can and do function as prebiotic catalysts for chemical reactions. According to this theory, a key step occurred when, through a series of these prebiotic reactions, the circle was closed by the regeneration of the original compound. Through such a process, complex biological molecules (proteins, nucleotides, lipids, and carbohydrates) could be made, forming the basis of simple protocells that made energy and replicated.

how does DNA control RNA? The structure of DNA must at least give us a hint.

In most life forms, genes are stretched out along the length of a filament-like molecule of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid. But many viruses—including influenza, HIV, and the coronavirus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)—encode their genes in RNA, ribonucleic acid, an even simpler but less stable molecule.

True, viruses are nothing more than a tiny bit of genetic material—a single kind of nucleic acid (segmented or nonsegmented, DNA or RNA) and a coat made of protein molecules. Viruses multiply according to the information contained in this nucleic acid. Everything other than the DNA or RNA is dispensable and serves primarily to ensure that the viral nucleic acid gets to the right place in the right sort of cell in the organism hosting the virus. Viruses

For that matter, how do we switch from simple chemical affiliations to selection for proteins? And how do we get from RNA to DNA? As it happens, there are some striking answers, backed up by surprising findings in the last few years. Gratifyingly, the new findings square beautifully with the idea of life evolving in hydrothermal vents, the setting of Chapter 1.

W 1965 roku sekwencjonowanie rybosomalnego RNA 5S pochodzącego z bakterii (koszty sekwencjonowania RNA i DNA są podobne) kosztowało tysiąc funtów na parę zasad. W 1975 roku sekwencjonowanie DNA wirusa X174 kosztowało około 10 funtów na parę zasad. Hodgkin nie znalazł odpowiedniego przykładu z 1985 roku, ale dziesięć lat później sekwencjonowanie DNA nicienia Caenorhabditis elegans kosztowało 1 funta na parę zasad. Nawiasem mówiąc, ten maleńki obleniec cieszy się wielką (i zasłużoną) sympatią biologów molekularnych, którzy mówią o nim „nasz” obleniec albo nawet „nasz” robak[XXIV]. Kiedy projekt badania genomu człowieka

In addi t ion, the pr a c - t i t ione r should compl e t e the pr e l imina ry pr a c t i c e s and achieve a thorough grounding in the founda t iona l pa ths of the sut r a s , whi ch includes the deve lopment of the a l t rui s t i c int ent ion to a t t a in enl ight enment (bodhicitta), the deve lopment of c a lm abiding- the s t abi l i s a t ion of a t t ent ion on an int e rna l obj e c t of medi t a t ion- and the deve lopment of pene t r a t ive ins ight - an ana lyt i c a l medi t a t ive s t a t e tha t dissects the na tur e of its obj e c t , its r e l a t ionships , cha r a c - teristics and func t ion. The deve lopment of c a lm abiding and pene t r a t ive ins ight a r c the me ans by whi ch the pr a c t i t ione r c an cul t iva t e his or he r unde r s t anding of empt ine s s , whi ch is an appr e c i a t ion of the tot a l abs enc e of inhe r ent exi s t enc e and selfident i ty wi th r e spe c t to all phenomena

The hypothetical RNA replicase would be a self-replicating molecule, while the citric acid cycle is an autocatalytic network of chemical reactions. This isn’t a shortcoming of the citric acid cycle, but another hint that a defining feature of life may not require RNA replicators and their genetic information: Life can exist before genes.

Buku memang diam namun ia bicara dengan caranya sendiri. Yang diam tak selalu bodoh Yang diam tak selalu tak tahu apapun Yang dian tak selalu tak bisa apapun Yang diam tak selalu seperti apa yang kalian pikir Buku itu istimewa karena untuk membaca sebuah buku, kau harus membeli/meminjam dari pemiliknya.

So you attempt what De Bruik attempted, in her Free Radical Binds to Macromolecule.” “We all attempt what De Bruik attempted, in one way or another.” In Free Radical De Bruik had represented the macromolecule, an RNA strand, as a passacaglia, a ground base repeated again and again, in patterns of four that alternated regularly. This was a simple icon, a metaphor in which the repeated ground base stood for the repeated proteins in the RNA; fine. And the free radical’s part was a test for any trumpet player.

generation III) do not affect the protein in the offspring, whereas changes in the DNA (bomb in generation V) affect the protein in all subsequent generations. Information flows from DNA to RNA to proteins (solid arrows), and possibly from RNA to DNA (dashed arrows), but never from protein to RNA or DNA.

However, the translation from DNA into proteins is not direct; the DNA sequence is first copied into mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid, another linear sequence of nucleotides), and only then is it translated into proteins.

It was the magnesium. The addition of the ion was critical: with the solution supplemented with magnesium, the ribosome remained glued together, and Brenner and Jacob finally purified a miniscule amount of the messenger molecule out of bacterial cells. It was RNA, as expected-but RNA of a special kind. The messenger was generated afreah when a gene was translated. Like DNA, these RNA molecules were built by stringing together four bases-A,G,C, and U (in the RNA copy of a gene, remember, the T found in DNA is substituted for U). Notably, Brenner and Jacob later discovered the messenger RNA was a facsimile of the DNA chain-a copy made from the original. The RNA copy of a gene then moved from the nucleus to the cytosol, where its message was decoded to build a protein. The messenger RNA was neither an inhabitant of heaven nor of hell-but a professional go-between. The generation of an RNA copy of a gene was termed transcription-referring to the rewriting of a word or sentence in a language close to the original. A gene's code (ATGGGCC...) was transcribed into an RNA code (AUGGGCC...).

As an anology, consider the word structure. In bacteria, the gene is embedded in the genome in precisely that format, structure, with no breaks, stuffers, interpositions, or interruptions. In the human genome, in contrast, the word is interrupted by intermediate stretches of DNA: s...tru...ct...ur...e. The long stretches of DNA marked by the ellipses (...) do not contain any protein-encoding information. When such an interrupted gene is used to generate a message-i.e., when DNA is used to build RNA-the stuffer frragments are excised from the RNA message, and the RNA is stitched together again with the intervening pieces removed: s...tru...ct...ur...e became simplified to structure. Roberts and Sharp later coined a phrase for the process: gene splicing or RNA splicing (since the RNA message of the gene was "spliced" to removed the stuffer fragments). At first, this split structure of genes seemed puzzling: Why would an animal genome waste such long stretches of DNA splitting genes into bits and pieces, only to stitch them back into a continuous message? But the inner logic of split genes soon became evident: by splitting genes into modules, a cell could generate bewildering combinations of messages out of a single gene. The word s...tru...c...t...ur...e can be spliced to yield cure and true and so forth, thereby creating vast numbers of variant messages-called isoforms-out of a single gene. From g...e...n...om...e you can use splicing to generate gene, gnome, and om. And modular genes also had an evolutionary advantage: the individual modules from different genes could be mixed and matched to build entirely new kinds of genes (c...om...e...t). Wally Gilbert, the Harvard geneticist, created a new word for these modules; he called them exons. The inbetween stuffer fragments were termed introns.

Working independently, Baltimore and Temin discovered an enzyme found in retroviruses that could build DNA from an RNA template. They called the enzyme reverse transcriptase-"reverse" because it inverted the normal direction of information flow: from RNA back to DNA, or from a gene's message backward to a gene, thereby violating Crick's "central dogma" (that genetic information only moved from genes to messages, but never backward). Using reverse transcriptase, ever RNA in a cell could be used as a template to build its corresponding gene. A biologist could thus generate a catalog, or "library" of all "active" genes in a cell-akin to a library of books grouped by subject. There would be a library of genes for T cells and another for red blood cells, a library for neurons in the retina, for insulin-secreting cells of the pancreas, and so forth. By comparing libraries derived from two cells-a T cell and a pancreas cell, say-an immunologist could fish out genes that were active in one cell and not the other (e.g., insulin or the T cell receptor). Once identified, that gene could be amplified a millionfold in bacteria. The gene could be isolated and sequenced, its RNA and protein sequence determined, its regulatory regions identified; it could be mutated an inserted into a different cell to decipher the gene's structure and function. In 1984 this technique was deployed to clone the T cell receptor-a landmark achievement in immunology.

Second, the production of RNA Messages was coordinately regulated. When the sugar source was switched to lactose, the bacteria turned on an entire module of genes-several lactose-metabolizing genes-to digest lactose. One of the genes in the module specified a "transporter protein" that allowed lactose to enter the bacterial cell. Another gene encoded an enzyme that was needed to break down lactose into parts. Yet another specified an enzyme to break those chemical parts into subparts. Surprisingly, all the genes dedicated to a particular metabolic pathway were physically present next to each other on the bacterial chromosome-like library books stacked by subject-and they were induced simultaneously in cells. The metabolic alteration produced a profound genetic alteration in a cell. It wasn't just a cutlery switch; the whole dinner service was altered in a single swoop. A functional circuit of genes was switched on and off, as if operated by a common spool or a master switch. Monod called one such gene module an operon. The genesis of proteins was thus perfectly synchronized with the requirements of the environment: supply the correct sugar, and a set of sugar-metabolizing genes would be turned on together.

The third cardinal feature of gene regulation, Monod and Jacob discovered, was that every gene had specific regulatory DNA sequences appended to it that acted like recognition tags. Once a sugar sensing-protein had detected sugar in the environment, it would recognize one such tag and turn the target genes on or off. That was a gene's signal to make more RNA messages and thereby generate the relevant enzyme to digest the sugar. A gene, in short, possessed not just information to encode a protein, but also information about when and where to make that protein. All that data was encrypted in DNA, typically appended to the front of every gene (although regulatory sequences) an also be appended to the ends and middle of genes). The combination of regulatory sequences and the protein-encoding sequence defined a gene.

Genes, oddly, compromise only a minuscule fraction of it. An enormous proportion-a bewildering 98 percent-is not dedicated to genes per se, but to enormous stretches of DNA that are interspersed between genes (intergenic DNA) or within genes (introns). These long stretches encode no RNA, and no protein: they exist in the genome either because they regulate gene expression, or for reasons that we do not yet understand, or because of no reason whatsoever (i.e., they are "junk" DNA). If the genome were a line stretching across the Atlantic Ocean between North America and Europe, genes would be occasional specks of land strewn across long, dark tracts of water. Laid end to end, these specks would be no longer than the largest Galapagos island or a train line across the city of Tokyo,

Although we fully understand the genetic code-i.e., how the information in a single gene is used to build a protein-we comprehend virtually nothing of the genomic code-i.e., how multiple genes spread across the human genome coordinate gene expression in space and time to build, maintain, and repair a human organism. The genetic code is simple: DNA is used to build RNA, and RNA is used to build a protein. A triplet of bases in DNA specifies one amino acid in the protein. The genomic code is complex: appended to a gene are sequences of DNA that carry information on when and where to express the gene. We do not know why certain genes are located in particular geographic locations in the genome, and how the tracts of DNA that lie between genes regulate and coordinate gene physiology. There are codes beyond codes, like mountains beyond mountains.

The bacterial defense system was soon found to involve at least two critical components. The first piece was the "seeker"-an RNA encoded in the bacterial genome that matched and recognized the DNA of the viruses. The principle for the recognition, yet again, was binding: the RNA "seeker" was able to find and recognize the DNA of an invading virus because it was a mirror image of that DNA-the yin to its yang. It was like carrying a permanent image of your enemy in your pocket-or, in the bacteria's case, an inverted photograph, etched indelibly into its genome. The second element of the defense system was the "hitman." Once the viral DNA had been recognized and matched as foreign (by its reverse-image), a bacterial protein named Cas9 was deployed to deliver the lethal gash to the viral gene. The "seeker" and the "hitman" worked in concert: the Cas9 protein delivered its cuts to the genome only after the sequence had been matched by the recognition element. It was a classic combination of collaborators-spotter and executor, drone and rocket, Bonnie and Clyde.

In the late 1970s, scientists working on gene-silencing discovered that the attachment of a small molecule-a methyl group-to DNA was correlated with a gene's turning off. These methyl tags decorated the strands of DNA, like charms on a necklace, and they were recognized as shutdown signals. The production of RNA ceased and the expression of the gene was silenced. If a chromosome was heavily decorated by methyl tags, then perhaps the whole chromosome could be silenced.

Superimposed on the hierarchical framework of defined components of a cell there is another layer. This second layer is highly flexible and can take on an almost infinite variety of forms, like soft and responsive flesh on a bony skeleton. The deep question is whether this higher layer in the construction of cells is itself organized. Are there hierarchies, or at least rules, in the protein-modifying, RNA splicing, gene-regulating processes of a cell? If so, then we have a chance of understanding them. If not, we will never know exactly what a cell will do next. If the detailed chemistry of the cell is simply the outcome of a historical ragbag of ad hoc interactions, then it will be no more predictable than the weather. I do not have an answer to this question. But two features of cells might be relevant. One is a sense of time, or causation - knowledge of the way that things in the real world follow in a certain sequence. The other is integrity, which enables a cell to distinguish between what belongs to itself and what belongs to the outside world.

An arcane microbial defense, devised by microbes, discovered by yogurt engineers, and reprogrammed by RNA biologists, has created a trapdoor to the transformative technology that geneticists had sought so longingly for decades: a method to achieve directed, efficient, and sequence-specific modification of the human genome.

Vaccination with a live-attenuated virus vaccine can be compared with the cross-species transmission of viruses that cause zoonotic infection. If the vaccine strain is an RNA virus, it can be expected that the vaccine inoculum will be made up of a population of genotypes representing the quasispecies which is created during replication and amplification of the virus in host cells. Furthermore, virus replication in the vaccine recipient creates genetic diversity, providing an opportunity for reversion of the attenuated phenotype. This is a real but rarely realized disadvantage of live-attenuated virus vaccines.

all life forms, no matter how diverse, have common characteristics: 1) they are made up of cells, enclosed by a membrane that maintains internal conditions different from their surroundings, 2) they contain DNA or RNA as the material that carries their master plan, and 3) they carry out a process, called metabolism, which involves the conversion of different forms of energy by means of which they sustain themselves.

We're going to survive. Maybe, we should know the code of creation. Most of scientists talk about creation of the world by Nucleobase , RNA, enzymes, and other microscopic things that we never can see them. Maybe the code of creation of life is in front of our eyes and we're focusing on false things.

The DNA-RNA apparatus isn't the whole secret of life, but a sort of computer program by which the real secret, the control system, ex-presses its pattern in terms of living cells.This pattern is part of what many people mean by the soul, which somany philosophies have tried to explicate. However, most of the pro-posed answers haven't been connected with the physical world of biology in a way that offered a toehold for experiment. Like many attempts, the latest major scientific guess, the morphogenetic field proposed by Paul Weiss in 1939, was just a restatement of the problem, though a useful one. Weiss conjectured that development was guided by some sort of field projected from the fertilized egg. As the dividing cell mass became an embryo and then an adult, the field changed its shape and somehow led the cells onward.

New York Times article from March 8, 1953, titled “Looking Back Two Billion Years.” “Obviously,” Edmond said, “this experiment raised some eyebrows. The implications could have been earth-shattering, especially for the religious world. If life magically appeared inside this test tube, we would know conclusively that the laws of chemistry alone are indeed enough to create life. We would no longer require a supernatural being to reach down from heaven and bestow upon us the spark of Creation. We would understand that life simply happens…as an inevitable by-product of the laws of nature. More importantly, we would have to conclude that because life spontaneously appeared here on earth, it almost certainly did the same thing elsewhere in the cosmos, meaning: man is not unique; man is not at the center of God’s universe; and man is not alone in the universe.” Edmond exhaled. “However, as many of you may know, the Miller-Urey experiment failed. It produced a few amino acids, but nothing even closely resembling life. The chemists tried repeatedly, using different combinations of ingredients, different heat patterns, but nothing worked. It seemed that life—as the faithful had long believed—required divine intervention. Miller and Urey eventually abandoned their experiments. The religious community breathed a sigh of relief, and the scientific community went back to the drawing board.” He paused, an amused glimmer in his eyes. “That is, until 2007…when there was an unexpected development.” Edmond now told the tale of how the forgotten Miller-Urey testing vials had been rediscovered in a closet at the University of California in San Diego after Miller’s death. Miller’s students had reanalyzed the samples using far more sensitive contemporary techniques—including liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry—and the results had been startling. Apparently, the original Miller-Urey experiment had produced many more amino acids and complex compounds than Miller had been able to measure at the time. The new analysis of the vials even identified several important nucleobases—the building blocks of RNA, and perhaps eventually…DNA. “It was an astounding science story,” Edmond concluded, “relegitimizing the notion that perhaps life does simply happen…without divine intervention. It seemed the Miller-Urey experiment had indeed been working, but just needed more time to gestate. Let’s remember one key point: life evolved over billions of years, and these test tubes had been sitting in a closet for just over fifty. If the timeline of this experiment were measured in miles, it was as if our perspective were limited to only the very first inch…” He let that thought hang in the air. “Needless to say,” Edmond went on, “there was a sudden resurgence in interest surrounding the idea of creating life in a lab.” I remember that, Langdon thought. The Harvard biology faculty had thrown

in the minds of many genetic engineers at the time—there was no difference between cells and computers. Computers use a software code of 1s and 0s, whereas biology uses a code of As, Cs, Ts, and Gs. Computers use compilers and storage registries; biology uses RNA (ribonucleic acid) and ribosomes. Computers use peripherals; biology uses proteins.

This overall flow of genetic information—from DNA to RNA to protein—is known as the central dogma of molecular biology, and it is the language used to communicate and express life.

Like a strand of DNA, the mRNA is a chain of letters, and its sequence matches the sequence of the DNA it copied (the only major exception being that T gets replaced by U). The mRNA is exported out of the cell’s nucleus and delivered to a protein-synthesizing factory called a ribosome, which translates the four-letter language of RNA (A, G, C, and U) into the twenty-letter language of proteins (the twenty amino acids). This translation proceeds according to the genetic code, a cipher in which every three-letter RNA combination, called a codon, instructs the ribosome to add one specific amino acid.

Some scientists also credit viruses with creating DNA in the first place (from RNA) billions of years ago, and they argue that viruses still invent most new genes today.

Primitive “bondmaker” molecules, early precursors of the RNA system, which bind nucleotides together, came into existence way before the first cells. So, too, did bondmaker molecules that developed the ability to join nucleotides together following a template—“copymakers.” These bondmakers and copymakers came into existence through random molecular re-sorting. It was the existence of copymaker molecules that set the process of evolution into motion. Natural selection chiseled living things into existence, but the requisite molecules for evolution—the bondmakers and copymakers—existed before life itself.

Recently scientists have found that cephalopods (the family that contains the octopus) can recode their RNA. RNA molecules have the privilege of establishing codes with DNA (in the part of the RNA that recognizes the three-nucleotide DNA codon sequence) and also with proteins (in the separate part of the RNA that recognizes the amino acid). Recoding the RNA means that new proteins can be constructed while the DNA sequence of symbols stays the same. The collective result is the destruction of the one-to-one gene-to-protein correspondence. Recoding allows a single octopus gene to produce many different types of proteins from the same DNA sequence.18 This is a big deal. It is evidence against the three concepts in biology that dismiss semiotic systems in living organisms. The system can change its code. The system has an internal codemaker that can produce biological innovations—new proteins—but not via natural selection. It illustrates the arbitrariness of the connection of a symbol with its meaning in a living system. If symbols within living systems

Why has DNA had a monopoly on molecular symbolism over the past few hundreds of millions of years? In its physical manifestation, DNA is extremely structurally stable, unlike RNA. This has helped DNA remain the symbolic structure of choice throughout evolution. However, while the DNA in our cells and the cells of other living organisms is now very stable, the structure of DNA did not start out that way at the very origins of life. Random shuffling and re-sorting of molecules, through the irreversible and probabilistic process of natural selection, generated molecules resembling nucleotide bases. Through subsequent shuffling, successful DNA components and sequences survived and replicated.

During replication, those nucleotides are read and translated into linear strings of amino acids (which make up enzymes and proteins) by a rule-governed process. The set of rules is called the genetic code. The DNA contains the sequence, but the code is implemented by RNA molecules. Certain DNA sequences, called codons, which are made up of three nucleotides, symbolize certain amino acid sequences. There is no ambiguity, but there is also not just one codon for each amino acid. For example, six different codons symbolize arginine, but only one codon symbolizes tryptophan. But the components of the DNA sequence (the symbol) do not resemble the components of the amino acid sequence (its meaning), just as the words that symbolize the components of a recipe do not resemble the components themselves.

that it was fantastically easy to target specific genes. All you had to do was select the desired twenty-letter DNA sequence to edit and then convert that sequence into a matching twenty-letter code of RNA. Once inside the cell, the RNA would couple with its DNA match using base pairing, and Cas9 would slice apart the DNA.

Here’s an example: DNA stores information very nicely, in a durable format that allows for exact duplication. A ribosome turns that stored information into a sequence of amino acids, a protein, which folds up into a variety of chemically active shapes. The combined system, DNA and ribosome, can build all sorts of protein machinery. But what good is DNA, without a ribosome that turns DNA information into proteins? What good is a ribosome, without DNA to tell it which proteins to make? Organisms don’t always leave fossils, and evolutionary biology can’t always figure out the incremental pathway. But in this case we do know how it happened. RNA shares with DNA the property of being able to carry information and replicate itself, although RNA is less durable and copies less accurately. And RNA also shares the ability of proteins to fold up into chemically active shapes, though it’s not as versatile as the amino acid chains of proteins. Almost certainly, RNA is the single A which predates the mutually dependent A* and B. It’s just as important to note that RNA does the combined job of DNA and proteins poorly, as that it does the combined job at all. It’s amazing enough that a single molecule can both store information and manipulate chemistry. For it to do the job well would be a wholly unnecessary miracle. What was the very first replicator ever to exist? It may well have been an RNA strand, because by some strange coincidence, the chemical ingredients of RNA are chemicals that would have arisen naturally on the prebiotic Earth of 4 billion years ago. Please note: evolution does not explain the origin of life; evolutionary biology is not supposed to explain the first replicator, because the first replicator does not come from another replicator. Evolution describes statistical trends in replication. The first replicator wasn’t a statistical trend, it was a pure accident. The notion that evolution should explain the origin of life is a pure strawman—more creationist misrepresentation.

Apart from a few viruses, all life on Earth now relies on DNA to hold the information that it needs to reproduce. But the most likely players in the first games of life were molecules of the related genetic material RNA, which is more flexible than DNA because it can both carry information down the generations and also catalyze—speed up—chemical reactions, a very handy feat. And RNA still carries out all kinds of critical roles in organisms that are described by DNA, including human beings.

Canlı hücreyi enfekte etme yeteneği taşıyan ergin virüse virion adı verilir. Bazı virüsler evrimsel süreçlerindeki mutasyonlar sonucu kendi kendilerine çoğalamazlar. Sadece kendilerine akraba olan virüslerin varlığında çoğalabilirler. Bu tür virüslere Defektif Virüsler adı veriliyor. Yine bazı virüsler kendi kendilerine replike olamazlar ancak akraba olmayan herhangi bir virüs eşliğinde çoğalabilirler. Bu tür virüslere de Uydu (Satelit) Virüsler deniliyor. Virüsler bakteriyolojik boyalarla boyanmazlar, ışık mikroskobunda görülemeyecek kadar küçüktürler, hücresel organeller içermezler ve antibiyotiklerden etkilenmezler. Sadece interferon (vücut hücrelerinde sentezlenen, virüsün protein yapımını inhibe eden proteinler) ve antiviral yöntemlerle durdurulabilirler. Bazı özel replikasyon enzimleri (RNA bağımlı RNA polimeraz, Ters Transkriptaz) gibi çok az sayıda enzim içerebilirler. 

Virüsler kısaca zorunlu hücre içi parazitleridirler. Yaygın bilimsel kanıya ve modern canlılık tanımlarına göre "canlı olmayan; ancak canlılığın eşiğinde olan varlıklar" olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bölünerek çoğalmazlar, çoğalmak için konak hücresini ve enzimlerini kullanırlar. Canlı hücreyi enfekte etme yeteneği taşıyan ergin virüse virion adı verilir. Bazı virüsler evrimsel süreçlerindeki mutasyonlar sonucu kendi kendilerine çoğalamazlar. Sadece kendilerine akraba olan virüslerin varlığında çoğalabilirler. Bu tür virüslere Defektif Virüsler adı veriliyor. Yine bazı virüsler kendi kendilerine replike olamazlar ancak akraba olmayan herhangi bir virüs eşliğinde çoğalabilirler. Bu tür virüslere de Uydu (Satelit) Virüsler deniliyor. Virüsler bakteriyolojik boyalarla boyanmazlar, ışık mikroskobunda görülemeyecek kadar küçüktürler, hücresel organeller içermezler ve antibiyotiklerden etkilenmezler. Sadece interferon (vücut hücrelerinde sentezlenen, virüsün protein yapımını inhibe eden proteinler) ve antiviral yöntemlerle durdurulabilirler. Bazı özel replikasyon enzimleri (RNA bağımlı RNA polimeraz, Ters Transkriptaz) gibi çok az sayıda enzim içerebilirler.  Morfoloji ve kimyasal özellikleri eşsizdir. Nükleik asitleri ya (tek/çift iplik) DNA ya da (tek/çift iplik) RNA'dan oluşur. DNA ve RNA beraber bulunmaz. En içerde nükleik asit ve onu saran, koruyan, morfolojisini veren kapsid (kılıf) bulunur. Bütün virüsler kendi kapsid proteinlerini kodlarlar. Kapsidi oluşturan alt ünitelere kapsomer, kapsomerleri oluşturan polipeptid zincirleri şeklindeki alt ünitelere de protomer adı verilir. Kapsomerler, virüse antijenik özellik kazandırır. Viral kapsidin aynı protein alt birimlerinden oluşmasının avantajları, genetik bilgi ihtiyacı az olması ve herhangi bir enzim veya enerji gereksinimi olmadan kendi kendine bir araya toplanabilir olmasıdır. Kapsid, ikozahedral (kübik simetri) ya da helikal (sarmal simetri) şeklinde bulunabilir. Ancak sadece RNA virüslerinde kapsid, helikal yapıdadır. Çünkü helikal yapılı kapsidler sadece RNA'yı paketleyebilir. Ayrıca insanlarda hastalık oluşturan bütün helikal simetrili virüsler zarflıdır ve RNA içerir. Nükleik asit ve kapsidin tamamına da nükleokapsid adı verilir.  Nükleokapsidden dışa doğru gidildikçe bazı virüslerde zarf adı verilen glikoprotein/lipoprotein bir membran bulunur. Ancak zarfsız virüsler, zarflılara göre sinsi ve tehlikelidir. Çünkü kolay yayılırlar. Kurumaya, mide-bağırsak yoluna, antikorlara, deterjan ve diğer kimyasallara dayanıklıdırlar. Zarflı virüslerde zarf ile kapsid arasında kalan bölgeye tegument (matrix) denir. Bazı büyük virüslerde bu bölgede konak hücreden aldığı bazı proteinleri depo edebilir. Zarf yapısında bulunan virüse özgü glikoprotein birimlere de peplomer adı verilir. Ayrıca bazı virüslerin dış kısmında transmembran glikoproteinler bulunur. Temel görevleri konak hücreye yapışma ve sızmadır. Örneğin: F proteini, füzyon ve hemolitik (eritositleri parçalayan) etki yapar. Nöraminidaz, hücre reseptörlerinde bulunan korunmayı sağlayan oligosakkaritlerin siyalik asit yapısını parçalar. Grip virüsü (influenza) gibi bazı virüslerin yüzeyinde hemaglütinin denen antikor molekülü de eritrositleri kümeleştirir. Tıpta bu özellik tanı için kullanılır.  Küçük virüslerin genomları 3-4 genden oluşurken, Pox gibi büyük virüslerde bu sayı 200-300 geni bulabilir. Retrovirüsler hariç genomları haploiddir. Genomun yapısı düz (lineer), çembersel (sirküler) ya da parçalı (segmenter) olabilir. Ancak çift iplikli DNA virüsleri sadece düz veya çembersel formda olabilir. Parçalı yapıda bulunamaz. Tek veya çift iplikli DNA/RNA'nın bir de polaritesi (kutuplaşan elektriksel yükü) vardır. 3' ucundan 5' ucuna ise negatif polariteli, 5' ucundan

Flagyl was clearly effective in the treatment of Lyme disease. But how did it work? As early as 1967 The British Journal of Venereal Diseases had published a study showing Flagyl to be effective in certain cases of syphilis, and that it had an effect on bacterial DNA and RNA irrespective of bacterial replication. Could this be the mechanism of Flagyl’s action against Burrelia burgdorferi? The key to Flagyl’s effectiveness on Lyme, however, was not reported until several months after my study was presented. Dr. O. Brorson, a Norwegian researcher, published a paper on Flagyl and its effect on the cystic forms of Lyme disease six months after I presented my research. The cystic form of Lyme disease, it turns out, is one mechanism that Borrelia burgdorferi utilizes to persist in the body. Dr. Brorson reported that Flagyl would cause Borrelia cysts to rupture, and he went on to publish that he could see under the microscope the cell wall forms of Borrelia burgdorferi (helical/spiral–shaped organisms) transform into cystic forms, and under proper conditions convert back into mobile spirochetes. A review of the medical literature revealed that these cystic forms had, in fact, been reported in syphilis. No one had clearly made the link between Borrelia and a cystic form of the organism that could persist for long periods of time in a dormant state. It was a highly evolved survival mechanism that would allow the organism to reemerge when conditions were optimal. My patient, Mary, had been treated initially with Plaquenil, which according to Dr. Brorson’s research also affects the cystic forms, yet it appeared that it was not powerful enough to destroy the dormant forms and prevent a relapse, or to prevent her from passing it on to her fetus. She had also been treated with drugs that addressed the cell wall and intracellular forms of Lyme. Although Plaquenil has some effect on cystic forms, it is often primarily used in antibiotic regimens with Lyme disease to alkalize the intracellular compartment, modulate autoimmune reactions, and affect essential enzymes necessary for bacterial replication. Clearly, however, it is not powerful enough to destroy enough of the

When antigenic shift occurs, strains crop up bearing a totally new hemagglutinin spike, and sometimes also a new neuraminidase molecule, that most people have never encountered. As a result the virus may evade the antibody repertoire carried by all populations around the globe and trigger a pandemic. In today’s jet-linked world, people can spread a dangerous new virus from one part of the earth to another in a day. Such a drastic metamorphosis cannot occur through simple genetic mutation. The best-studied process leading to antigenic shift involves the mixing of two viral strains in one host cell, so that the genes packaged in new viral particles (and their corresponding proteins) come partly from one strain and partly from the other. This reassortment can take place because the genome, or genetic complement, of the influenza virus consists of eight discrete strands of RNA (each of which codes for one or two proteins). These strands are easily mixed and matched when new influenza A particles form in a dually infected cell. For instance, some influenza viruses infect both people and pigs. If a pig were somehow invaded by a human virus and by a strain that typically infected only birds, the pig might end up producing a hybrid strain that was like the human virus in every way except for displaying, say, a hemagglutinin molecule from the bird virus.

Pharmaceutical companies became very interested in using siRNAs as potential new drugs. Theoretically, siRNA molecules could be used to knock down expression of any protein that was believed to be harmful in a disease. In the same year that Fire and Mello were awarded their Nobel Prize, the giant pharmaceutical company Merck paid over one billion US dollars for a siRNA company in California called Sirna Therapeutics. Other large pharmaceutical companies have also invested heavily. But in 2010 a bit of a chill breeze began to drift through the pharmaceutical industry. Roche, the giant Swiss company, announced that it was stopping its siRNA programmes, despite having spent more than $500 million on them over three years. Its neighbouring Swiss corporation, Novartis, pulled out of a collaboration with a siRNA company called Alnylam in Massachusetts. There are still plenty of other companies who have stayed in this particular game, but it would probably be fair to say there’s a bit more nervousness around this technology than in the past. One of the major problems with using this kind of approach therapeutically may sound rather mundane. Nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA, are just difficult to turn into good drugs. Most good existing drugs – ibuprofen, Viagra, anti-histamines – have certain characteristics in common. You can swallow them, they get across your gut wall, they get distributed around your body, they don’t get destroyed too quickly by your liver, they get taken up by cells, and they work their effects on the molecules in or on the cells. Those all sound like really simple things, but they’re often the most difficult things to get right when developing a new drug. Companies will spend tens of millions of dollars – at least – getting this bit right, and it is still a surprisingly hit-and-miss process. It’s so much worse when trying to create drugs around nucleic acids. This is partly because of their size. An average siRNA molecule is over 50 times larger than a drug like ibuprofen. When creating drugs (especially ones to be taken orally rather than injected) the general rule is, the smaller the better. The larger a drug is, the greater the problems with getting high enough doses into patients, and keeping them in the body for long enough. This may be why a company like Roche has decided it can spend its money more effectively elsewhere. This doesn’t mean that siRNA won’t ever work in the treatment of illnesses, it’s just quite high risk as a business venture.

(mRNA), in a process called transcription. This mRNA then leaves the nucleus to enter the cytoplasm, where it is translated into protein by large multiprotein complexes called ribosomes. The proteins resulting from translation are then folded and glycosylated correctly by various means and directed towards their required location in the cell

So, here it is,” I say. “This is a real-time view of the sample from the integrated electron microscope.” I step back, and give them a view of the screen. It shows a mass of spheres. They move randomly through the frame, occasionally bouncing off of one another. In among them, though, are other shapes. These are far fewer, larger, and more irregular. “See the balls?” I continue. “Those are what should have been produced. They’re temperature-sensitive cages, with serotonin inside. Those other things, though—they’re not supposed to be there. They look a bit like big viruses, but their mass is much higher than you’d expect from a biological. I’m guessing these are what the crypted code tacked onto the configuration file is producing.” “I thought we’d decided that Hagerstown couldn’t have been a virus,” Gary says. “I didn’t say these are viruses,” I say. “I said the protein coat we can see looks like what you’d see on a virus. That’s just the delivery mechanism. I’d be willing to bet that these things bind to cells like a virus, but what’s inside them is definitely not RNA.

RNA viruses because I already had that list in my mind: Hendra and Nipah, Ebola and Marburg, West Nile, Machupo, Junin, the influenzas, the hantas, dengue and yellow fever, rabies and its cousins, chikungunya, SARS-CoV, and Lassa, not to mention HIV-1 and HIV-2. All of them carry their genomes as RNA. The

the primers chosen dictate the target for amplification, such as rRNA genes or genes that code for proteins with functions of ecological interest, such as those involved in nitrogen fixation (nif), ammonia (amoA) or methane (pmoA) oxidation, or denitrification (narG, napA, nirS, nirK, norB, nosZ). The

The word epigenetics literally means “above the gene.” It refers to the control of genes not from within the DNA itself but from messages coming from outside the cell—in other words, from the environment. These signals cause a methyl group (one carbon atom attached to three hydrogen atoms) to attach to a specific spot on a gene, and this process (called DNA methylation) is one of the main processes that turns the gene off or on. (Two other processes, covalent histone modification and noncoding RNA, also turn genes on and off,

negative copy of the gene is then assembled, forming a molecule known as messenger RNA (mRNA). This mRNA is used as the template for assembling the growing protein.

In DNA, the alphabetic instructions are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. One way to recognize mRNA in the cell is that it does not contain thymine, but substitutes uracil instead. The mRNA is then composed of a collection of these four bases (a, u, c, and g). It takes only three bases to form what is called a “codon.” This codon corresponds to an amino acid. A large protein called a ribosome works like a tiny machine, moving along the mRNA strand, while transfer RNA (tRNA) units attach, encoding one of twenty amino acids. The string of amino acids form into a protein.[353]

This dsDNA can then incorporate itself into the host chromosome using a viral enzyme called “integrase.” The new “fake gene” then orders the cell to make more mRNA copies of the original virus RNA. These then travel out of the cell and infect the next cell, and so on.

Absolutely! Retroviruses essentially inject single-stranded RNA strands into somatic (body) cells during “infection.” These ssRNA strands access nucleotide pools in the host cell and form a double-stranded DNA copy.

Influenza is an RNA virus. So are HIV and the coronavirus.

Dr. Mackay said that this idea is actually somewhat reasonable, from a purely biological point of view. He said that rhinoviruses—and other RNA respiratory viruses—are completely eliminated from the body by the immune system; they do not linger after infection. Furthermore, we don’t seem to pass any rhinoviruses back and forth with animals, which means there are no other species that can serve as reservoirs of our colds. If rhinoviruses don’t have enough humans to move between, they die out.

In 2009, a start-up Danish drug company called Santaris announced successful use of LNA’s remarkable properties against the hepatitis C virus. The LNA in the medication bonds with microRNA in the HepC virus, preventing the virus from duplicating. Essentially, the LNA “locks” the gene in the off position.

Recall that when genes are active, they make proteins. To manufacture proteins, they use another molecule, RNA, as an intermediary.

It is said that the end of the RNA world hypothesis is near. Perhaps this is an abstraction. Now I Am, as a scientist and biologist, certain that INA is the origin of Life on Earth. The Origin-of-Life study points to INA, not RNA. Why? INA is the origin of DNA and RNA. The INA world hypothesis states that all Life verily is INA. The INA world hypothesis states that biology is undivided and that all variegation is INA perceiving variegation for the purpose not to feel alone, to experience companionship, to Love and Be Loved in return. The INA world hypothesis suggests that INA is the source of all Life on Earth including but not limited to DNA/RNA. The previous RNA theory suggests that life on Earth began with a simple RNA molecule that could copy itself without help from other molecules. DNA, RNA, and proteins are central to life on Earth. DNA stores the instructions for building living things—from bacteria to bumble bees. INA theory is not limited to the Earth but to the Universe for it is all-inclusive. As such INA is not a theory but a scientific law. The kernel of INA-Law is Love. The aforementioned being based on the fact that the meaning of the name DNA is DNA is Deus Non Alligator (its meaning derived from 'Deus non alligator sacramentis' — 'God is not Bound to the sacraments'). RNA was based on the DNA principle. RNA stands for Ram Non Alligator (its meaning derived from 'Rama non alligator sacramentis' — 'Rama is not Bound to the sacraments'). Rama naturally Rama or Ram (Sanskrit: राम, Rāma, also known as Ramachandra, रामचन्द्र, Rāmacandra). As such INA-Law returns to the essence of beingness which is Self (I). The meaning of INA thus being 'I Non Alligator ('I non alligator sacramentis' — 'I is not Bound to the sacraments'). Perhaps the strongest evidence for the INA-Law is Self (I). Self Itself Is. Self Always Is. INA-Law states that Self perceives itself as itself but experiences itself as variegated not to feel alone, to experience Companionship. INA-Law states that Self is pure spirit perceiving itself as matter this although all matter is Self. Furthermore, INA-Law states that division does not exist for there is only Oneself perceiving itself as variegated for Companionship, for Love. Love is as such at the heart of INA-Law. The equation for INA-Law is 'I=Love'.

A virus is a small capsule made of membranes and proteins. The capsule contains one or more strands of DNA or RNA, which are long molecules that contain the software program for making a copy of the virus. Some biologists classify viruses as “life forms,” because they are not strictly known to be alive. Viruses are ambiguously alive, neither alive nor dead. They carry on their existence in the borderlands between life and nonlife. Viruses that are outside cells merely sit there; nothing happens. They are dead. They can even form crystals. Virus particles that lie around in blood or mucus may seem dead, but the particles are waiting for something to come along. They have a sticky surface. If a cell comes along and touches the virus and the stickiness of the virus matches the stickiness of the cell, then the virus clings to the cell. The cell feels the virus sticking to it and enfolds the virus and drags it inside. Once the virus enters the cell, it becomes a Trojan horse. It switches on and begins to replicate.

The genetic code inside Ebola is a single strand of RNA. This type of molecule is thought to be the oldest and most “primitive” coding mechanism for life. The earth’s primordial ocean, which came into existence not long after the earth was formed, about four and a half billion years ago, may well have contained microscopic life forms based on RNA. This suggests that Ebola is an ancient kind of life, perhaps nearly as old as the earth itself. Another hint that Ebola is extremely ancient is the way in which it can seem neither quite alive nor quite unalive.

genetic traits: a single-stranded RNA genome, which is partitioned into eight segments, which serve as templates for eleven different proteins. In other words, they have eight discrete stretches of RNA coding, linked together like eight railroad cars, with eleven different deliverable cargoes. The eleven deliverables are the molecules that comprise the structure and functional machinery of the virus. They are what the genes make. Two of those molecules become spiky protuberances from the outer surface of the viral envelope: hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Those two, recognizable by an immune system, and crucial for penetrating and exiting cells of a host, give the various subtypes of influenza A their definitive labels: H5N1, H1N1, and so on. The term “H5N1” indicates a virus featuring subtype 5 of the hemagglutinin protein combined with subtype 1 of the neuraminidase protein.

Holger Hyden discovers that the brain cells of educated rats contain a third more RNA the those of uneducated rats. University of California psychologists pass on learning from one rat to another by injecting RNA from trained rats. Neurologists are "wiring up" the brains of animals and men and altering consciousness by pressing buttons. Press a button - make him hungry. Press a button - make him horny. Press a button - make him angry. Press a button - make him happy. The psychedelic chemicals flood out of the laboratories. Into the hands of the two familiar groups; those who want to do something to others for power and control; those who want to do something to themselves for fun and love.

I absolutely can’t stand science, especially biology, which was what we were studying. I couldn’t keep all those terms straight: cell and nucleus, species and phylum and genus, RNA and DNA and who knows what else. You know what is really stupid? The word species. If you have two different kinds of animals or something, then you have two species. But if you have only one kind, then you still have a species. Why not a specie? Or a specy? You don’t have two cats and one cats. Oh, well.

A virus particle is a very small capsule made of proteins locked together in a mathematical pattern. The pattern of the interlocking proteins in a virus is far more complicated than a snowflake. The protein capsule is sometimes wrapped in an oily membrane. Inside the capsule there is a small amount of DNA or RNA, the molecules that contain the genetic code of the virus. The genetic code is the virus’s operating system, or wetware, the complete set of instructions for the virus to make copies of itself. Unlike a snowflake or any other kind of crystal, a virus is able to re-create its form. It would be as if a single snowflake started copying itself as it falls, and those copies of the snowflake copy themselves, creating ever-growing numbers of identical copies of the first snowflake, until the air is filled with falling snow, and each flake is a perfect replica of the first flake. Many virologists feel that viruses are not truly living things. At the same time, viruses are obviously not dead. Virologists like to describe them as life forms. The term is a contradiction: How can something be a form of life that isn’t alive? Viruses carry on their existence in a misty borderland that lies between life and death, a gray zone where the things we encounter are neither provably alive nor certainly dead. One way to understand viruses is to think about them as biological machines. A virus is a wet nanomachine, a tiny, complicated, slightly fuzzy mechanism, which is rubbery, flexible, wobbly, and often a little bit imprecise in its operation—a microscopic nugget of squishy parts. Viruses are subtle, logical, tricky, reactive, devious, opportunistic. They are constantly evolving, their forms steadily changing as time passes. Like all kinds of life, viruses possess a relentless drive to reproduce themselves so that they can persist through time. When a virus starts copying itself strongly and rapidly in a host, the process is called virus amplification. As a virus amplifies itself in its host, the host, a living organism, can be destroyed. Viruses are the undead of the living world, the zombies of deep time. Nobody knows the origin of viruses—how they came into existence or when they appeared in the history of life on earth. Viruses may be examples or relics of life forms that operated at the dawn of life. Viruses may have come into existence with the first stirrings of life on the planet, roughly four billion years ago. Or they may have arisen after life started, during the time when single-celled bacteria had already come into existence—nobody knows.

A problem was how nature punctuated the seemingly unbroken DNA and RNA strands. No one could see a biological equivalent for the pauses that separate letters in Morse code, or the spaces that separate words. Perhaps every fourth base was a comma. Or maybe (Crick suggested) commas would be unnecessary if some triplets made “sense” and others made “nonsense.” Then again, maybe a sort of tape reader just needed to start at a certain point and count off the nucleotides three by three. Among the mathematicians drawn to this problem were a group at the new Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, meant to be working on aerospace research. To them it looked like a classic problem in Shannon coding theory: “the sequence of nucleotides as an infinite message, written without punctuation, from which any finite portion must be decodable into a sequence of amino acids by suitable insertion of commas.” They constructed a dictionary of codes. They considered the problem of misprints

Much of the mapping from nucleotides to amino acids seemed arbitrary—not as neatly patterned as any of Gamow’s proposals. Some amino acids correspond to just one codon, others to two, four, or six. Particles called ribosomes ratchet along the RNA strand and translate it, three bases at a time. Some codons are redundant; some actually serve as start signals and stop signals. The redundancy serves exactly the purpose that an information theorist would expect. It provides tolerance for errors. Noise affects biological messages like any other.

Stars don’t just shoot out energy and light. When they’re young, they shoot out amino acids and nucleotides— the raw material of DNA, RNA, and proteins. These are carried by the solar wind throughout the solar system. The building blocks of life come from suns. Earth wasn’t just extremely lucky to have these incredibly elegant Legos here. Early in the formation of a solar system, all the planets get showered with them, especially the rocky planets near the sun. Earth isn’t special.

how a piece of RNA could pair up with its phage DNA counterpart and cause that DNA to be destroyed.

UNC分校毕业证|学历证书 北卡罗来纳教堂山分校毕业证|学位证Q/微：16889 9991办UNC毕业证认证| 改UNC成绩单“GPA”| 办UNC-存档可查认证University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fake ◆ — — — — — —— — — —— — — — — —— — —— — —-◆【QQ/微信：168899991】【公司诚招代理，此贴永久有效】办理各国各大学文凭+认证◆— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -◆As Dr. Birx said, “you don’t always get a home run in science. The mRNA vaccine is a home run.” Our Covid-19 vaccines are a marvel of science and technology. Whenever it is possible to get a shot, get vaccinated against Covid-19.

By the 1960s, Howard Temin had determined that retrovirus genomes were composed of RNA, and observed that replication was inhibited by actinomycin D, which inhibits DNA synthesis, and led to the proposal of the concept of reverse transcription. In 1969, Huebner and Todaro proposed the viral oncogene hypothesis – namely, the transmission of viral and oncogenic information as genetic elements, rather than as a pathogenic response to a virus. David Baltimore at MIT independently replicated Temin’s work, and the pair published a joint article in Nature on June 27, 1970 that described their discoveries. And in 1981, the

The combination of amino acids into proteins and of nucleic acids into strings of RNA established the basic paradigm of biology. Strings of RNA (and later DNA) that self-replicated (Epoch Two) provided a digital method to record the results of evolutionary experiments. Later on, the evolution of a species that combined rational thought (Epoch Three) with an opposable appendage (the thumb) caused a fundamental paradigm shift from biology to technology (Epoch Four). The upcoming primary paradigm shift will be from biological thinking to a hybrid combining biological and nonbiological thinking (Epoch Five), which will include “biologically inspired” processes resulting from the reverse engineering of biological brains.

stress-induced irregularities in microRNA levels can affect how genes are expressed in multiple generations.30