SCIENTISTS FIND SECOND, 'HIDDEN' LANGUAGE IN HUMAN GENETIC CODE

[Wilikon]

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20131212-174536-3107

SEATTLE, Dec. 12 (UPI) --
U.S. geneticists say a second code hiding within DNA changes how scientists read its instructions and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed it was used exclusively to write information about proteins, but University of Washington scientists say they've discovered genomes use the genetic code to write two separate "languages."

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.

"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," UW genome sciences Professor John Stamatoyannopoulos said. "Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways."

Parts of the genetic code have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control, the researchers said, and both apparently evolved in concert with each other.

The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made, they said.

The discovery has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient's genome and could open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease, Stamatoyannopoulos said.

"The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously," he said.

[RebelWorm]

Is it just me who feels uncomfortable reading about genetic codes and stuff? I get this bad feeling that knowledge like this will be very misused...

[Honeypot]

Very interesting. My field also employs people who gives presentations in regards to biological and genetic research. This discovery could potentially overhaul our entire understanding of how human genetics function.

[oxxymoronn]

Very intriguing, what a great step forward for science.

[beetcoin]

omg it's the code that our alien overlords/progenitors have programmed into us!

[cbeast]

omg it's the code that our alien overlords/progenitors have programmed into us!

It's the raw transaction for our universal cryptocurrency address.

[Wilikon]

Don't forget the first and second genetic language were all generated randomly from the pure chaos of a pre eternal oblivion

[jarhed]

Is it just me who feels uncomfortable reading about genetic codes and stuff? I get this bad feeling that knowledge like this will be very misused...

Good thing they did.
It's hard to imagine a world without superheros

[qiwoman]

I would like this knowledge to help us fix all our genomes and epi genomes as they say that epi genome therapy can even cure cancer. Any knowledge is dangerous but in the end we need to evolve and get to the Next level as a Species or we simply won't survive at the rate we are going.

[MaxwellsDemon]

As a scientist, I find that the one thing the mainstream media distorts even more than Bitcoin is science.
This is a perfect example of PR people and clueless journalists blowing things waaaay out of proportion. This is an important discovery, but to call it a "second genetic code" is absurd. All they've discovered is that transcription factors sometimes bind exons. It's interesting, sure, but whether or not it has any far-reaching implications remains to be seen. There are plenty of other well known factors that influence codon usage, and nobody in their right mind would consider calling any of them a "second genetic code".

[xkeyscore89]

Isn't this article just describing one of the functions of DNA promoters, gene expression?  If so, this isn't news, there isn't a "second language" that has been discovered.

[Wilikon]

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/dual-use-codons-point-to-second-genetic-code/81249255/

Superimposed on the genetic sequences coding for amino acids is a second genetic code. This second genetic code, which makes use of dual-use codons, or duons, specifies how genes are controlled.

The discovery emerged from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, also known as ENCODE. Besides suggesting an explanation for codon usage bias, the discovery raises the possibility that mutations may cause disease by deranging gene control programs. Alternatively, genetic diseases may involve a combination of altered protein sequences and gene control changes.

Evidence for dual-coding DNA was presented December 13 in Science, in an article entitled “Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution.” The article’s authors, centered at the University of Washington, used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution transcription factor (TF) occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. They found that about 15% of human codons are duons that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites.

“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said John Stamatoyannopoulos, M.D., an associate professor of genome sciences and medicine at the University of Washington. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The University of Washington team discovered that some codons can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made.

In their article, the scientists indicated that duons are highly conserved. They also noted that TF-imposed constraint appears to be a major driver of codon usage bias. “Conversely, the regulatory code has been selectively depleted of TFs that recognize stop codons,” they observed. “More than 17% of single-nucleotide variants within duons directly alter TF binding.”

While evaluating the implications of their work for determining the genetic origins of disease, the scientists focused on common disease- and trait-associated single-nucleotide variations identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in coding sequences. They found that 13.5% fall within duons. “GWAS single-nucleotide polymorphisms in duons encompass both synonymous (12%) and nonsynonymous (88%) substitutions and may directly affect pathogenetic mechanisms,” they wrote in their study. “As such, disease-associated variants within duons may compromise both regulatory and/or protein-structural functions. These findings have substantial practical implications for the interpretation of genetic variation in coding regions.”

[lyth0s]

As a scientist, I find that the one thing the mainstream media distorts even more than Bitcoin is science.
This is a perfect example of PR people and clueless journalists blowing things waaaay out of proportion. This is an important discovery, but to call it a "second genetic code" is absurd. All they've discovered is that transcription factors sometimes bind exons. It's interesting, sure, but whether or not it has any far-reaching implications remains to be seen. There are plenty of other well known factors that influence codon usage, and nobody in their right mind would consider calling any of them a "second genetic code".

/agreed.

[MaxwellsDemon]

Isn't this article just describing one of the functions of DNA promoters, gene expression? 

No, because promoters are usually upstream of protein coding regions. This paper claims that transcription factors, which are known for binding promoters and enhancers, also sometimes bind the protein coding regions themselves. This may create additional evolutionary constraints on the protein code, which could affect codon bias.
It's certainly novel, and quite interesting, but not totally revolutionary as the press releases like to insinuate.

[akunate]

Isn't this article just describing one of the functions of DNA promoters, gene expression? 

No, because promoters are usually upstream of protein coding regions. This paper claims that transcription factors, which are known for binding promoters and enhancers, also sometimes bind the protein coding regions themselves. This may create additional evolutionary constraints on the protein code, which could affect codon bias.
It's certainly novel, and quite interesting, but not totally revolutionary as the press releases like to insinuate.

is it about which part of the gene is encoding for proteins in means of introns and exons?

[robbylove]

Isn't this article just describing one of the functions of DNA promoters, gene expression? 

No, because promoters are usually upstream of protein coding regions. This paper claims that transcription factors, which are known for binding promoters and enhancers, also sometimes bind the protein coding regions themselves. This may create additional evolutionary constraints on the protein code, which could affect codon bias.
It's certainly novel, and quite interesting, but not totally revolutionary as the press releases like to insinuate.

is it about which part of the gene is encoding for proteins in means of introns and exons?

I wonder if the people can reply to you. It would be great if they could still.

 

[KingScorpio]

Is it just me who feels uncomfortable reading about genetic codes and stuff? I get this bad feeling that knowledge like this will be very misused...

used and misused are close to each other, if someone wants to breed himselfs an army of workers, whats the difference to someone like the cryptosect that propagates value of encripted information?

regards

[akunate]

Isn't this article just describing one of the functions of DNA promoters, gene expression? 

No, because promoters are usually upstream of protein coding regions. This paper claims that transcription factors, which are known for binding promoters and enhancers, also sometimes bind the protein coding regions themselves. This may create additional evolutionary constraints on the protein code, which could affect codon bias.
It's certainly novel, and quite interesting, but not totally revolutionary as the press releases like to insinuate.

is it about which part of the gene is encoding for proteins in means of introns and exons?

I wonder if the people can reply to you. It would be great if they could still.

 

I will announce a project about the know features of DNA and also aiming to discover the unknown features of genetic code. working hard on it

[barrett_fire]

When I think of DNA and genetic codes it reminds me of my car. I really know next to nothing about cars. I mean, I can do the basic things, like check my oil or tire pressure, but I always feel like if I change something I'll mess something up. I think that DNA is something that all humans understand at least as little as I understand cars. It's great that we are making progress in researching these matters, but I think we're far from the point where it would be smart make any changes in human DNA. I think it is great that this information can be used to diagnose different things. I have heard that it's possible to test an embryo's DNA before implanting it into the mother to see if it will have any big diseases. I think DNA will play a much bigger role in medicine in the future.

[akunate]

When I think of DNA and genetic codes it reminds me of my car. I really know next to nothing about cars. I mean, I can do the basic things, like check my oil or tire pressure, but I always feel like if I change something I'll mess something up. I think that DNA is something that all humans understand at least as little as I understand cars. It's great that we are making progress in researching these matters, but I think we're far from the point where it would be smart make any changes in human DNA. I think it is great that this information can be used to diagnose different things. I have heard that it's possible to test an embryo's DNA before implanting it into the mother to see if it will have any big diseases. I think DNA will play a much bigger role in medicine in the future.

It is nearly impossible to manipulate the DNA because all cells have DNA, but it is easy to check an embryo's sequence