tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3228355742056158508..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Splice variants of the human triose phosphate isomerase gene: is alternative splicing real?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13248375453035371262016-09-12T16:43:41.232-04:002016-09-12T16:43:41.232-04:00It seems like it would be relatively straightforwa...It seems like it would be relatively straightforward to test via western blot or something. In vitro translation followed by some mixing to allow for dimerization and you should be able to see two bands.flieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04438262506920089149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24958928392829714462016-09-03T16:11:25.465-04:002016-09-03T16:11:25.465-04:00Hey Larry, you might be interested that Torley is ...Hey Larry, you might be interested that Torley is citing anonymous profs who cite... you. Torley's three profs that he consults are called "Professors A, B, and C" (C doesn't want to be anonymous, it's <b>James Tour.</b> A is a Christian "Darwinist" while B is a Christian who "has strong doubts regarding the possibility of abiogenesis, but adheres to the neutral theory of evolution".) <br /><br />But interestingly, in a critique of Axe's "big numbers" argument that protein A can never evolve into protein B, Torley writes:<br /><br /><i>Professor B, however, was harshly critical of Axe’s argument. All Axe had done, he said, was to take two related proteins (A and B), and tweak them very slightly, in an attempt to change A into B. That didn’t work, so Axe had leapt to the unwarranted conclusion that there was no good path from A to B, and that all proteins are isolated in function, when in reality, he had not proven this at all. Professor B argued that this inference was clearly mistaken, because Axe had not even tried a moderate number of paths from protein A to protein B – let alone all possible paths. Professor B added that most scientists believe that there was an ancestral protein C from which A and B could be easily derived, and that this protein would have performed the functions of both protein A and protein B. He faulted Axe for making no attempt to identify the ancestral protein C, and change C into A and into B.<br /><br />Professor B thought Dr. Axe was extending his work far beyond what the data currently indicates. He contended that Dr. Axe was over-interpreting his data, and that he wasn’t test the true evolutionary model in the correct fashion, but was attacking a straw man instead. Tellingly, Professor B <b>endorsed Dr. Larry Moran’s critiques of Axe’s work</b> (see <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/douglas-axe-on-protein-evolution-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-evolution-of-enzymes-from.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>).</i><br /><br />The cited blog posts are pretty old:<br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/douglas-axe-on-protein-evolution-and.html" rel="nofollow">Douglas Axe on Protein Evolution and Magic Numbers</a> (Oct. 18, 2012)<br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-evolution-of-enzymes-from.html" rel="nofollow">The Evolution of Enzymes from Promiscuous Precursors</a> (July 26, 2012)Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10805415771105892902016-09-03T11:42:59.885-04:002016-09-03T11:42:59.885-04:00Torley continues: "In Dembskian terminology, ...Torley continues: <i>"In Dembskian terminology, Axe has made a clever move here: he has quietly dispensed with the problematic notion of <b>specified complexity (which could apply even to arrangements of pebbles)</b>, and identified functional specified complex information (FCSI) as the hallmark of intelligent design..."</i><br /><br />Certainly the claim that "arrangements of pebbles" can have Dembski's CSI would infuriate many of Dembski's acolytes!<br /><br />The only difference between Dembski's CSI and the FIASCO promoted by the denizens of UD, like He Who Shall Not Be Named, is that FIASCO has an "F" for function. That's it.<br /><br />So Torley pins his hopes on the "F" for function in FIASCO that it will dismiss counter-arguments like snowflakes, but of course some of our counter-arguments have real functions. <br /><br />Consider natural bridges and arches formed by erosion. They have Behe's irreducibly complexity (IC) in the sense that, if you cut out a big chunk of a natural bridge, it would collapse and no longer perform it's function. And they have real functions: many have roads or paths that lead over streams and rivers, and they have the same function as man-made bridges. So they have the "F" in FIASCO.<br /><br />One could also mention irreducibly complex natural structures like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" rel="nofollow">the natural nuclear reactor found in Gabon</a>. It had a negative-feedback mechanism to keep its neutron flux within a moderate range to generate moderate heat for many years, and that mechanism was Irreducibly Complex (IC) by Behe's criterion. And it performed the same function as man-made nuclear reactors, so it has the "F" in FIASCO.<br /><br />So, yes, natural processes create structures that have both Dembski's CSI, and Behe's Irreducible Complexity, and the "functional" FIASCO preferred by the denizens of UD.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77296925360212250012016-09-03T11:42:03.391-04:002016-09-03T11:42:03.391-04:00But back to Torley's review. One interesting p...But back to Torley's review. One interesting passage is where Torley invokes the "snowflake" counter-argument to claims that natural processes can't create complex things. Of course we have invoked the snowflake counter-argument for many years. They say, "Natural processes can't create a complex thing!" and we reply "If true, that would mean snowflakes were made one by one by snow fairies, instead of natural processes." <br /><br />The snowflake argument drives creationists cuckoo. They hate it. But Torley brings it up:<br /><br /><i>Perhaps it might be suggested that the [Axe's] Universal Design Intuition applies only to highly complex arrangements of matter, rather than low-complexity structures such as raindrops and diamonds (which have a fairly regular, face-centered cubic crystal structure). Very well, then: but what about <b>individual snowflakes?</b> While making snow isn’t too difficult, there’s no doubt that <b>a lot of knowledge would be required if I wanted to make a perfect replica of a particular snowflake.</b> Should I then conclude that each snowflake was designed?</i><br /><br />Smartly, Torley limits his claim to the large amount of information that would be required to re-create <b>one particular snowflake</b>, which is not the same thing as saying that the rules for creating any old snowflake are super-complex. (For you math nerds, Torley is gesturing toward the difference between the Kalmogorov-Chaitin complexity of the description of the molecular structure of one particular snowfake, vs. the simplicity of the laws of physics that make snowflakes in general.)<br /><br />However, Torley then appears to dismiss the snowflake, on the grounds that it does not have "function", while biological things have function:<br /><br /><i>... Axe propounds his core argument in support of the Universal Design Intuition: “Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.” Inventions, we are told, “exhibit an organized, <b>functional coherence</b> that can only come from deliberate, intelligent action” (p. 160). Functional coherence is the reason why “inventions can’t happen by accident” (p. 160). This formulation of the Universal Design Intuition is a lot sharper than the initial one, because it shifts the focus to a well-defined property (functional coherence), which means that <b>we need not worry about snowflakes</b>, diamonds or rain, as none of them exhibit this singular trait.</i> <br /><br />(I would strongly disagree that Axe's "functional coherence" is well-defined.) But note that now Torley, having invoked the snowflake, dismisses it, on the grounds that it isn't functional.<br /><br />Of course we could respond that snowflakes have many functions: to be beautiful, to be skied on, to stick together and make snowmen, etc. But more on function in a moment.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10721851267557869402016-09-03T11:09:41.500-04:002016-09-03T11:09:41.500-04:00I'm also reading the "Our Beliefs" s...I'm also reading the <a href="http://www.thedowntownchurch.us/about/our-beliefs" rel="nofollow">"Our Beliefs" section of Doug Axe's church</a>, which is also attended by Ratzlaff, who read Axe's book.<br /><br /><i>The Bible is our bottom line. It shapes everything about our lives and our theology.</i><br /><br />Yeah no shit.<br /><br /><i>We believe the Bible is the Word of God, verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, and without error in the original manuscripts. It is authoritative over all matters of life. Our daily responsibility is to yield to God's Word.</i><br /><br />I'm shocked. Who could possibly have guessed they decided on the correct answer ahead of time.<br /><br /><i>God who creates (Creation and Man's Fall)<br />We believe God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and all that it contains. <b>He created everything</b> for His enjoyment and glory. God created man uniquely in His image...</i><br /><br />So, totally open-minded about creation vs. evolution as usual. (Remember, if you catch the creationists making false statements, they always respond by saying, "I'm just askin' questions!" Yeah, they're asking questions about a subject where only one answer is permissible.)<br /><br />Bonus question: if God "created everything", what do you use as a negative control when testing your hypothesis "God created life"? If God created everything, your design detector would be like a geiger counter that clicks when pointed at any object. How can you verify that your detector works?<br /><br />And this:<br /><br /><i>The church is to be led by spiritually qualifed men, under the leadership of Jesus.</i><br /><br />Sorry ladies! You can make cupcakes. And:<br /><br /><i>We believe in the resurrection of men, the final judgment, the eternal joy of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked in hell.</i><br /><br />Our God's love is unconditional! Think what we tell you to think or he'll set you on fire forever.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33916285829749016072016-09-03T11:02:44.749-04:002016-09-03T11:02:44.749-04:00(Forgive me for wondering if Torley has been readi...<i>(Forgive me for wondering if Torley has been reading my comments.)</i><br /><br />Well, it wouldn't be the first time he used knowledge gained from folks here at Sandwalk in one of his articles, though he sometimes needs a bit of prodding to provide attribution:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2369174.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2369174.html</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52976331337684915672016-09-03T10:54:35.689-04:002016-09-03T10:54:35.689-04:00In the passage below, Torley makes a point that mu...In the passage below, Torley makes a point that must have driven the UDites insane. I can easily see how this bit would make ambulance chasin' Arrington crazy. He challenges Axe's claim that genomes are the same as messages written in human languages (Axe's analogy is boiling alphabet soup, and creating a patent for an invention.) Torley says that's a bad analogy because there's a difference between "useful" and "meaningful", like human language, and biological structures can be useful without being meaningful. And the odds of evolution creating something useful are much greater than the odds of creating something meaningful.<br /><br />In this passage, Torley sounds a lot like... me, saying what basically what I've been saying for a long time. (Forgive me for wondering if Torley has been reading my comments.)<br /><br /><i>In order for an accidentally generated string of letters to convey a meaningful message, it needs to satisfy three very stringent conditions, each more difficult than the last: first, the letters need to be arranged into meaningful words; second, the sequence of words has to conform to the rules of syntax; and finally, the sequence of words has to make sense at the semantic level: in other words, it needs to express a meaningful proposition. For a string of letters generated at random to meet all of these conditions would indeed be fantastically improbable. But here’s the thing: <b>living things don’t need to satisfy any of these conditions.</b> Yes, it is true that all living things possess a genetic code. But it is quite impossible for this code to generate anything like nonsense words like “sdfuiop”, and additionally, <b>there is nothing in the genome which is remotely comparable to the rules of syntax, let alone the semantics of a meaningful proposition.</b> The sequence of amino acids in a protein needs to do just one thing: it needs to fold up into a shape that can perform a biologically useful task. And that’s it. Generating something useful by chance – especially something with enough useful functions to be called alive – is a pretty tall order, but because <b>living things lack the extra dimensions of richness found in messages that carry a semantic meaning</b>, they’re going to be a lot easier to generate by chance than (say) instruction manuals or cook books. Hence it may turn out that creating life by chance is extremely improbable, but not fantastically improbable. In practical terms, that means that given enough time, life just might arise.</i><br /><br />The bolded material would absolutely drive the UDites crazy. I can easily imagine how Ambulance Chaser, BatShitCrazy and He Who Shall Not Be Named would respond to the above. They'd blow their gaskets.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60340250891667585012016-09-03T10:49:01.658-04:002016-09-03T10:49:01.658-04:00That is absolutely astonishing, Diogenes. The &qu...That is absolutely astonishing, Diogenes. The "reasoning" here is to observe "functional coherence" in things that have been designed by intelligent agent, and yet when this same "functional coherence" is observed in things whose complexity is beyond the design capabilities of any known intelligent agent, the conclusion drawn is that it must have been designed by such an agent.<br /><br />Torley needs to demand a refund from whatever philosophy school taught him to think like that. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39623320851376037592016-09-03T10:36:23.375-04:002016-09-03T10:36:23.375-04:00I am reading Torley's review of Axe, and it...I am reading Torley's review of Axe, and it's unintentionally hilarious. Torley is attempting to improve Axe's notion of "functional coherence" (which is just Behe's irreducible complexity worded more vaguely) by writing things like:<br /><br /><i>Dr. Axe’s Universal Design Intuition would be much more persuasive if it were formulated as follows: “If we find a level of functional coherence in living organisms which <b>surpasses anything which our top scientists can create, then we should conclude that the systems displaying this level of functional coherence were designed</b>, and that the accidental invention of these systems is fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.”</i><br /><br />Translation: 'We have never observed anything like this being designed by any intelligent being, therefore this must have been designed by an intelligent being'<br /><br /><i><b>Human inventions don’t even come close to the level of skill it embodies. Design is the obvious and sensible inference to make</b>, barring an empirical demonstration that Nature’s powers of inventiveness far surpass our own.</i><br /><br />'We have never observed anything like this being designed by any intelligent being, therefore this must have been designed by an intelligent being' over and over and over.<br /><br />And Torley is calling out Axe's logic errors!<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4472257099260391262016-09-03T10:30:26.889-04:002016-09-03T10:30:26.889-04:00Excellent google fu, TWT. So Axe is asking the peo...Excellent google fu, TWT. So Axe is asking the people who work at his church to read his book. Kennedy works at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (aka BIOLA).<br /><br />Eric Garcia I had heard of before, but I forget when or where.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79434982819736815912016-09-03T10:04:50.894-04:002016-09-03T10:04:50.894-04:00Titus Kennedy:
https://www.biola.edu/directory/pe...Titus Kennedy:<br /><br />https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/53a9e1f77275626fe4af1200<br /><br /><br />George Montanez:<br /><br />http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/m/Montanez:George_D=<br /><br /><br />Steve Zelt:<br /><br />http://stevezelt.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-10-03T06:58:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=7&by-date=false<br /><br /><br />Rebecca Keller:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_W._Keller<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Rebecca-W.-Keller/e/B002LKY058<br /><br /><br />Mariclair Reeves:<br /><br />http://www.biologicinstitute.org/people (scroll down)<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mariclair_Reeves/publications<br /><br /><br />Eric Garcia is the "Vice President" of the discotoot:<br /><br />http://www.discovery.org/about/contact<br /><br />The Wikipedia discotoot page also lists him as the "Vice President":<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute<br /><br />Garcia apparently used to be the treasurer:<br /><br />http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/01/creationist-finances-discovery.html<br /><br /><br />Fraser Ratzlaff works for a christian non-profit called Children of the Nations:<br /><br />https://www.linkedin.com/in/fraser-ratzlaff-287440aa<br /><br />Ratzlaff apparently attends "The Downtown Church":<br /><br />http://www.thedowntownchurch.us/downtown-news/author/u/21/fraser--ratzlaff<br /><br />Douglas Axe is an "Elder" in that church:<br /><br />http://www.thedowntownchurch.us/about/our-leaders<br /><br />At "The Downtown Church" website, click on "About" and then on "Our Beliefs". <br /><br />Bonus tard: Interview of Douglas Axe:<br /><br />http://www.wataugademocrat.com/mountaintimes/interview-douglas-axe-explains-life-s-origins-through-design-intuition/article_1c3865b8-08de-50c1-b7a5-b431145adcfd.html<br /><br />I didn't find much, if anything, on the others. If anyone finds or already knows that anything above is incorrect, please let me know. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19641476046457972792016-09-03T02:18:02.671-04:002016-09-03T02:18:02.671-04:00Lutesuite, thanks for the link. Fascinating. Torle...Lutesuite, thanks for the link. Fascinating. Torley says that "the book contains numerous mathematical, scientific and philosophical blunders, which a sharp-eyed critic could easily spot." Of course Axe must be protected, so Torley says <i>"I do not hold Dr. Axe responsible for most of the errors in his book.... however, Dr. Axe sent his manuscript out (in whole or part) to no less than fifteen people (mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and writers), soliciting their comments on his book. I won’t name them here, as I have no wish to publicly embarrass them, but they are listed in the author’s Acknowledgments (pp. 275-276). <b>It is these people whom I hold responsible for the errors in Dr. Axe’s book.</b>"</i><br /><br />Who are these fifteen "mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and writers" that Torley blames? If you go to Amazon, you can use their "Look Inside" function to read p. 275.<br /><br />Axe, p.275-6: <i>"I deeply appreciate the many people who took their time to read the manuscript, in part on in whole... <b>Titus Kennedy, Casey Luskin, George Montanez, Steve Zelt, Steve Fuller, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Rebecca Keller, Mariclair Reeves, Jacob Koch, Grant Gates, Ann Gauger, Fraser Ratzlaff, Chuck Wallace, and Eric Garcia</b> are all to be thanked for this"</i><br /><br />These people are on Torley's shit list. Of course, Luskin, Dembski, Wells, Gauger are well known to us. With the exception of Steve Fuller, I don't know the others. Fuller is the sociologist of science who appeared in "Expelled" going on about abortion and whatever.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19883795322655622292016-09-03T01:30:49.710-04:002016-09-03T01:30:49.710-04:00Big Brother has made Winston Torley an unperson. H...Big Brother has made Winston Torley an unperson. He has been airbrushed out of all photos showing he once existed.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87118773540983055192016-09-03T01:25:46.782-04:002016-09-03T01:25:46.782-04:00"There are many examples of functional produc..."There are many examples of functional products produced by alternative splicing." How much is "many" and how do you know?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76164790425733081292016-09-03T01:22:36.211-04:002016-09-03T01:22:36.211-04:00Does anybody know if it even dimerizes? Because I&...Does anybody know if it even dimerizes? Because I'm wondering in which direction the N-termini point.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14804423058342955682016-09-01T00:26:19.160-04:002016-09-01T00:26:19.160-04:00Sal seems to be copying from AIG recently, or simi...Sal seems to be copying from AIG recently, or similar YEC sources. Not sure how that is an improvement over uncommondescent. I think they banned him. Come to think of it, Sal used to have OP priveleges at UD.<br /><br />Meanwhile VJ Torley seems to have evicerated Axe's Undeniable and briefly published the review at UD. Who could have predicted trouble?Petrushkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343702725399620404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31889222565044832632016-08-31T13:35:56.583-04:002016-08-31T13:35:56.583-04:00Conversely, Ensemble and NCBI appear to underestim...Conversely, Ensemble and NCBI appear to underestimate the number of relevant transcripts for many Ig genes. <br /><br />They only have a single (secreted) isoform for IGHA1/2, IGHE, and IGHG1/2/3/4 but these should also have a membrane-bound isoform with an extra exon 1-3kb downstream. <br /><br />(IGHM and IGHD are listed with both isoforms though.)<br />eallochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05365230101834424600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14673762028169502712016-08-31T11:32:51.546-04:002016-08-31T11:32:51.546-04:00Actually, while I didn't read the whole review...Actually, while I didn't read the whole review, I did skim the conclusion, and I can see why Barry wants to supress this. Torley pretty well admits that the entire ID enterprise is based on a flawed premise and calls for a complete intellectual overhaul, though he tries to word that in as positive terms as possible.<br /><br />I predict he will soon be following the example of Luskin, Dembski, Sal Cordova, and others who have dissociated themselves from the ID movement. That is, if Barry doesn't simply purge him outright.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24883120370739518892016-08-31T08:31:48.877-04:002016-08-31T08:31:48.877-04:00I've found a cached version of the review that...I've found a cached version of the review that works for me. Not that I necessarily recommend anyone read it. I haven't.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/zgdxmx6" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/zgdxmx6</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26764753097205135052016-08-30T22:27:31.845-04:002016-08-30T22:27:31.845-04:00I haven't read Axe's book and I'm not ...I haven't read Axe's book and I'm not planning to read it any time in the forseeable future.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71322308158620507602016-08-30T20:24:58.287-04:002016-08-30T20:24:58.287-04:00My anti-malware program won't allow access to ...My anti-malware program won't allow access to that website. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43065897570202543532016-08-30T17:44:46.648-04:002016-08-30T17:44:46.648-04:00Larry, totally off topic but I would be interested...Larry, totally off topic but I would be interested in your opinion of VJ Torley's criticism of Doug Axe's latest book. It was originally posted at UD but Barry had it removed, along with all references to it in other comment threads. One warning. In typical VJT fashion, his review is longer than the book he is reviewing. <br /><br />http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/axe.htmlWilliam Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34818669564195331962016-08-26T11:15:07.511-04:002016-08-26T11:15:07.511-04:00From another paper:
"A number of isoforms of ...From <a href="http://www.jbc.org/content/272/43/26953.full" rel="nofollow">another paper</a>:<br /><i>"A number of isoforms of caspase-8 have been described at the mRNA level (9, 10). Our mAb against the three major domains of FLICE (the prodomain and the active subunits p18 and p10) enabled us to test which of the reported caspase-8 isoforms were actually expressedin vivo. To this end several cell lines representing different tissues were tested for FLICE expression by Western blotting using the N2, C15, and C5 anti-FLICE mAbs (Fig.2). Surprisingly, all three antibodies detected only two bands of 55 and 53 kDa of equal intensity in almost all cells. Other caspase-8 isoforms were undetectable."</i>SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12988721809656448062016-08-25T13:45:31.404-04:002016-08-25T13:45:31.404-04:00A 2004 article on 144 alternatively spliced human ...A 2004 article on 144 alternatively spliced human protein isoforms from SWISS-PROT V.41 whose mRNA transcripts contain premature-termination codons mentioned 7 splice variants of Casp8-mRNA containing PTCs. Thus, I wonder how many isoforms beside Casp-8 and Casp8L have been detected by Western blottting. SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60635747061461516142016-08-25T11:55:47.153-04:002016-08-25T11:55:47.153-04:00@Mikkel. I don't think they address this direc...@Mikkel. I don't think they address this directly in the way you ask. However, the PCA (Sup. Fig5C) does suggest a reasonable proportion of the variability in this form of AS (~15%) is due to consistent tissue-specific events across 4 vertebrates. Of course, just because they're consistent doesn't mean they're functional.TomSeanSmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09271133571965909376noreply@blogger.com