tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3568659992483030246..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Overthrowing the Central DogmaLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4863778143667151212008-05-11T10:31:00.000-04:002008-05-11T10:31:00.000-04:00Dr. Moran would like to thank Douglas Allchin, aut...Dr. Moran would like to thank Douglas Allchin, author of the "Sacred Bovines" column in <I>American Biology Teacher</I>, for bringing the Nobel Prize citations to his attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68957367694657786632008-04-27T23:52:00.000-04:002008-04-27T23:52:00.000-04:00anonymous asks,What's the example of DNA passing s...anonymous asks,<BR/><BR/><I>What's the example of DNA passing sequence information directly to protein, or is this linkage hypothetical? (I tried and apparently failed to ask this question earlier.)</I><BR/><BR/>It's purely hypothetical. It is not forbidden according to the Central Dogma.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68400870407927366432008-04-27T19:41:00.000-04:002008-04-27T19:41:00.000-04:00What's the example of DNA passing sequence informa...What's the example of DNA passing sequence information directly to protein, or is this linkage hypothetical? (I tried and apparently failed to ask this question earlier.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52136050898161760742008-04-26T15:31:00.000-04:002008-04-26T15:31:00.000-04:00Life: the science of Biology (7th ed) by Purves et...<I>Life: the science of Biology</I> (7th ed) by Purves et al. gets it half right. They quote Crick's words "once 'information' has passed into protein it cannot get out again" (p.236) but on the next page, they say that retroviruses are an exception to the central dogma.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10131817444483544280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61776142820650130522008-04-25T18:29:00.000-04:002008-04-25T18:29:00.000-04:00(See above two comments)100% crystal clear. On the...(See above two comments)<BR/><BR/>100% crystal clear. On the other hand, perhaps my first comment wasn't. Prof. Moran's textbook is the only correct one. The other three were completely wrong. (either no explanation, or even worse, mentioning that the Central Dogma had been revised by the discovery of reverse transciptase etc.)Jason Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414529190965164341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78292596688528658562008-04-22T14:22:00.000-04:002008-04-22T14:22:00.000-04:00jason says,One of the uses the DNA -> RNA -> Prote...jason says,<BR/><BR/><I>One of the uses the DNA -> RNA -> Protein diagram but correctly explains that the Central Dogma does not exclude information flow from RNA to DNA. (Principles of Biochemisty, 4th ed. Horton et al. pg. 3)</I><BR/><BR/>Wait a minute. I wrote that. Here's what I say on page 3 ...<BR/><BR/><I>As crick predicted in 1958, the normal flow of information form nucleic acid to protein is not reversible. He referred to this unidirectional information flow as the Central Dogma of molecular biology. The term "Central Dogma" is often misunderstood. Strictly speaking, it does not refer to the overall flow of information shown above. Instead, it refers to the fact that once information in nucleic acids is transferred to proteins it cannot flow backwards from protein to nucleic acids.</I><BR/><BR/>That's pretty clear, no? You can't use my textbook as one of your examples. That's cheating.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26245786624225213652008-04-22T13:56:00.000-04:002008-04-22T13:56:00.000-04:00Of four university-level textbooks I have that ref...Of four university-level textbooks I have that refer to the Central Dogma, three of them get it wrong. One of the uses the DNA -> RNA -> Protein diagram but correctly explains that the Central Dogma does not exclude information flow from RNA to DNA. (Principles of Biochemisty, 4th ed. Horton et al. pg. 3)<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia, on the other hand, appears to get it right, although it doesn't mention anything about how it's usually misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>I find this situation somewhat peculiar.Jason Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414529190965164341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60774240929577385222008-04-22T00:02:00.000-04:002008-04-22T00:02:00.000-04:00Crick rules! I think "On Protein Synthesis," where...Crick rules! I think "On Protein Synthesis," where Crick introduces the Sequence Hypothesis and the Central Dogma, is one of the deepest, richest scientific papers of the twentieth century. The Central Dogma might one day be overturned; I'd bet on it. But the fact that it's still standing attests to Crick's genius.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9486970415476145192008-04-21T18:16:00.000-04:002008-04-21T18:16:00.000-04:00Here's a challenge to all Sandwalk readers. See if...<I>Here's a challenge to all Sandwalk readers. See if you can find a single textbook that gets it right!</I><BR/><BR/>Lewin, Genes IX, 2008 pp.10-11. Also, the glossary gives the following definition:<BR/><BR/>"central dogma -- Describes the basic nature of genetic information: sequences of nucleic acid can be perpetuated and interconverted by replication, transcription, and reverse transcription, but translation from nucleic acid to protein is unidirectional, because nucleic acid sequences cannot be retrieved from protein sequences."<BR/><BR/>Where's my prize?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21203209731111229492008-04-21T15:47:00.000-04:002008-04-21T15:47:00.000-04:00ian b gibson says,This incorrect understanding of ...ian b gibson says,<BR/><BR/><I>This incorrect understanding of the central dogma is clearly widespread; a textbook featured on this blog very recently, Molecular Biology of the Cell (5th Ed. 2008) also gets it wrong (p.331).</I><BR/><BR/>Here's a challenge to all <I>Sandwalk</I> readers. See if you can find a single textbook that gets it <B>right</B>!Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48775850865767403102008-04-21T14:26:00.000-04:002008-04-21T14:26:00.000-04:00I seem to remember that Crick wrote that he regret...I seem to remember that Crick wrote that he regretted using the word "dogma". I think he said something along the lines of using it because it was a useful buzzword that expressed the idea that this hypothesis was a more powerful or encompassing explanation than previous explanations. Personally, I wish he had found a better term as I think there is little room in the science lexicon for the word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73360369538514407802008-04-21T14:24:00.000-04:002008-04-21T14:24:00.000-04:00This incorrect understanding of the central dogma ...This incorrect understanding of the central dogma is clearly widespread; a textbook featured on this blog very recently, <I>Molecular Biology of the Cell</I> (5th Ed. 2008) also gets it wrong (p.331).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26635713450113241422008-04-21T11:39:00.000-04:002008-04-21T11:39:00.000-04:00Either Alex Hansen hasn't understood your point, o...Either Alex Hansen hasn't understood your point, or I haven't. <I>Of course</I> the central dogma would have been replaced by something else if it hadn't been overthrown 25 years ago, but it wasn't and so it hasn't.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I was very pleased to see your post. If I had a dollar for every argument I've had with people who claim that reverse transcriptases violates the central dogma (and who claim Crick as their authority)...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84927452027373764572008-04-21T11:22:00.000-04:002008-04-21T11:22:00.000-04:00I think that concepts are defined by the consensus...I think that concepts are defined by the consensus, but the consensus is often less smart than the original formulation. Not often enough to make a rule, but it does happen.<BR/><BR/>Terminology and loose definitions spread either because they are easier to teach students and so forth, or because the original contrasts have been forgotten.<BR/><BR/>I think I'll add this to the Basic Concepts list, if you do not mind.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59116712209292500652008-04-21T11:21:00.000-04:002008-04-21T11:21:00.000-04:00So, I'm not a biochemist or a molecular biologist,...So, I'm not a biochemist or a molecular biologist, just a physical chemist in a biophysics lab. But it would seem to me that if the Central Dogma has been overthrown for over 25 years now, shouldn't there be a new one? It would be pretty easy to replace Crick's dashed line from RNA to DNA with a solid one. Maybe the Central Dogma still has some sentimental value to people? I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46607956514502289402008-04-21T10:53:00.000-04:002008-04-21T10:53:00.000-04:00Reverse Translatase"Reverse Translatase ist ein fi...<A HREF="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Translatase" REL="nofollow">Reverse Translatase</A><BR/>"Reverse Translatase ist ein fiktives Enzym..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com