tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5876289415506417290..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: University of Toronto press release distorts conclusions of RNA paperLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72285265561342871852016-05-30T13:39:03.527-04:002016-05-30T13:39:03.527-04:00If I understood the post, the point was the execra...If I understood the post, the point was the execrable quality of the press release, not the content of the paper, which sounds interesting but not groundbreaking (but I am a layman). So discussing the technical value of the paper is really beside the point, and means one has actually not understood what Larry was discussing.DGAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520104265481289172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1877895775506671312016-05-30T04:21:39.194-04:002016-05-30T04:21:39.194-04:00"The idea (which Larry Moran seems to promote...<i>"The idea (which Larry Moran seems to promote) that we should not be looking at RNAs that don't have any 'apparent' function"</i><br /><br />But he ISN'T promoting that idea. At all. Never did. Prove me wrong with a direct quote or retract the claim. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62224600731694333512016-05-29T23:45:04.432-04:002016-05-29T23:45:04.432-04:00Steve,
I believe you have missed the point of Dr....Steve,<br /><br />I believe you have missed the point of Dr. Moran's post.<br /><br />The techniques presented in the Sharma et al. paper represent an important advance in the ability to test the functionality of ncRNAs. Most of the RNA-RNA interactions identified in the paper were of already known RNA interactions. A number of new lincRNA interactions were identified. It is unlikely that all lincRNAs are functional, but even if they all were, this would only add another 1% or so to the functional total for the genome. Dr. Moran was trying to put this study into perspective, since it was not about the junk DNA issue. In contrast, this is part of the press release describing the paper:<br /><br />"What used to be dismissed by many as “junk DNA” is back with a vengeance as growing data points to the importance of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) – genome’s messages that do not code for proteins — in development and disease. But our progress in understanding these molecules has been slow because of the lack of technologies that allow the systematic mapping of their functions."<br /><br />This information is all in Dr. Moran's post. Do you see how this paper is not about what the press release says it is about?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41169687683867097472016-05-29T21:19:08.188-04:002016-05-29T21:19:08.188-04:00Couldn't disagree more for the following reaso...Couldn't disagree more for the following reasons:<br /><br />You comment below (to be accurate) should read 'there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that only 10% of our genome is <b>known</b> to be functional.<br /><br />The distinction is crucial. We are now only able to tease out function for 10% of our genome. This paper will attest to the work being done to tease out more. Our knowledge in this science is limited to the power of the technology being deployed to investigate the genome. We all agree that the genome is hugely complex. Therefore our technology must match the gargantuan nature of the task. I think the authors of this paper understand this quitely cleary and are making inroads in using this new technology.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"It's true that we would like to know how many of the RNAs are functional but it's not true that we are completely clueless. There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that only 10% of our genome is functional. "</i><br /><br /><br />The idea (which Larry Moran seems to promote) that we should not be looking at RNAs that don't have any 'apparent' function is anti-science on the face of it. What does Larry Moran base his 'opinion' on? His 40 years of research and development experience? His unsurmountable lead in the race to scientific knowledge? His superior intellect?<br /><br />In fact, his arrogant stance on RNA function disses the hard work of authors such as those mentioned in this blogpost by insinuating that their work need not be taken seriously because they seemingly create hype in the direction of RNA function.<br /><br />Yet that is exactly what is required to acquire the huge amount of funds needed to continue this type of research.<br /><br />Scientific discovery would be dead if scientists thought like Larry Moran.<br /><br /><i>"It's very likely that the vast majority of transcripts are spurious and nonfunctional."</i><br /><br />No, a good reporter would report the hard work that is being done to understand what is happening with the other 90% of RNA with currently unknown function.<br /><br />They need not kowtow to the evolutionary biologists who put all their eggs in the jDNA basket. <br /><br />Ironically, it is these same evolutionary biolgists that claim science is tentative and self-correcting. But folks like Larry Moran are loathe to allow that tentative and self-correcting process to work.<br /><br />If more function is found for RNA, more power to science. It is useless to continually emphasize that current consensus is 10% of RNA are functional. I mean, No shit shirlock! We f$%# know that already!<br /><br />But does that mean no grant funds for the remaining 90% which may (in constrast to Moranian thinking) very well have function??!! What is science for but to push the envelope, and rock the consensus!!<br /><br /><i>"A good science reporter would put the study in proper context."</i>Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69793817583913272772016-05-28T21:24:23.102-04:002016-05-28T21:24:23.102-04:00Mikkel,
You have just confirmed what I had told ...Mikkel, <br /><br />You have just confirmed what I had told you you were; plus the paranoia... Tell me; how does it feel when your beliefs feel more and more insecure everyday (denying it doesn't help)? <br /><br />Give me a hint, so that at least I can try to understand what it feels like... <br /><br />I'm not going to try to offend you just because you had tried to offend me because you had not arguments to support your claims or beliefs. <br /><br />You see, I wouldn't even consider to lower myself to your level, or others trying to offend me instead of providing the evidence for their claims...<br /><br />Is the offencive language perhaps because your claims did not hold up in the first place?Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74941219082295686152016-05-28T13:03:57.004-04:002016-05-28T13:03:57.004-04:00I am fascinated by this much of the noncoding DNA ...I am fascinated by this much of the noncoding DNA genome being copied into RNA:<br /><br /><i>Of the 3 billion letters in the human genome, only two per cent make up the protein-coding genes. The genes are copied, or transcribed, into messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules, which provide templates for building proteins that do most of the work in the cell. Much of the remaining 98 per cent of the genome was initially considered by some as lacking in functional importance. <strong>However, large swaths of the non coding genome -- between half and three quarters of it -- are also copied into RNA.</strong></i><br /><br />Regardless of whether there is a known function or not: is there any reliable evidence against the 1/2 to 3/4 estimate?Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12439516819404012402016-05-28T09:18:37.739-04:002016-05-28T09:18:37.739-04:00I think that Larry was pretty fair to the paper, a...I think that Larry was pretty fair to the paper, and had little to criticize. The paper is quite good in its ultimate assessments. As Larry points out <br /><br />"The authors make no claims about junk DNA in the paper because the paper is not about junk DNA."<br />apalazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077383161556651420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64064887779647217322016-05-27T13:40:10.103-04:002016-05-27T13:40:10.103-04:00Are you mentally retarded?
That's multiple ti...<i>Are you mentally retarded?</i><br /><br />That's multiple times you've used mental disability as an insult in this comments section. If you had an sense or any morals, you would be ashamed of yourself.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49670226451872973852016-05-27T13:38:25.612-04:002016-05-27T13:38:25.612-04:00Unknown, please tell us on the basis of your readi...Unknown, please tell us on the basis of your reading of the paper what "actual work" there Larry ought not to be criticizing.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33032503313582550592016-05-27T03:37:22.823-04:002016-05-27T03:37:22.823-04:00Make a fortune by criticizing a paper? Eric! Your ...Make a fortune by criticizing a paper? Eric! Your alter-ego is more stupid than you. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52220536570992300562016-05-27T02:37:47.725-04:002016-05-27T02:37:47.725-04:00Yes Eric, we all know how morally and intellectual...Yes Eric, we all know how morally and intellectually superior you are, now answer the question.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32847550272060648912016-05-26T22:15:33.421-04:002016-05-26T22:15:33.421-04:00Are you mentally retarded? Or are you just a Darwi...Are you mentally retarded? Or are you just a Darwinists, that is trying to look good because I can't say anything positive about your group of people... Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69924259235784062172016-05-26T21:53:25.672-04:002016-05-26T21:53:25.672-04:00I guess the author of this blog himself trying mak...I guess the author of this blog himself trying make some fortune by criticizing a rather interesting paper. I didnt read anywhere in the paper that authors talked about junk DNA or anything of that sort,. "THE PAPER IS ABOUT THE METHOD TO STUDY RNA/RNA INTERACTIONS".<br />What press release said, it has nothing to do with authors. Just criticize the press release rather than the actual work in the paper, loser NIMRAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00721043157685272656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48167094716180634062016-05-26T10:44:31.318-04:002016-05-26T10:44:31.318-04:00I don't know. Large scale genomics projects ce...I don't know. Large scale genomics projects certainly fulfill the criteria for "big science". I think "genomic dark matter" started of as a jokey line in a conference presentation and then started to get used for lack of a better term. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12406727392804768272016-05-25T19:11:33.544-04:002016-05-25T19:11:33.544-04:00Larry is bluntly ignoring the experimental evidenc...<i>Larry is bluntly ignoring the experimental evidence</i><br /><br />Please do quote the experimental evidence from the paper (not the abstract) that Larry is ignoring.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84313793465999913912016-05-25T18:23:40.082-04:002016-05-25T18:23:40.082-04:00"The Undo Comrades" are coming aboard ju..."The Undo Comrades" are coming aboard just about now...lolJmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52655156593651952312016-05-25T18:21:40.224-04:002016-05-25T18:21:40.224-04:00I agree that the press release is hype (redundant ...<i>I agree that the press release is hype (redundant statement there) but I feel you're downplaying the importance of the method. It's very cool that they can detect RNA-RNA interactions experimentally.</i><br /><br />Downplaying??? Oxygen! Oxygen! I need some oxygen because I'm choking!!!<br /><br />Larry is bluntly ignoring the experimental evidence he has always claimed that was the foundation of science and my foundation was faith. This is one of the perfect examples what Larry thinks about experimental science; if it is not in accord with his beliefs, it not real science. It is a distortion of science. <br /><br />I'm glad that Diogenes said it rather than me trying to put in nicely so that Larry wouldn't remove it... Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75946617957828664022016-05-25T16:33:01.280-04:002016-05-25T16:33:01.280-04:00I agree that the press release is hype (redundant ...I agree that the press release is hype (redundant statement there) but I feel you're downplaying the importance of the method. It's very cool that they can detect RNA-RNA interactions experimentally. <br /><br />Of course some noncoding RNA actually does have a function that involves interacting with other RNA molecules, we don't know everything we need to know about that, so this experimental tool is very cool. Of course, percentage-wise it's probably not going to find function in more than a few % of the genome. But that few % could be very important medically and biologically. So the authors are to be congratulated.<br /><br />Junk DNA-wise, it certainly has not disproven Junk DNA, it is most likely not going to in the future, but this new tool could be used to shoot down anti-Junk speculation. If one speculates that a class of RNA transcripts has a function by interacting with other RNAs (a common speculation), and if this tool detects no such interactions with RNA, that would should down a lot of "It's all functional" speculation. <br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35963530619835360732016-05-25T03:16:28.503-04:002016-05-25T03:16:28.503-04:00I can't help feeling annoyed by the implicit b...I can't help feeling annoyed by the implicit big science-envy in the use of terms like "dark matter". Physics and astronomy has their dark matter, large hadron colliders and gravitational waves <i>so we must too</i>. Meh. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.com