Well Known Psychiatrist In Hyderabad

DNA has not Diogenes syndrome

Recreation of a DNA molecule. Credits:

Università degli Studi di Firenze

few days ago I was talking to my colleague and friend Patxi San Martin (Center for Astrobiology, INTA-CSIC) on DNA. It is not my specialty, so for most of the conversation was he who spoke, I limited myself to listen. I said that "man and the chimpanzee are similar in 96% at the DNA level, but what surprised me is that" more than 90% of DNA is colloquially called junk DNA . " He gave this description because it is known that does not code for proteins or promoters, which is unknown much of its function. That description is still used today.

In the case of human genome has been sequenced in its entirety but have not yet been marked variation between individuals, they are responsible for making us different from each other. What is known, said Patxi, is that "only about 5% contain information that leads to the synthesis of proteins or RNA with catalytic activity."

As I said Patxi significant fact that "each time a cell duplicates ours are copied each and every one of the 3000 million bases that make up our genome and are found to be as faithful to the original. "The human being is composed of about 50 trillion cells, for instance, the skin cells that make up our home to about 7-10 days, we can make the idea of \u200b\u200benergy expenditure involved for the body having to duplicate them. But there is an issue and that all living beings, including humans, tend to maximize energy savings, which, if that 90% of the so-called junk DNA had no utility, natural selection would have already removed several thousands of years and which otherwise would cause a waste of energy.

as my partner Patxi Scientists think that junk DNA plays essential functions, what happens is that have not yet been discovered. In favor of this version is also Peter Andolfatto (University of California), published in Nature that "this in reference to DNA junk DNA" actually have a role in the organism's survival and evolution of the species. " The Universe

something similar happens since it appears that mostly seems to consist of something we can not detect, that "something" is called dark matter and, depending on the sources, are given various percentages but in all cases the proportion of dark matter is more than material ordinary.

A good definition of this type of stuff is offered by Laura Giordani in tendencias21.net by way of introduction to his book of poetry Dark Matter. It reads: "unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough radiation to be observed directly. This invisible matter constitutes 25% of the universe compared to 5% occupied by ordinary matter. Moreover, the densest regions of ordinary matter is accumulate where there are large concentrations of dark matter, it seems to be the hidden scaffolding that underpins the construction sites of stars and galaxies. "

Finally, after all, that dark matter is something imperceptible to us because of our instrumental bias, over time as we have more sensitive equipment will be able to be gaining ground "becoming" ordinary matter. At present the only evidence we have of the dark matter is the effect it has on the universe.

If only for elegance, should not qualify as derogatory to any facet of science. Surely, for the sake of nomenclature, it would not pull in an informative news article by a scientist who investigates dark matter than one that investigates waste matter. And surely would have occurred so in the case of DNA. ---


Interested? Also follow me on Twitter .