@AtomicTao: Hopefully never since it wouldn't do a thing to make them any faster and would likely result in the destruction of their eye tissue (if not death if they took enough) since hypercompaction would probably prevent transcription.
I realize you may be joking, but really this protein has nothing to do with enhancing the abilities of anything beyond a sperm so your comment struck me as weird and out of place. Sorry if it came out as harsh.
@AtomicTao: Well I apologise again for coming off as harsh. I can never be sure about the joking. I enjoy the science articles on io9, but I find a lot of times there is a response of "Oh no! Genetic engineering! They're going to make superhumans! Just like in Gattaca!" which is hard for a genetics and biochem nerd to handle.
I guess my ability to spot sarcasm is a little clouded by my desire to leap to the defence of science. Allow me to give a belated "ha ha".
Apology accepted, and I apologize for the snark which I answered your response with, as well; people tossing around knowledge as a weapon to prove how smart they are on message boards is something that has become a pet peeve of mine. :) (I once wrote a short story in which a character, in dialogue, referred to a rabbit as a rodent for alliterative purposes, and I had several responses not to comment or critique the piece, but to 'helpfully' point out to me that rabbits aren't rodents, but lagomorphs. Gee, thanks, readers. :p)
I see that you simply didn't read that it was a joke, so I don't lump you into this grouping, and I apologize for doing so as a kneejerk.
While this is interesting, I think it works better for the more abstract and less of a portrait of self, personally, i'd rather just have a painting of a person without the blocks messing up the picture.
this is too cool. i want one. no, better yet, i think i'll make one. and if i have any friends over who just happen to be genetic scientists, they can exclaim, "my god! according to your DNA pattern artwork, you're a sex panther/primate hybrid!" and i'd say, "yes. yes I am."
See? This just means we need more cameras. Cameras everywhere, in every aspect of our lives, to make ABSOLUTELY SURE we're all behaving in a morally appropriate fashion at all times.
"Frumkin says that, at the moment, there are ways to determine whether DNA evidence has been fabricated (and his own company, Nucleix, provides such tests)"
This seems to be the key phrase in the article.
-Kle.
I'm all for not relying too heavily on any one type of evidence, especially any that are possibly faked, but something tells me that the natural response to reading such an article as this just goes to incite panic and distrust in the system in place. That isn't good for anybody. If indeed "there are ways to determine whether DNA evidence has been fabricated," then I don't see what the problem is. Make those tests more standard in high profile cases where the only evidence is dna related and move on.
It's a lot simpler to pickup a bag of McDonald's waste from the street & leave it at the crime scene!
If you're lucky, the leftover food will have a DNA match in the system & fingerprints on the bag.
Or just sop up some spit from the sidewalk with a clean napkin [be sure to wear gloves in either case] & leave the napkin at the scene.
@Greasy Thumb Guzik: this is actually a really good idea...
grab a few bags of trash from your area (including one of your own)
go to intended crime scene
commit crime
toss all the garbage all over the place
1 - you'll totally overwhelm the police/labs
2 - you stuff (including DNA) will be found, but so will that of your neighbour = reasonable doubt.
3 - sheer elegance in its simplicity.
@goldfarb: Seems better to try and not leave any of your own DNA in the first place though.
I mean, considering that it's be premeditated in this case.
@Illogic: As CSI has taught us, when in doubt, use bleach.
A few years back I walked up to the checkout counter of a bix box retailer with a 5gal bucket, 1gal of bleach, a 2ft pry bar and a hand saw. Paid in cash. Cashier didn't even bat an eye, too busy talking on her cell. That was the day I started getting ideas.
That seems to require a lot of technical know-how in order to pull it off, but it is something people should be aware of. If there are tests to see in the DNA evidence has been faked in this way then those tests should be put into the SOP.
@Janglesatwest: Well, he did specify that the individual would have to be studying in the field of biology. I don’t think any old Stabby McGee would be able to get into a lab and duplicate the procedures. As a biochem undergrad I'd say I could pull off both of these. The first one is particularly easy, and I have access to a lab with all the equipment necessary . . . not that I would ever need to fake DNA evidence or anything . . . .
This is actually quite a novel and interesting variation of the usual use of quantum dots.
Quantum dots have since several years been used for cancer detection. Usually they're used as small "repeater lamps" as they can shine very brightly when shone upon with a different wavelength of light. Often the wavelength is affected depending on whether the dot has made contact with a target molecule or not.
The downside is that we get a rather rough measurement, as multiple DNA strands can stick to the quantum dots.
So, good for "yes-no"-answers or simple imaging, but not so good for more sensitive detailed investigations like early tests.
Those researchers have made the dots pass on incoming light to fluorescent markers at the end of the DNA strands straightaway and having these other molecules shine instead, giving a more exact count of the number of DNA strands detected.
I used to be in genetics: they should use a plasmid targeted specifically for this DNA region; simply using a compound known to make the DNA knockout that will in turn undo the knockout that de-activated the RNA transcription of the intron, is like dumping a vat of EDTH into a living cell to kill one bacterium.
For those of you that didn't understand that, I'll use Egon's "Twinkie analogy": your typical DNA strand, lets say, is represented by a Twinkie. Now, a bug is on part of the Twinkie, so what I'd normally do is cut off the part of the twinkie that has the bug on it, carefully using a knife.
This is using a shotgun to tank out the bug on the twinkie.
@CodenameV: It would be great to use plasmids except for the fact that they don't work in humans... much harder to do gene therapy in us large mammals. From my brief glace at it they've only got proof of concept in certain cell types for us, so there's a whole slew of problems that open up if these retrocyclins have any ill effects on other signaling pathways in different systems.
The article is wonderful for what it is, but we are far far away from human application until people become less afraid of gene therapy again.
@Jojitsu: To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once its been established. Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship sinks. You could try EMS recombination, Ethyl methane sulfonate, but it is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen. It would create a virus so lethal the subject would die before he left the table. A repressor protein that blocks the operating cells, wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you've got a virus again.
@CodenameV: EMS recombination does not exist. That was in the movie Bladerunner.
And I agree, no one would use EMS to induce mutations in the hope it would turn on an inert gene. Who said anything about doing EMS? And since I assume you are talking about people here as you refer to "the subject", EMS does not create a virus (proteins themselves are not viruses), it is a mutagen, and will lead to either cell death or cancer because of it, it's more akin to Xray irridation.
But if you really are into this stuff, pubmed actually has a whole bunch of genetics books for free you can read into if you want to learn more, it's really neat stuff!
10/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
I realize you may be joking, but really this protein has nothing to do with enhancing the abilities of anything beyond a sperm so your comment struck me as weird and out of place. Sorry if it came out as harsh.
10/01/09
10/01/09
It was a joke, but you got to make yourself sound smart, so, kudos, sir. :)
10/01/09
I guess my ability to spot sarcasm is a little clouded by my desire to leap to the defence of science. Allow me to give a belated "ha ha".
Oh and for the record, it's ma'am :P
10/01/09
Apology accepted, and I apologize for the snark which I answered your response with, as well; people tossing around knowledge as a weapon to prove how smart they are on message boards is something that has become a pet peeve of mine. :) (I once wrote a short story in which a character, in dialogue, referred to a rabbit as a rodent for alliterative purposes, and I had several responses not to comment or critique the piece, but to 'helpfully' point out to me that rabbits aren't rodents, but lagomorphs. Gee, thanks, readers. :p)
I see that you simply didn't read that it was a joke, so I don't lump you into this grouping, and I apologize for doing so as a kneejerk.
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/02/09
09/08/09
Not a rug, but it really ties the room together.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
If you're 'a sex panther/primate hybrid', and enjoy long walks in the misty highland mountains of Africa ...
... have your primatologist contact my primatologist. Maybe we can get together for some mutual grooming.
08/19/09
08/19/09
This seems to be the key phrase in the article.
-Kle.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
He will also sell you a magic rock that keeps away tigers.
08/18/09
If you're lucky, the leftover food will have a DNA match in the system & fingerprints on the bag.
Or just sop up some spit from the sidewalk with a clean napkin [be sure to wear gloves in either case] & leave the napkin at the scene.
08/18/09
grab a few bags of trash from your area (including one of your own)
go to intended crime scene
commit crime
toss all the garbage all over the place
1 - you'll totally overwhelm the police/labs
2 - you stuff (including DNA) will be found, but so will that of your neighbour = reasonable doubt.
3 - sheer elegance in its simplicity.
08/18/09
I mean, considering that it's be premeditated in this case.
08/18/09
A few years back I walked up to the checkout counter of a bix box retailer with a 5gal bucket, 1gal of bleach, a 2ft pry bar and a hand saw. Paid in cash. Cashier didn't even bat an eye, too busy talking on her cell. That was the day I started getting ideas.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/17/09
Quantum dots have since several years been used for cancer detection. Usually they're used as small "repeater lamps" as they can shine very brightly when shone upon with a different wavelength of light. Often the wavelength is affected depending on whether the dot has made contact with a target molecule or not.
The downside is that we get a rather rough measurement, as multiple DNA strands can stick to the quantum dots.
So, good for "yes-no"-answers or simple imaging, but not so good for more sensitive detailed investigations like early tests.
Those researchers have made the dots pass on incoming light to fluorescent markers at the end of the DNA strands straightaway and having these other molecules shine instead, giving a more exact count of the number of DNA strands detected.
Very clever!
04/27/09
For those of you that didn't understand that, I'll use Egon's "Twinkie analogy": your typical DNA strand, lets say, is represented by a Twinkie. Now, a bug is on part of the Twinkie, so what I'd normally do is cut off the part of the twinkie that has the bug on it, carefully using a knife.
This is using a shotgun to tank out the bug on the twinkie.
Tell them about the Twinkie.
04/27/09
The article is wonderful for what it is, but we are far far away from human application until people become less afraid of gene therapy again.
04/28/09
But this...all of this is academic.
04/28/09
04/28/09
And I agree, no one would use EMS to induce mutations in the hope it would turn on an inert gene. Who said anything about doing EMS? And since I assume you are talking about people here as you refer to "the subject", EMS does not create a virus (proteins themselves are not viruses), it is a mutagen, and will lead to either cell death or cancer because of it, it's more akin to Xray irridation.
But if you really are into this stuff, pubmed actually has a whole bunch of genetics books for free you can read into if you want to learn more, it's really neat stuff!
04/28/09