h a l f b a k e r yEureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We now know that what were once known as "junk genes", and thought to be useless relics of evolution are, in fact, important components of the human gene. So where can we put our newest transhuman genes, if theres no space? It's simply too risky to put new genes smack-dab in the middle of existing ones.
Use
a virus to insert empty space into the genome. This space should be distributed into various places, and include markers to target. When we need to install the gene for that sweet new nano-garbage collector, we'll already have an easy target for the zinc finger.
Magic Numbers
http://en.wikipedia...umber_(programming)
[zen_tom, Jun 26 2007]
The Fly
http://en.wikipedia...The_Fly_(1986_film)
merged a the fly at the genetic level [nuclear hobo, Jun 26 2007]
New base pairs
http://technology.n...lifes-alphabet.html
Scientists have added two letters to the mix! [Voice, Jan 31 2008]
Watermarks
http://www.telegrap...01/scigenome101.xml
Your name, dna writ! [Voice, Feb 03 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
No no no. There is no sense in this -
you want to put some "padding" in the
genome, so that you can later drop
useful transgenes into it? That's daft. |
|
| |
You would do just as well to insert the
transgenes into intergenic space (ie,
between genes). Yes, you have to
consider all kinds of position effects
(which we don't understand) and yes,
you may find that you've dropped your
transgene into a regulatory element or
something else which we didn't know
was there. But exactly the same
argument applies if you first drop some
"neutral" sequence in, and then put the
transgene into that. |
|
| |
It's bit like saying "we may want to
insert a sentence into this book, so first
we'll insert a bunch of 'XXXXX's at some
point, and later we'll put our new
sentence into the middle of the XX's."
No point. |
|
| |
There is an argument for having defined
"targets" for inserting the transgene,
but since you have to somehow target
your initial "padding" DNA anyway,
you're still just as well off targeting the
transgene directly into the genome
rather than targeting-in some "padding"
and then targeting the transgene into
the padding. |
|
| |
// we may want to insert a sentence into this book, so first we'll insert a bunch of 'XXXXX's at some point // |
|
| |
That happens, at least with page reference numbers and the like. Easier to spot don't you know. As for genetics, um... carry on. |
|
| |
//We now know that what were once known as "junk genes", and thought to be useless relics of evolution are, in fact, important components of the human gene// - do we? - lots of this genetic material seems to be there solely for the purpose of replicating itself in the next generation. |
|
| |
This is how (some) programmers reserve space for themselves in machine code. Sometimes, they use special sequences as bookmarks that can be searched for and found later. Favourite bookmarks include:
3735928559 (deadbeef in hex)
3405691582 (cafebabe in hex)
And other hilarious combinations of the letters ABCDEF. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, in genetics, you only get four letters, ACGT - which gives you GACT for example, but that's not even a proper word. |
|
| |
You can have all my transhuman genes and I'll keep the ones I came with, thank you, especially after seeing The Fly. |
|
| |
//That happens, at least with page reference numbers and the like. Easier to spot don't you know.// |
|
| |
dont you people use LaTex? it does all that crap for you. \cite{source} then you just do a bib at the end, it sorts out the rest. |
|
| |
thats what we need, typesetters for genes. |
|
| |