Scientists Discover A Sixth Base of DNA

This is slightly out of my field but I found the news rather incredible.

As you most probably already know, DNA has four bases, and these are,

-adenine (A)
-cytosine (C)
-guanine (G)
-thymine (T)

Whereas RNA has thymine replaced by a base called uracil:

-adenine (A)
-cytosine (C)
-guanine (G)
-uracil (U)

But now a sixth base, called N6-methyladenine (6mA), has been discovered.

A Sixth Base of DNA

The thing is, living DNA is not set in stone; it can (and does) constantly changes:

A chemical process known as methylation can modify DNA, radically altering the expression of genes in living organisms.

"The human genome is not static. It contains dynamic DNA modifications that carry key inheritable epigenetic information passed among generations of cells," said Chuan He of the University of Chicago.

The position of the methylated bases in the genome of the three organisms was precisely determined, aiding in understanding how the unusual genetic base affects the genome of the species.

In your opinion, what are the implications of this discovery of a sixth base of DNA?

Will we have to broaden our definitions of organic building blocks in our next searches for extraterrestrial life? Or perhaps the Perfect Being (Fifth Element, 1997) is just a step further...

Interesting to see if they add any more haplogroups or redefine the existing ones
a reply to: swanne

a reply to: swanne

"The human genome is not static. It contains dynamic DNA modifications that carry key inheritable epigenetic information passed among generations of cells," said Chuan He of the University of Chicago.

This seems like a very important revelation. Scientists have always said that our experiences during our life time don't affect the DNA of our offspring but this research seems to suggest that's not true. I've built evolutionary algorithms in the past and it always seemed to me like important information was being lost between generations. I have a feeling that if I included a way for DNA to be modified during the life span of each creature, they would evolve more efficiently.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I arrive to the same conclusion. It would explain why the genetic codes of more primitive animals (but from which our specie descend) is nevertheless largely distinct from our own specie's genetic codes.

Since a parent always gives offsprings of the same specie, then how can new species emerge if DNA never changes during one's lifetime? Every envorinemental impact on the individual would be lost (not passed on to the next gen), and thus no speciation would occur.

This is big news! I think…what are the implications to having this new set of DNA? Does the environment have anything to do with these changes? What does this mean for the future of humans? So many questions so little DNA.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

This seems like a very important revelation. Scientists have always said that our experiences during our life time don't affect the DNA of our offspring but this research seems to suggest that's not true. I've built evolutionary algorithms in the past and it always seemed to me like important information was being lost between generations. I have a feeling that if I included a way for DNA to be modified during the life span of each creature, they would evolve more efficiently.

Tell me how a spider REMEMBERS how to build a web.

I can think of no information sharing from parent to a child spider.. Besides DNA what else is preserved?

I think it's just more and more evidence that we control the matrix with our mind, and DNA is just a representation of part of the coding. Evolution would be sped up in species with more desire to change, or more reasons to change.. And even a species with hands and a big brain would evolve faster than an animal who would not know more options.. Or even then Domestication of animals, where a human is picking animals who have learned to like humans, then mate them that learning would be passed down in the DNA.. It would only take a few generations to get many variations, and this would explain the Russian Fox studies.. Otherwise I can't explain how quick the evolution is in these cases.. Learning is passed on.

You would see widespread emergence of the Intelligence across a species..
Bloodlines and picking certain mates matters even more..


There are many interesting twin studies. Where twins will both learn how to play piano amazingly well and early in age, and yet only one of them lived with the biological parents, who in their life time both played piano.. Both twins just knewhow to play. Nature or Nurture question is a red herring in that they are parts of the same circle.. We are at the part of the circle creating us, and we can continue to create, change..

For years they said there were only four. They denied the existence of others. They taught there were only four. Much of the scientific evidence we have to show that man made food chemistry does not effect our genetics is based on the assumption that there were only four.

There may be even more than six, we just have not figured out what they are.

Another article I read recently said that the DNA of Neurons is constantly changing within a range in our brains, it is not a constant at all. That just means that there is a definite relationship between what we consume and how we think.

a reply to: rickymouse

I am of Irish decent.

I never drank and enjoyed it until I was 23.

At 23 I began drinking with friends.

They would be sloshed a few shots in, I would not be "drunk" until many shots in, even though several of them had been drinking for years.

I have observed throughout my 37 years that I have a much higher tolerance for alcohol than most folks I ever share a few drinks with.

If DNA isn't changed by life experience how could I have just gained a natural ability to drink much more than more experienced larger bodied friends.

I am 5' 10" 170 lbs.

I can drink a 6' 6" 300 lbs man under the table most times while he passes out and I'm not even sliding my speech.

Seems clear that life experience would change your DNA.

My father and his father and his father...etc were heavy drinkers all day every day.

I only drink at night as a night cap.

Unless we are having a cookout or get together etc..

RNA a part of DNA is changed by memory.
your instincts are on the RNA and a lot we dont know.
they have known this a Long time.

I some times I think people who say they remember there past life’s.
could it be they have had the RNA put to much in the brain?

a reply to: johnwick


You probably make more of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase than most others and also more aldehyde dehydrogenase if you do not experience hangovers. There could be a couple of genetic reasons that you do not get drunk easily. Even the bacteria in your gut that you live symbiotically with could differ from others and they could actually be creating enzymes to break down some toxic byproducts.

Some people have the ability to drink more than others. Your condition is not really rare nor is it a better or worse than what others that get drunk live with. Alcohol is hard on the liver. I knew people who wouldn't get drunk and most kept up drinking and wound up with liver problems. So just remember, just because you can drink more does not mean that bad things aren't happening in your body when you over consume alcohol. If you keep it reasonable and just drink what the others do, you may be better off with less damage than them.

Having a few drinks usually does not hurt most people as long as they can detox all the chemicals that are created. Remember, alcohol is the excretion of a yeast or fungus most times. We do not think of it that way but that is what it is. In moderation it is good for us. It helps to have a job where you can sweat out the chemical byproducts every day.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: rickymouse

I can drink a 6' 6" 300 lbs man under the table most times while he passes out and I'm not even sliding my speech.

You're just bragging. This makes no sense unless you measure the blood alcohol level of both you and the person you claim to be drinking "under the table" and then apply tests of cognitive skill to see just how coherent you really are. I've known more than one person who claims "I'm not drunk!" as he staggers around the room making a fool of himself.

People belive on evolution, but find DNA modification astonishing?

Am I missing something?

Obviously for a genetic anatomy to "evolve" it's dna is modified or altered, hence we are not monkeys and do not resemble monkeys other then bipedal anatomy.

Evolution theory started before we knew anything about genetics or DNA, yet people believe(d) in it, in conclusively.

Waiting for for discoveries before setting my mind on theories or exercising thought

Thanks for sharing

originally posted by: rickymouse
For years they said there were only four. They denied the existence of others. They taught there were only four. Much of the scientific evidence we have to show that man made food chemistry does not effect our genetics is based on the assumption that there were only four.

There may be even more than six, we just have not figured out what they are.

Another article I read recently said that the DNA of Neurons is constantly changing within a range in our brains, it is not a constant at all. That just means that there is a definite relationship between what we consume and how we think.

Science is also creating new forms of life, scientists are like artists in many ways and many scientists are artist. An artist does not like to hide their work away they need it to be seen and appreciated.
Because of the nature of the artist I believe many new life forms will be secretly released among us as they are created in labs around the world.
Some new things will be "found" because they have been created.

a reply to: Char-Lee

But new life forms are being created in nature every day. We alter their evolution with what we are doing everyday without the direct help of science. Well, science is creating the chemistry that is mutating everything I suppose, but we call that change a negative mutation when it results in antibiotic or pesticide resistance. Actually it is a positive mutation for the species . We cannot evolve as fast as the bacteria and fungus and bugs. They have many generations in our one generation. I think it is inevitable that we will force our extinction from the changes we are making in food chemistry.

Never know, we might just look like the grays in a hundred years, at least the ones that are left.

I have thought that breeding at a later age is advantageous not just because an older person is more emotionally and financially stable but because they have more experiences to pass on to their offspring. I don't know the science. I just intuitively believe this.

I imagine the leading edge of civilization consists mainly of people who thoughtfully bred at a later age. Slowly this built up into a major advantage. The inferior masses are probably encouraged to breed young in order to maintain the advantage over them. You know the babies making babies thing. Lead them astray in every way.

originally posted by: rickymouse

Never know, we might just look like the grays in a hundred years, at least the ones that are left.

Thin, short, and grey-skinned? I believe it will be highly unlikely.

-Fatter population survives longer starvation periods.
-Human specie average height is growing at a rate of 4 inches per centuries.
-And, finally, black skin is a much more efficient defence against solar rays than grey.

For one, to me, it proves that GMO food could be even more (or less) dangerous than they are. Also, that extensive testing is needed now - more than ever - on the GMO items currently cultivated in open air, and sold to the public (or otherwise ingested).

They don't know wth they're doing, yet.

a reply to: Elementalist

People belive on evolution, but find DNA modification astonishing?

Am I missing something?

Obviously for a genetic anatomy to "evolve" it's dna is modified or altered, hence we are not monkeys and do not resemble monkeys other then bipedal anatomy.

Typically we say that the DNA evolves with each generation by mixing the DNA of the parents to produce a new DNA sequence for the offspring. On top of that are random mutations and errors which occur throughout the reproduction process. However those two mechanisms alone are like the blind watch maker because any random mutation has an equal chance of producing positive results as any other random mutation. The process of mixing genes is also highly unpredictable, so if those are the two major mechanisms which drive the evolution of our DNA that means the only thing which is really allowing evolution to work is the mechanism we call survival of the fittest.

In other words you could say that nature is spitting out randomly produced DNA sequences and then the creatures with the best DNA survive the longest so they have a higher chance of mating and passing on their DNA, well half their DNA to be precise. However that model doesn't really seem to match what we see in reality, nature doesn't just seem to be spitting out random DNA sequences and hoping something works, it seems to be a more controlled process than that. That is the reason I said that important information seems to be lost between generations in our simulations of evolution using virtual creatures.

If our DNA can be dynamically modified "on the fly" (during our life time) and passed onto our offspring then that adds a third major mechanism to the list of ways our DNA changes throughout time. And that third mechanism is very important in my opinion because it gives a degree of "sight" to the blind watch maker. No longer will offspring be designed in a highly random process, but there can actually be an algorithm programmed into our DNA for modifying its self on the fly. What it really seems to mean is that our genetic code has some sort of dynamic memory buffer which can be passed on.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: rickymouse

Never know, we might just look like the grays in a hundred years, at least the ones that are left.

Thin, short, and grey-skinned? I believe it will be highly unlikely.

-Fatter population survives longer starvation periods.
-Human specie average height is growing at a rate of 4 inches per centuries.
-And, finally, black skin is a much more efficient defence against solar rays than grey.

So your saying that fat black basketball players are going to overtake the world shortly? Cool.

One thing the article did not really say when I read it a couple of days ago was if this was common or if it was some kind of a trait of a certain population. I really didn't find much about who has this in the article or another article I found on this when I went off wandering with a heightened curiosity. I actually may have not read the exact article you linked, I should do that, sometimes there is a small difference in these articles.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thank you very much, and we'll said

Appreciated, and I can agree on that base of thinking.

We still don't know enough in present era, to claim dna mutations are a common thing (evolution).

I can't find any sources or well known publications showing us present evolution of today's species the world over. I'm saying we are nit witnessing evolution take place and it being shown in schools etc... but the theory is still pushed without 100% evidence.

I thought science only made statements when proof was definite. Would you agree the lack of witness and evidence of evolution taking place the past decades (species morphing/evolving) is uncountable?

If not someone point me to a source showing evolution is as common as the theory suggests

Thanks again CO!