Scientists Discover A Sixth Base of DNA

a reply to: swanne

This isn't really a new development. I've seen published papers going back to the 80's identifying methylated adenine and cytosine. Overall, it's part of the study of epigenetics, which has been around for quite a while now.

originally posted by: iterationzero
I've seen published papers going back to the 80's identifying methylated adenine and cytosine.

Identified, yes. But did the mA had the official status of being the "6th base" back then?

I think not...

a reply to: swanne

Don't get me wrong, the research into how methylated bases impact expression is fascinating, but this is hardly the first "official"* base added to the mix. A, C, G, T, and U are commonly referred to as "primary bases". There quite a few modified bases out there, including:

mA, mC, mG from methylation of their respective counterparts
Pseudouridine is an isomer of uridine
dHU from hydrogenation of uridine
Xanthene and hypoxanthene from deamination of G and A, respectively

That's an even dozen bases right there, and I'm pretty sure there are more than that.

* Can you explain why you think it's suddenly "official" now as opposed to when it was first identified?

a reply to: swanne

To me it just sounds like a methylated base. Methylation is a normal process in DNA that allows it to encode genes or RNA sequences. Methylation regulates the unraveling of histone bodies.
I've heard of Hoogsteen base pairs, and even hypothetical base pairs using silicon instead of carbon.

a reply to: johnwick

I am also of Irish decent, both sides being full Irish. My mother never drank and my father usually did. I have 6 sisters, one of which is a roaring drunk. I do not drink. Of my 5 remaining sisters 2 are very light drinkers and two like me, doesn't drink. So, I have 3 sisters that drink rarely, one that never crawls from her bottle, and counting myself, 3 who do not drink.
The drunkard sister is truly the middle child.

DNA is interesting.

This is not a new discovery. Methylated DNA is not a "new" base, it's a phenomena that's been studied quite well for a while now. It's called epigenetics, and involves regulating DNA expression. Here's a scientific paper from 2008 explaining DNA methylation. www.nature.com...

a reply to: swanne
Hey that's cool, and who knows maybe in a few thousand years we may even have enough accumulated data were by sticking your tongue into the electrical circuit may be something which will not have to be learned, man has an instinctual fear of fire, but as of yet no instinctual fear of electrical wires. Fear for the most part is the catalyst of all evolution.

Though on the data accumulation side and the workings of DNA. Must be why in ancient times in many cultures the act of procreating was considered knowledge, why even in the bible we get those pages about how Adam came to know Eve, or Abraham came to know whoever his wife's were at that time, you know they did the durty ect, ect. Funny that no? Ever wonder why they expressed it that way? In today's age we dont refer to the act of two people getting it on as knowledge right? Must be a language detract, or just a left over custom from when it was known that the act of sex and procreation is exactly that, passing on of data and knowledge ie DNA exchange. Or...

Anyways albeit in today's age with the digital advances, everybody the majority being tanagers, has come much closer to getting to know there computer screen...I kid, I kid, well kind off.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You are completely correct. This became evident to me a long time ago.

There is no doubt that there is a 'feedback' process throughout ones life that influences the subsequent genetic modifications. This makes large parts of evolution much easier to rationalise from a probabilistic point of view.

However, this assumption complexifies the process of evolution by an extreme amount. It makes evolution less likely to be a natural product of the universe (through sheer 'accidental' mutation) and more likely as an independently created and thought-out process.

That's just my opinion. Not here to fight the 1-dimensional argument of whether there's a creator or not.