With DNA Discovery, 'Human Soup' Gets More Complex (New base pairs discovered - now up to 8)

With DNA Discovery, 'Human Soup' Gets More Complex

The human recipe just got complicated: It turns out there are more ingredients in us than we thought.

In high school science, we were taught of the four basic units that make up DNA -- adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. When scientists talk of DNA sequencing, it's written as strings of these units: ATCGGTGA, and so on.

In recent years, scientists expanded that list of nucleotides from four to six. And in a study published online in the most recent issue of Science magazine, researchers from the University of North Carolina School's medical school have discovered the seventh and eight bases of DNA.




But the meaning of this extra ingredient in the alphabet soup that makes us who we are isn't as simple as A, B, C.

"Before we can grasp the magnitude of this discovery, we have to figure out the function of these new bases," said Yi Zhang, biochemistry and biophysics professor at UNC.'s Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Zhang arrived at his discovery by playing around with the chemical makeup of the base cytosine; by adding a new chemical tag -- called a methyl group -- to the base it became those fifth and sixth units. This process, called methylation,causes the DNA's double helix to fold even tighter upon itself.

Demethylation describes the removal of a chemical group from a molecule, a process that led to the new 7th and 8th units -- they've been given the ugly names 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine. (The fifth base -- 5 methylC -- and the sixth base -- 5 hydroxymethylC -- have equally ungainly names, to be fair.)

"These bases represent an intermediate state in the demethylation process," he explained.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

S+F,


Well this completely blows apart our basic understanding of genetics. When things like this happen, it really makes you question how much of the science "we know" could be wrong.

This discovery is huge... Scientists still dont know the full impact / implications of this discovery either. The possibilities / potential from this could completely re-write everything we know about DNA and how it works.

Couple this with recent advances in regenerative medicine.... I can see a whole new field of medicine opening up.

One possibility is the ability to take adult cells and reprogram them back into stem cells.

Who knows, maybe one day we will be able to cure the common cold.

Edit to add -
@ Virt - gotta give me some more time to type out my follow up post before posting lol. Completely agree though.. I am curious how this discovery might interact with the recent finding by scientists who claim the percentage of human DNA being junk DNA.

From what I understand, this is an intermediary stage sort of deal. IE - only during this process can these new base nucleotides form. Static DNA hasn't suddenly changed.

This does come as a very big discovery in that it allows us to make better simulations and predictions involving the processes where this applies. Simulations make for a better understanding of genetic and protein disorders as well as open up avenues for better genetic engineering. This could also be important in the function of some viral strains.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Well this completely blows apart our basic understanding of genetics. When things like this happen, it really makes you question how much of the science "we know" could be wrong.

Explain how science "was wrong" in this case. If anything, incomplete. But every geneticist and researcher that I talk to has never stated that science knows everything there is to know about genes, and/or their field of work in general.

Hence the continued research...

This makes me think about the 'junk DNA' that is commented on in several sources; this is DNA that supposedly serves no purpose. Maybe it's because we have really seen only half the characters of the DNA language therefore see the commonality of, and only interpret, a fraction of the total?

This will reinterpret so much of the current work when all the characters are in place.

reply to post by lakesidepark


These were my thoughts as well.. I also wonder what type of medical treatments could be developed from this.

This is one of the greatest discoveries of our decade... yet, virtually no press..

So what does this mean? Has it been confirmed by others? I PM'd a member with some expertise in this field and I hope she chimes in, because this stuff is fascinating.

Peace,
spec

reply to post by lakesidepark


"Junk DNA" is 'junk' only if you put on your blinders and focus solely on RNA transcription. There is plenty of DNA that is not meant to be transcribed. However, it is not 'junk' - as it serves to prevent the corrosion of the sequences that are intended to be transcribed. In that respect, it serves a very functional and rational purpose.

reply to post by Xcathdra


dna science is growing exponentially,,in five years these findings will be ancient,,, great posts thanks

While this does add more information to our overall knowledgebase in genetics, it doesn't, by any means, invalidate or refute anything we've learned in the past.

The new bases (numbers 5-8), aren't really "new bases" in the sense that they're vastly different. All four of them are simply variations on the original four, created by adding side chains. For instance, methylcytosine is one of the new bases (#5, I think?), and is simply a cytosine base that has been methylated (implicated in inherited gene inactivation, also known as imprintation). Of course, we SHOULD pay special attention to these bases, as they likely perform unique functions and have interesting effects on nearby genes. I just caution people from posting things like "everything we know is wrong" or "scientists claim humans are mutants".

Don't get me wrong, this is a wonderful advancement and it will help us learn to manipulate the genome a bit more, hopefully leading to cures for otherwise permanent congenital disorders. I don't, however, think that this is a radical shift in genetics.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


yes were just barely discovering how dna works. we're at the tip of the iceberg, dna is so complex it's ridiculous.

Ok so science is not my strong point.Question how didn't theyt see these other bases before?
And what kind of achievements will become because o f these?

I thought the methylation cycle was already implicated as an epigenetic triggering of a genes expression or not.

Is this article implying more than this?

It seems like a new twist on something that was already known, or maybe a more complete way of understanding what's going on?

Isn't a focus of having to do with controlling the methylation of certain genes to override faulty genetics that lead to disease?

I take nutritional supplements to control my methylation rate.

reply to post by Bixxi3


These are not "normal" bases. They are altered versions of the base pairs (as another member posted) and exist for brief moments while the genome is being manipulated to the various ends of the process. I can't really come up with a very good analogy - but when the base pairs are altered during these processes, they can function somewhat differently than they would, normally. This means that compounds we normally think don't play a role in the functions of DNA may, in fact, play a role.

It means we can better predict how medications may interact with our bodies, how viruses do what they do, how to treat genetic or protein disorders, and probably quite a few other things that I wouldn't think of because it's not my field.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Well this completely blows apart our basic understanding of genetics. When things like this happen, it really makes you question how much of the science "we know" could be wrong.

I'm not sure how this "blows apart our basic understanding of genetics", given that methylation/demethylation mechanisms of DNA have been known and studied since at least the early 1960's. This is why popular science journalism should be taken with a grain of salt regarding the novelty or importance of the findings they're trying to report.

reply to post by Aim64C



Ohhh i get it now thanks for the explanation.
Star