Genetic differentiation

[sunspot]

From what I read and hear most people assume the genetics is the primary cause within the living state all the way up to behavior. If one looks at genetic differentiation within multicellular life, it is easy to show that this is not always the case.

 

For example, if one starts with any differentiated cell in the body, it is only using a fixed amount of all the genes on the DNA. Although all the cells of our bodies contain all the DNA, only a very specific distribution is being used to create the specfic proteins that define a cellular differentiation. In other words, the kidney cells don't make neurotransmittors because these genes are packed away in kidney cells.

 

When any differnetiated cell enters mitosis, the chromosomes are condensed. These same condensed chromosomes (all the DNA) occurs within the cell cycles of all the cell differentiations. It is a very generic state of the DNA that is common to all the cells. As the daughter cells forms, each cell differentiation will end up with the same narrowed genetic distribution as the mother cell. This assumes steady state mother and daughter cell differentiations.

 

The question becomes, how does the DNA know how to limit itself from the generic condensed chromsomes? It is not the DNA that decides. The proteins within the daughter cells, that parallel the differentiation of the mother cell, have a protein based feedback mechanism, that will mold the condensed chromosomes until the active DNA parallels the protein grid of that differnetiated cell.

 

In other words, if we take a skin cell and a heart cell ready to enter mitosis, the condensed DNA is exactly the same. How these two cells differ is only within the distribution of proteins that have been built up, which defines the character of each mother/daughter cell. After mitosis the specific protein grid will mold the DNA so the final DNA state is able to parallel the proteins.

 

The proteins are also the way cells interact with the environment. If the environment changes the needs of the protein grid, the DNA expression can be molded to the environmental change by protein feedback. When we start to talk about behavior, thoughts, feelings, habits, these can alter the chemical environment within the brain. This will alter the protein distributions needed to produce and absorb this chemical environment. This, turn, can alter the distribution of the DNA that is active.

 

Nowadays, if one has a particular behavioral flaw, genetic thinking will say he is missing a gene or has an extra gene. Sometimes, the genes is not missing or even extra, but merely packed or unpacked due to the protein environment caused by the behavior. For example, if I think about food in my imagination I can make myself hungry. The hunger feeling is a complex neuro and biochemical train of events associated with proteins and with genes. I just manipulated the DNA with my mind. I did not make new DNA but at the very least I alterred the transcription rates that are occurring on some genes. If I did this long enough part of the DNA distribution that is active in many related cells within my body will begin to shift toward my routine behavior.

 

This is not to say that lacking a gene can not cause problems but when it comes to the mind genes can be packed away or brought into action. Psychosomatic illnesses and placebo affects show how far the mind can go when it comes to manipulating the DNA.

[ecoli]

do you have a specific question? What's your point with this thread?

[sunspot]

The point is that the DNA is very important, since it determines the genes that are available. But environmental interaction at all levels, from the cellular, within the mind, and the physical environment have an impact on what genes will be expressed. That is why identical twins can assume wide differences in personality. It is not genes that decide, since they are the same, but the proteins interacting with the neural environment. The superfiscial differences are less under environmental control.

 

A good analogy is that the DNA are all the ingredients in a buffet. The environment are the many combinations that form from these ingredients. One can not eat something that is not on the buffet or the DNA limits what is possible on a global basis. However, one does not have to eat all the ingredients to get a full meal. The featured items, like prime rib, may be found on most of the plates but flexible things like olives may stay on the buffet under wraps.

 

This is an important distinction because life is a two-sided coin and not just a one-sided genetic coin.

[scicop]

I don't understand what your point is or what your question is.

DNA is DNA, and science a long time ago established that:

(1) DNA is very important. Also, A LONG-TIME ago, it was first demonstrated (an still is today ..open a science, or nature magazine and read the papers) that:

(2) events extrinsic to the DNA molecule itself i.e. events enviroment whether it be input from another cell or organ (neurotransmitter, neuromodulator, or hormone) or external to an organsim can influence gene expression. In addition...a long time ago and even studies conducted today continue to show that:

(3) certain gene alleles can be statistically linked to certain pathologies such that "when the proper epigentic factors are present"..organisms with said allele may be more susceptable to express a predicted or suggested or reported phenotypic response......so again....what's your point?

 

We all know this!!!!!!!!! BIOLOGY ..Not EVEN 101..like 4TH GRADE!

 

Geebus.

 

You just learning this for the first time? Welcome to the world of biomedical science!

 

The point is that the DNA is very important' date=' since it determines the genes that are available. But environmental interaction at all levels, from the cellular, within the mind, and the physical environment have an impact on what genes will be expressed. That is why identical twins can assume wide differences in personality. It is not genes that decide, since they are the same, but the proteins interacting with the neural environment. The superfiscial differences are less under environmental control.

 

A good analogy is that the DNA are all the ingredients in a buffet. The environment are the many combinations that form from these ingredients. One can not eat something that is not on the buffet or the DNA limits what is possible on a global basis. However, one does not have to eat all the ingredients to get a full meal. The featured items, like prime rib, may be found on most of the plates but flexible things like olives may stay on the buffet under wraps.

 

This is an important distinction because life is a two-sided coin and not just a one-sided genetic coin.[/quote']

[sunspot]

I am using this to reintroduce another important variable within the cell called equilibrium hydrogen bonding. This is layer of potential, using coordinated hydrogen bonding, that integrates cells at their most fundamental level.

 

Getting back to this basic precursor discussion of the two sides of life, if we look at a virus attacking a cell, for example a kidney cell, the viral protein and genetic material, will pertubate the kidney cell's protein grid. The kidney cell, theoretically, has the genes needed for an immune response, since it has the entire human DNA inside it. However, these genes are packed far away due to its differentiated protein grid, i.e, is a kidney cell, does not require any of the immune system genes being used. The protein grid of the kidney cell trys to form a new equilibirum DNA expression to the virus. But what typically happens is the virus's genetic material takes over the role of the genetic feedback. The cell is tricked into pertubating the DNA using the RNA or DNA from the virus.

 

The immune system, also has our entire DNA inside it, buts its protein and DNA differentiation, allows it's protein grid to pertubate its DNA in the proper way, because it's DNA is differentiated to the needs of an immune response. The needed genes are on the top. If we look at AIDS, this virus will pertubate the protein grid of the immune system, however, the useable DNA does not appear to have any good genetics exposable to deal with the virus.

 

This means one of two things. First, human DNA has no good genes that can address the virus. Or secondly, only the immune system has no good exposable genes that can be brought into play to deal with the virus. The first scenario would imply that human DNA will need to evolve some new genes for the immune system to overcome AIDS. Medications help pertubate the protein grid and may eventually alter the DNA in a way to permanently deal with AIDS. This will tell us something about how DNA evolves with time due to environmental pertubations.

 

The second scenaio is actually quite intriguing; only the immnue system has no useful exposable genes. If we combine this second scenario with the observation that AIDS does not affect every cell, the needed genes to deal with AIDS may actually be exposeable via other differentiated cells. In other words, the immune system has this banquet sized plate with tons of ingredients from the salad bar, but none seem to work. Maybe a lowly cell, with a little plate of ingredients may actually have the correct genes needed to deal with AIDS. This may be why AIDS avoids certain cells. A simple experiment would be to treat other cells with AIDS and see if they are able to digest it. If certain genes work, but are usually packed away in the immune system, maybe we can splice these closer to the top.

[scicop]

you're a moron. Please do us all a favor an stop pretending to be authority with science. When you demonstrate some real understanding of biomedicine and become an accomplished scientist, then we will listen to your giberish. Until then, silence! Ask questions! Learn...your rantings are moronic.

as for me..I've already obtained NIH grants and published in peer review journals..and gained acceptance with my peers (i.e. the Ph.D. degree) i've proven myself in the scientific community such that I CAN engage in philosophical thought with science-based insight and experimentally-based reason. So knock it off, you just look like an idiot.

[sunspot]

The proof is in the pudding. Obvious what is known does not work very well with AIDS and has limited success with cancer. The modern approach is lacking something when it comes to the difficult problems. There is a logic to this stuff that empiricism can not seem to grasp. The logic is connected to equilibrium hydrogen bonding.

 

Congradulation on your accolades. All that means is that you know how to work the beaurocracy. I would need a secretary to do that for me, because I could put my energies into looking at problems in new ways and don't take care of my creature comforts that well. I like to cut corners with logic because it is more effecient for applied science. Unfortuneately for me I move too fast and I don't get fluffy enough to grow roots. I wish I could slow down and satisfy the system.

 

As for me I am not a biologist but a chemist. My strength is that I can look at an atom or molecule and know about it from its structure. My knowledge of the details is definitatly lacking because my approach is to stay simple so I can see the forest inspite of the trees. Don't mistake my generalist approach for ignorance only ignorance of specialty knowledge.

 

Lets get back to AIDS. Has any work been done infecting other cells of the human body to see what happens?

[sunspot]

If I was to approach AIDS logically, what we know about AIDS is that there are only limited ways to transmit it between people, usually by sexual contact or the transfer of body fluids, especially blood. This shows us that skin is resistant to AIDS infiltration since the virus cannot transport itself into the blood this way. The sexual transfer tells us that the sexual areas of the body appear to have the transport protein needed to get the AIDS virus into the blood supply. We can use this to our advantage. Once we find a tough cell that can digest the virus we add some the sexual area transport proteins to these cells so the virus can be absorbed directly from the blood.

 

The cells of the digestive system are probably good candidates. I also like the liver (I hate liver), because it has a lot of chemical reaction variety on its genetic differentiation plate.