Biological "Dark Matter"

[the asinine cretin]

New Scientist: Biology's 'dark matter' hints at fourth domain of life

 

 

 

Comments?

[Xittenn]

I like the name but at the same time it is inciting youtube viewers to some odd speculations with respect to mythical creatures such as midi-chlorians. As much as I want to be a Jedi I don't believe that by increasing my biological dark matter count that I will suddenly be able to pick up airplanes with my mind, or affect the colour of a plasma/laser saber.

 

They leave much to the imagination with these information pieces. Genetic assemblies are nothing new and I'm sure there is plenty of research into passive processes whereby genetic material self assembles due to predisposition. CharonY has mentioned a few things about early forms of genetic matter that are similar in concept to what I just described, in however limited detail.

 

The fact that they may have found something structured that is not anything that we commonly observe today, that they may have overlooked is exciting. Calling it a new domain is hardly exciting because they keep changing the taxonomic descriptions of life every few years. But again, not cell life, not virus, it is something interesting if in fact it is organized life. Especially if it is concluded to be a form of life, as mentioned it would not be cellular and this is quite in contrast to present theory which places the cell as the smallest unit of life.

 

The presumed benefits of this investigation seem to be the discovery of organisms that might be involved in manipulating both cellular organisms and viral matter such that we see rise to various illness'. Obviously if we can find and control the activities of anything that makes us sick, we are better for it, and this is a major plus to this investigation.

[juanrga]

New Scientist: Biology's 'dark matter' hints at fourth domain of life

 

Comments?

 

The underlying findings are interesting but the NS covering is too sensationalist for me

[the asinine cretin]

The underlying findings are interesting but the NS covering is too sensationalist for me

 

Thank you. As a non-biologist that's kind of what I was wondering. Where does the hype meter register on this? I have to confess that at first hearing the use of "dark matter" made me cringe a bit. And I agree, the facts are extremely interesting. When I get some time I'd like to find resources that are more technical.

 

P.S. Why did someone give juanrga's post a -1? Please explain.

 

I like the name but at the same time it is inciting youtube viewers to some odd speculations with respect to mythical creatures such as midi-chlorians. As much as I want to be a Jedi I don't believe that by increasing my biological dark matter count that I will suddenly be able to pick up airplanes with my mind, or affect the colour of a plasma/laser saber.

 

They leave much to the imagination with these information pieces. Genetic assemblies are nothing new and I'm sure there is plenty of research into passive processes whereby genetic material self assembles due to predisposition. CharonY has mentioned a few things about early forms of genetic matter that are similar in concept to what I just described, in however limited detail.

 

The fact that they may have found something structured that is not anything that we commonly observe today, that they may have overlooked is exciting. Calling it a new domain is hardly exciting because they keep changing the taxonomic descriptions of life every few years. But again, not cell life, not virus, it is something interesting if in fact it is organized life. Especially if it is concluded to be a form of life, as mentioned it would not be cellular and this is quite in contrast to present theory which places the cell as the smallest unit of life.

 

The presumed benefits of this investigation seem to be the discovery of organisms that might be involved in manipulating both cellular organisms and viral matter such that we see rise to various illness'. Obviously if we can find and control the activities of anything that makes us sick, we are better for it, and this is a major plus to this investigation.

 

Thank you for the interesting remarks.

Edited May 24, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[Xittenn]

Honestly, I saw juanrga, I came in to read his post, the post reflects the reality of the situation but doesn't offer any elaboration, I looked down and saw his signature, and acted accordingly. Fell free to +1 his rep to counteract my hasty decision!

[the asinine cretin]

Hehe. Okay. +1

 

Would you be willing to do me a favor and +1 this post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53264-ion-drive/page__view__findpost__p__679732

 

I was pissed off and clicked the -1 pretty impulsively.

[Xittenn]

The real question here is, is the biological dark matter described simply non-coding DNA or is it something else? I'm pulling up articles that call non-coding DNA biological dark matter, but what is described in the links above seems to be very different from this. As far as I understand non-coding DNA is in every cell of a human body, but this particular biological dark matter seems to exist external to the body, which by definition includes the stomach or the alimentary canal. This point is made particularly clear in that the biological dark matter discussed is only found in small quantity in blood samples, suggested to be ~1%, due to blood sterility.

[CharonY]

In short, they made a metagenome project and among the sequences they found gene homologs that looked very distinct from available sequences. The big question is whether this is due to the fact that these differences are due to low relatedness to known organisms, or whether it just means that we have not explored sufficient genomes yet. The dark matter alludes to the assumption that (if they really are a distinct domain) these organisms are unknown until now. One possible source are giant viruses and they were some studies that alluded that they belong to a very old lineage (which includes the paper mentioned in the OP as well as another from a French group under Raoult late 2010). However, subsequent studies (Williams et al 2011, also in Plos One) using different evolutionary models indicate that there is really little evidence hinting at a fourth domain based on these viruses.

 

My personal take is also on the conservative side and I do not think that the experimental evidence is currently strong enough.

[the asinine cretin]

In short, they made a metagenome project and among the sequences they found gene homologs that looked very distinct from available sequences. The big question is whether this is due to the fact that these differences are due to low relatedness to known organisms, or whether it just means that we have not explored sufficient genomes yet. The dark matter alludes to the assumption that (if they really are a distinct domain) these organisms are unknown until now. One possible source are giant viruses and they were some studies that alluded that they belong to a very old lineage (which includes the paper mentioned in the OP as well as another from a French group under Raoult late 2010). However, subsequent studies (Williams et al 2011, also in Plos One) using different evolutionary models indicate that there is really little evidence hinting at a fourth domain based on these viruses.

 

My personal take is also on the conservative side and I do not think that the experimental evidence is currently strong enough.

 

I hereby applaud and salute you. Thanks for the excellent info.