Introns are spaces between different coding sections of a gene (exons)... and are generally considered part of the gene... or more precisely 5'UTR, Introns, Exons, and the 3'UTR make up a gene. These do not usually fall into the "junk DNA category" http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/rna_synth.html
In DNA there are also sections of DNA before and behind the gene that are used to regulate it (turn it on and off). This does fall into the Junk category. Around that there is more DNA that contains non-functional genes, places for scaffolding proteins to attach, places for histones to attach, and a ton of other stuff that we are unsure of what it's function is. This is also in the Junk category - tho IMO none of it is really junk. There are a lot of "genetic" diseases like Type II diabetes, autism, and certian inheritable cancers that show patterns that are in the non-translated DNA (introns) or in the non-transcribed DNA (junk) that may be linked to the disease or may be a result of the disease, this becomes typical chicken and egg arguing - but it happens alot in science. I wasn't disputing your using it as hand waving science for an explination... as a matter of fact, if you want to model a very rare condition (like magery) it's probably the best way to do it. However, I'm anal enough to correct a mistake you made in your terminology (introns are part of your genes) and to try to get people and the media away from using the term "Junk DNA" - I term I abhor. I have worked on questions of gene regulation for a large part of my career, and I personally don't think I work on "Junk DNA", and I find the term misleads the public to what is really going on. I definately think if you want to model Magery as a genetic condition working it as a mendalian inheritance (all the AA BB CC stuff) is not going to get you where you want. Modeling it after something like height, weight, or autism will probably give you the results you want.... It also means you can do a lot of hand waving and not describe the reasons behind the condition fully. -Sue ----- Original Message ---- From: COYT WATTERS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: The GURPSnet mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:41:25 AM Subject: Re: [gurps] Fake scientific genetics for Magery... I used the interviewer / interviewee's terms. Honestly at the time I could not think of the spelling for intron (I keep wanting to inert another 'o' for some reason), and web access was problematic! The long and the short of the interview was that they sequenced a number of patients with Type-II diabetes, and there were genetic and at least one intronic patterns which matched, the interviewee may have been simplifying or using the interviewer's terminology. Since introns actual use isn't as clearly understood as genes, it's a convenient "hand waving science" for a "genetic" basis for anything, from Supers to Magery. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
