Talk:Central dogma of molecular biology

Question: Can we use a better example to cite the 'special' case of DNA to protein directly? I've checked the cited source and Googled for neomycin and I'm not convinced. A cell-free extract can still contain ribosomes and mRNA. How about this one? "[1]" I believe the keyword to google for more info should be "messenger DNA". 218.186.9.1 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unravelling the DNA myth" asserts that the Human Genome Project, by finding too few genes and positing explanantions like "alternative splicing" (Science 2001 p1345), killed the Central Dogma; and that w/o the CD, there is in the present body of knowledge no genetic engineering, only wallowing in a muddy minefield. 142.177.169.163 17:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative splicing has been known for YEARS, decades, and absolutely does NOT disprove the Central Dogma. All the genome paper showed was that (1) complexity is encoded more in gene networks rather than in genes, and (2) alternative splicing plays more of a role than previously imagined in mammals. The difficulties for genetic engineering do not stem from failures in the Central Dogma. Graft 18:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The rendering of the Central Dogma found in most standard texts, thus promulgated by many supposedly well-educated molecular biologists, and reproduced in Wikipedia, is a bowdlerization of what Crick actually had to say on the topic. Crick's own version of the Central Dogma can be summarized very simply: sequence information is not transmitted from proteins to either nucleic acids or other proteins. As of February 2005, no exceptions to this rule are known. However, once we understand how prions function, there might, perhaps, be a known exception. Original sources for Crick's version of the Central Dogma are:

Crick, F.H.C. (1958) On Protein Synthesis. in Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. XII, 139-163.

Crick, F. (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563.

• Prions do not change the sequence of their target proteins, they change the conformation (folding). So even prions will not change the central domga.David D. 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Possibly relevant: Arabidopsis may rewrite their own DNA (backup). Kwantus 22:49, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

---

For an interesting view of the problems with the Central Dogma as a research strategy see:

Werner, E. (2005) , "Genome Semantics, In Silico Multicellular Systems and the Central Dogma", FEBS Letters 579, pp 1779-1782 (March 21, 2005) 141.84.69.20

Contradictions

This article is impossible to read, as it contradicts itself, saying in the beginning there are no exceptions to the dogma, and then in a section titled "Exceptions to the Dogma", it says that it is not really a dogma and lists exceptions. We need to clean this up and come to a consensus on what the real story is. James 00:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard it, so don't want to put it in the article, but I read that it's not a dogma - Crick didn't actually know what dogma meant and wouldn't have called it a dogma if he had. I probably read it either in The Search for DNA or the book that one of Watson & Crick wrote. Or maybe Godel Escher Bach. That doesn't answer whether there are exceptions or not though. 84.203.6.162 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)SOS

I'm pretty sure Francis Crick knows what the word dogma means. He just didn't mean it literally, that's all. Richard001 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'central dogma'

I read that the term 'central dogma' arose from Francis not knowing what the word 'dogma' meant. Hasn't it got something to do with religion? --Username132 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite your source? I think the article deserves some comments on the word dogma, and if what you're saying is true it should be added. Rend 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. Religous dogma is just the primary definition. There is scientific dogma too, rightly or wrongly. I don't think Crick was ignorant but was using the secondary definition "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. " David D. (Talk) 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In What Mad Pursuit, Crick's scientific memoir, he wrote:"I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ....As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth....Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however, plausible, had little direct experimental support." The irony of course was that it is now often treated in the other way, as an idea that cannot be doubted, which was not what young Crick had in mind. --J. Dusheck. (I've forgotten my password, as I have not logged on for a while, but I write about biology in textbooks and such.)

this makes more sense in that Crick did not intend it to mean "one considered to be absolutely true". I'm still surprised he made that error since scientific dogmas especially in geology have long been a stumbling block for progress. I would have thought he had heard it used in that context. Indded it is ironic that it has turned into a true dogma. I'd say this is a good piece of information for the article. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Dogma/Evangelion

The term "Central Dogma" is used as a form of technobabble during the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, much in the same way as listed on the Pribnow box page. Shouldn't this warrant at least a sentence or two on the subject?--KoopaTroopa211 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Does this page really need a "pop-culture references" section?

--AllBiolScott

Using the term "non-coding DNA" to refer to ribozymes, rRNA, tRNA etc. is a ... unique ... use of the term. 212.23.23.154 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

protein -> protein

So what do you guys think of updating the 'protein to protein' transfer section? It is stated as unknown now, but I can think of a case. Polypeptide antibiotics are made non-ribosomally. They are made in very large protein complexs; no DNA or RNA template! They are not usually very long, maybe 10-15 amino acids, but they are polypeptides. This may end up being a big issue of symantics, is this just a peptide and not a protein? I think it may be worth mentioning, especially with the intrest in combinatorial biological engineering with these polypeptide antibiotics (ps, this is more valid than prions!). What do you guys think?! Adenosine 142.244.52.251 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? How is the sequence of amino acids determined in this large protein complex? David D. (Talk) 10:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

McClintock

I don't unhderstand why she is mentioned in the last section. How do transposons break the central dogma? I think the sentence relating to her work should probably be cut from the article. David D. (Talk) 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Image

I'm removing the diagram at the beginning because, while very beautiful and clear, it makes the fatal mistake of mixing up the red and blue colors in the key. "General" should correspond to blue, not red. A pretty grave mistake, and grounds for temporary removal. 86.145.114.237 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Another concern for this image: the reverse transcriptase arrow moving from RNA to DNA has the "virus only" icon attached. My understanding of telomerase activity in humans and other eukaryotic organisms is that the telomerase protein itself uses its own RNA substrate as a template for telomere extension. Humans and other higher order organisms carry out reverse transcription in a majority of tissues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase_Reverse_Transcriptase

--AllBiolScott

misleading definition

While working on lectures for the upcoming semester I came across these statements in the Wikipedia listing for the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology)"

1. "The central dogma is occasionally misunderstood as being a statement of absolute fact. If taken as such, it can be criticised, as there are well-described exceptions. It is also criticised by some systems biologists as being too reductionist."

2. "There have been researchers who have found problems with the Central Dogma, like Barbara McClintock in the 1940s. [1] She won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her experiments with maize and discovering so called 'jumping genes' that turned out to need activators and controlling elements."

The central dogma represents the flow of information in the cell and is based on solid scientific evidence, and any exceptions are just modifications that occur after protein synthesis. Molecular biology IS reductionist since it describes processes at the molecular level. The second statement is entirely false. First, how could McClintock find problems with the central dogma when her research was done before the discovery of DNA structure? Second "Jumping Genes" are activators and controlling elements (they don't need them); these are terms used to describe the pattern of genetic expression she observed. Again, these terms were coined before the central dogma was described. Her data are in complete agreement with the Central Dogma and are not an exception.

There are some other problems with this entry but I don't have the time to go in and edit, and I suspect that it is a losing battle. It is obvious that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for scientific definitions.

129.138.14.52 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)DRcubed

Incorrect German localization link

The supposed "German version" of this article is actually about the "one gene, one enzyme" hypothesis developed in 1940 by Beadle and Tatum. I am too unfamiliar with the subject to know how closely this is related with the Central Dogma developed in 1970 by Crick, but they're clearly distinct.

The proper title of the German version would be "Zentrales Dogma der Molekularbiologie". As can be seen in the German Startcodon article, this title is in fact referenced but does not exist.

Until a German version of this article has been written (or moved if it was misplaced), the incorrect locale link should probably be removed.

The same note will be posted to the talk page of the German article. 212.121.153.12 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Some of these citations are leading to nowhere, not to mention the data presented has already been questioned above. Also, if something is an absolute as can be found in dogmas, there is no scientific questioning left, now is there?

The definitions, the two main ones, I know of for dogma are as follows:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.

--AmandaEP (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)