Biochemical structure of dominant vs recessive gene

  • Thread starter Thread starter Murdstone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gene Structure
AI Thread Summary
Dominant and recessive traits are influenced by the biochemical differences in alleles, where a dominant allele typically produces a functional protein while a recessive allele may code for a non-functional protein or alter the protein's function. The dominant allele does not simply silence the recessive; instead, it generally overpowers it, leading to the expression of the dominant trait when at least one dominant allele is present. In some cases, such as with dominant negative alleles, the dominant allele can inhibit the function of the protein produced by the recessive allele. Additionally, mutations can occur in regulatory regions of genes, affecting gene expression without altering the protein itself, exemplified by lactose tolerance in humans. Ultimately, the distinction between dominant and recessive traits lies in the functional efficacy of the proteins produced by their respective alleles.
Murdstone
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
Most all familiar with the terms dominant and recessive trait in a general way. I have seen little on the biochemical difference.

Assume

1. Gene codes for characteristic
2. Variance in characteristic due to sequence within gene

How does the structure of an allele differ from an actual different gene?
What is the biochemical mechanism behind dominant vs recessive?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Last edited by a moderator:
How forgetful. I see I have dwelt on the question before. However, this time, after reflection, I have a better understanding of the process. The "recessive" gene is a mutation that codes differently for a protein. It might not code for a protein at all or it might code for a different "flavor" of the protein. So the gene itself is not the determinate of the trait. It is a precursor to the protein, with the protein being the tangible component that determines the trait.

To clarify. I was thinking that when a dominate and recessive gene "meet", that the dom silences the rec and that is it. Not so.
 
Murdstone said:
To clarify. I was thinking that when a dominate and recessive gene "meet", that the dom silences the rec and that is it. Not so.

In most cases this is true. When an individual contains both a recessive and a dominant allele, it is usually not the case that the dominant allele interferes with the function of the recessive allele. Rather, the dominant allele just "overpowers" the recessive allele. For example, if the dominant allele encodes for a certain color pigment and the recessive allele encodes a lack of pigment, the individuals will show pigmentation whenever they have at least one dominant allele and will only lack pigmentation when they have two recessive alleles.

An exception here would be the case of a dominant negative (DN) allele, but here the "silencing" occurs at the protein level where the protein produced by the DN allele will prevent the protein produced by the recessive allele from functioning correctly.

How forgetful. I see I have dwelt on the question before. However, this time, after reflection, I have a better understanding of the process. The "recessive" gene is a mutation that codes differently for a protein. It might not code for a protein at all or it might code for a different "flavor" of the protein. So the gene itself is not the determinate of the trait. It is a precursor to the protein, with the protein being the tangible component that determines the trait.

Some alleles contain mutations in regions that do not change the protein itself. For example, consider lactose intolerance. Early humans, like most other mammals, have the ability to digest lactose only in early age and this ability goes away in adulthood. Sometime in human evolution, a mutation occurred near the gene encoding the lactase enzyme responsible for digesting lactose. This mutation did not change the protein, but rather, it changed the regulatory DNA around this sequence, preventing the gene from being turned off in adulthood. The result here is the lactase persistence allele, a dominant allele encoding the lactose tolerance trait.

Thus, here is an example where the dominant allele of the lactase gene is the mutant form, not the recessive allele. Furthermore, the different flavor of the lactase gene differs not in the protein produced but in how the protein gets turned on and off during development.
 
Murdstone said:
Most all familiar with the terms dominant and recessive trait in a general way. I have seen little on the biochemical difference.

Assume

1. Gene codes for characteristic
2. Variance in characteristic due to sequence within gene

How does the structure of an allele differ from an actual different gene?
What is the biochemical mechanism behind dominant vs recessive?

To simplify things other than chemical differences, the true difference between the two is in terms of function. One works at 100% efficacy, the other works less.
 
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...
Back
Top