Why Did RNA Gene Regulation Take So Long to Discover?

  • Thread starter Thread starter asjohn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Research Rna
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the slow pace of RNA research, particularly regarding gene regulation through RNA processing. A key point raised is the historical influence of Crick's central dogma theory, which may have misled researchers to focus primarily on DNA and proteins, overlooking the regulatory roles of RNA. While early discoveries such as reverse transcription, RNA splicing, and ribozymes laid the groundwork, significant advancements in understanding small RNAs, like microRNAs, did not occur until the late 1990s. The delay in recognizing the importance of these small regulatory RNAs is attributed to limitations in analytical techniques that often discarded them as degradation products. As research evolved, it became clear that RNA plays a crucial role in gene regulation, challenging the previously protein-centric view of molecular biology.
asjohn
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Slow Pace of RNA RESEARCH WHY?

I was talking to a grad student in my lab the other day and we couldn't agree on why it take so long to discover gene regulation by RNA processing? I mean we knew about DNA and RNA decades ago why did it take so long to figure out that they can be regulated backwards?

So the grad student told me that it was Crick's fault because of his central dogma theory and got everyone going in the wrong direction. Which Ididn't agree. What do you guys think?

thanks
 
Biology news on Phys.org


Do you mean something other than reverse transcription (discovered 1970), RNA splicing (1977), or ribozymes (early 1980s)?

Wikipedia says the idea of ribozymes goes back to 1967, citing Woese, Crick and Orgel.

The current burst of research probably starts with the discovery of RNAi in 1998 (gosh, is it already 2011, that's more a steady stream than a burst). Yet one must remember that similar mechanisms were already known in plants quite a bit before that http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC157182/

I just looked up Wikipedia, and apparently, miRNAs were first seen in 1993.
 
Last edited:


One reason why it took so long to discover the important roles for small RNAs (e.g. micro RNAs) in gene regulation is that these regulatory RNAs are very small and the techniques for analyzing cellular RNAs (e.g. gel electrophoresis) would literally throw away the small RNAs (the small regulatory RNAs would run off the end of the gel). Even if scientists observed them, most would disregard the small regulatory RNAs as degradation products of larger RNA species rather than functional molecules. It wasn't until the demonstration that miRNAs can regulate gene expression and the discovery of siRNA that people began to realize that small RNAs within the cell could actually be doing something important.

I do think old dogmas in molecular biology may have hindered the discovery of regulatory roles for RNA, but I don't necessarily think that it is completely due to Crick's central dogma. Molecular biology used to be very protein centric, with most believing that proteins performed most of the main tasks in the cell. RNA (perhaps because of the central dogma) was simply viewed as an intermediate with limited roles in transcription. Now, of course, we realize that while proteins are indeed important in gene regulation, they are not the only players; RNAs play a just as important, if not more important, role.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
10K
Back
Top