Alternative to RNAi?
khatipovNO-SPAM at NO-SPAMuchicago.edu
Wed Mar 19 18:41:01 EST 2003
"Ian A. York" <iayork at panix.com> wrote in message
news:b5ar51$b2v$1 at reader2.panix.com...
> In article <P66ea.33$W4.4896 at news.uchicago.edu>,
> EK <khatipovNO-SPAM at NO-SPAMuchicago.edu> wrote:
> >clear enough. I have no doubts that RNAi are effective. I am more worried
> >about the final purpose - administration to patients, where liposone
> What on earth makes you think this is the "final purpose"? 99.999% of
> people using RNAi have no interest in this sort of thing.
So what do you think is the purpose of RNAi = gene silencing? At least if
you look at it from the point of view of justification of the aims of
research proposals that get funded? I certainly understand the functional
genomics aspect, but knowing the function of the gene is not the "final
purpose", isn't it? I am certainly not educated enough to judge. 99.999% of
janitors (no offense) never think that sweeping streets can have positive
epidemiological consequences :-)
> >why nobody thought about chemicaly fusing peptides and NAs. I am not a
> >chemist and wonder if such a mixed synthesis is ever possible. Any
> >information on the subject? I tried to search NCBI with no success so
> From what I know about the mechanism of RNAi (which is basically what's in
> the reviews) chemical coupling will prevent RNAi from working.
Could you elaborate on that or give me a reference? Do you mean somebody
tried the RNAi coupled to linear peptides and failed?
> Ian York (iayork at panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
> "-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
> very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
More information about the Methods