The word 'gene' is quite ambiguous, hardly worth even using

Bob xyzbbruner at uclink4.berkeley.edu
Mon Sep 15 22:55:48 EST 2003


On 15 Sep 2003 17:36:50 +0100, Larry Moran
<lamoran at bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>
>It's a stupid way of thinking. I define a gene as a DNA sequence
>that is transcribed. (There are a few exceptions to this definition
>but it works very well.) RNA editing and the rest don't have any
>effect on my ability to recognize what I define as a gene.
>
>You can try as many different definitions as you like but I think
>I'll stick with one that works, thank-you very much.


Well, ok, but that is something of a copout. So you have defined the
word gene to be a transcription unit. But what we ultimately want is a
unit of function (making a protein?) -- whatever you call it.


Anyway... what do you mean by what is "transcribed"? Pol II
transcription does not have a well defined terminus. Message end is
determined not by transcription but by polyadenylation, which may
vary. But actual extent of transcription goes beyond that.

bob






More information about the Mol-evol mailing list