Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, January 27, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document 'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

by ScienceDaily

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124103151.htm

'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2008) — Genes have the ability to recognise similarities in each other from a distance, without any proteins or other biological molecules aiding the process, according to new research. This discovery could explain how similar genes find each other and group together in order to perform key processes involved in the evolution of species.

This new study shows that genes -- which are parts of double-stranded DNA with a double-helix structure containing a pattern of chemical bases - can recognise other genes with a similar pattern of chemical bases.

This ability to seek each other out could be the key to how genes identify one another and align with each other in order to begin the process of 'homologous recombination' -- whereby two double-helix DNA molecules come together, break open, swap a section of genetic information, and then close themselves up again.

Recombination is an important process which plays a key role in evolution and natural selection, and is also central to the body's ability to repair damaged DNA. Before now, scientists have not known exactly how suitable pairs of genes find each other in order for this process to begin.

The authors of the new study carried out a series of experiments in order to test the theory, first developed in 2001 by two members of this team, that long pieces of identical double-stranded DNA could identify each other merely as a result of complementary patterns of electrical charges which they both carry. They wanted to verify that this could indeed occur without physical contact between the two molecules, or the facilitating presence of proteins.

Previous studies have suggested that proteins are involved in the recognition process when it occurs between short strands of DNA which only have about 10 pairs of chemical bases. This new research shows that much longer strands of DNA with hundreds of pairs of chemical bases seem able to recognise each other as a whole without protein involvement. According to the theory, this recognition mechanism is stronger the longer the genes are.

The researchers observed the behaviour of fluorescently tagged DNA molecules in a pure solution. They found that DNA molecules with identical patterns of chemical bases were approximately twice as likely to gather together than DNA molecules with different sequences.

Professor Alexei Kornyshev from Imperial College London, one of the study's authors, explains the significance of the team's results: "Seeing these identical DNA molecules seeking each other out in a crowd, without any external help, is very exciting indeed. This could provide a driving force for similar genes to begin the complex process of recombination without the help of proteins or other biological factors. Our team's experimental results seem to support these expectations."

Understanding the precise mechanism of the primary recognition stage of genetic recombination may shed light on how to avoid or minimise recombination errors in evolution, natural selection and DNA repair. This is important because such errors are believed to cause a number of genetically determined diseases including cancers and some forms of Alzheimer's, as well as contributing to ageing. Understanding this mechanism is also essential for refining precise artificial recombination techniques for biotechnologies and gene therapies of the future.

The team is now working on a set of further experiments to determine exactly how these interactions work, including the predicted length dependence. In addition, further studies are needed to ascertain whether this interaction, discovered in a test tube, occurs in the highly complex environment of a living cell.

The study was carried out by researchers at Imperial College London and the National Institute of Health (NIH) in the USA. The work was funded in the UK by the EPSRC and supported by the NIH Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Journal reference: Geoff S. Baldwin, Nicholas J. Brooks, Rebecca E. Robson, Aaron Wynveen, Arach Goldar, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev. 'DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment', Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 23 January 2008.

Comments 1 - 26 of 26 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #116738 by MPhil on January 27, 2008 at 10:05 am

 avatarI can already hear the theists trying to squeeze god in that gap. Prepare for it, if this is ever to be widely known.

Other Comments by MPhil

2. Comment #116741 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 10:15 am

 avatarPutting a god in that gap probably wouldn't be wise. It will shortly be filled by science and that god will be squeezed out again. Every time a gap that somebody put a god in is filled by science, people begin to doubt that god more. This is how I lost faith. I couldn't see a place for a god to fit in because so many things didn't need a god.

Other Comments by Deepthought

3. Comment #116747 by jaytee_555 on January 27, 2008 at 10:30 am

It's obvious! The flourescent bits of DNA found each other easily because they were glowing in the dark.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

4. Comment #116758 by Mike O'Risal on January 27, 2008 at 10:49 am

 avatarI find the use of the word "telepathic" to be rather unfortunate in this context. My first thoughts on reading this had more to do with complementary distribution of charges across the surfaces of complementary strands of DNA in homologous genes... perhaps something along the lines of Van der Waal's force at work.

But telepathy? C'mon. Now we'll have the Woo Crowd breaking out Ouija boards to divine the distribution of alleles in zygotes!

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

5. Comment #116788 by tybowen on January 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

 avatarI agree that "telepathic" is a poor word to use. When I first read the title I was thinking it was going to be from the onion or something. The article is interesting however. I just got a copy of the journal article to read so that will be even more exciting.

Other Comments by tybowen

6. Comment #116795 by Geoff on January 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm

 avatarThe use of "telepathic" (even in quotes, as they did) annoyed me, too. The article does go on to explain that it isn't anything to do with telepathy, but how often to we see the god-botherers fail to raed past a title? Their criticisms of, for example, The Selfish Gene demonstrate that pretty well.

Fascinating article otherwise, though.

Other Comments by Geoff

7. Comment #116822 by Gunnar on January 27, 2008 at 2:35 pm

 avatarI feel that the phrase "Green-beard effect" should be uttered somewhere in this setting

Other Comments by Gunnar

8. Comment #116850 by Tatarize on January 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm

It doesn't matter how quickly the gap is filled. How many instantly filled gaps are still propped up as problematic.

The dust on the moon will be miles thick!

Other Comments by Tatarize

9. Comment #116862 by notsobad on January 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm

 avatar
The authors of the new study carried out a series of experiments in order to test the theory

...hypothesis?
long pieces of identical double-stranded DNA could identify each other merely as a result of complementary patterns of electrical charges which they both carry.

This is an important part since the title and introduction make it seem like there is some kind of out-of-this-world cooperation. Of course, we understand that it's just a word play, but the author should be more careful about his choice of words because it can get misunderstood by the general public.

Other Comments by notsobad

10. Comment #116938 by drcancerman on January 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm

 avatar
This is an important part since the title and introduction make it seem like there is some kind of out-of-this-world cooperation. Of course, we understand that it's just a word play, but the author should be more careful about his choice of words because it can get misunderstood by the general public.


SPECIALLY creationists(emphasis on these 2 words)

I'm already predicting long and painful hours trying to explain to a roc...errmmm creationist this things. If they can't understand the simple thermodynamics laws, gravity and evolution itself...imagine this!

Even using the analogy and fact of the Lightning and Zeus, they CAN'T get it.

Other Comments by drcancerman

11. Comment #116943 by sarah95 on January 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm

 avatarI agree that the word "Telepathic" shouldn't be used here.
Notsobad also aptly pointed out a terrible mix-up of the terms theory and hypothesis.
This is the sort of stuff that we need Richard for. Clear, concise, and nonsense-free explaination. The writers at Science Daily need a tutorial in non-confusion from our great Professor. Without it, their small mistakes will play into the hands of pseudo-scientific gap-worshippers(who, as Geoff observed, are prone to not reading past the title of any scientific work).

Other Comments by sarah95

12. Comment #116949 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I dont see any gap here. The similarity in bases probably creates favorable interactions.

Other Comments by righton

13. Comment #116950 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Agree that telepathic is a horrible word. Journalists seem to use very bad words when describing new scientific breakthroughs. I wonder who is behind that?

Other Comments by righton

14. Comment #116953 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

I dont see any gap here. The similarity in bases probably creates favorable interactions.


The big deal is that this is working with double-stranded DNA. It is pretty easy for a strand of single-stranded DNA to match up with another strand with the appropriate sequence, because the appropriate bits of the nucleotides are exposed. This is ana effect operating even when the nucleotides are tucked away with a helix. That should be rather unexpected, especially as this seems to operate through electric charges. Water is not very good at letting electrostatic charges have influence over long distances. This is because water molecules are quite polar (have well-separated positive and negative charges). This means that water molecules will tend to be attracted to, and enclose, charges on other molecules, screening them.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #116955 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

The bases are not necesarily completely tucked away. Restriction enzymes are able to identify specific sequences of double stranded DNA.

Other Comments by righton

16. Comment #116956 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 10:30 pm

I don think it happens over long distances. THe effect sounds like it is subtle as in they dont pair together strongly. If they happen to come into close proximity of each other then the electronegative interactions are seen.

Other Comments by righton

17. Comment #116957 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 pm

The bases are not necesarily completely tucked away. Restriction enzymes are able to identify specific sequences of double stranded DNA.


They aren't that exposed. A restriction enzyme can to tuck into the grooves of the double helix to detect sequences, but the bases in two adjacent double helices aren't that close to each other.

I don think it happens over long distances. THe effect sounds like it is subtle as in they dont pair together strongly. If they happen to come into close proximity of each other then the electronegative interactions are seen.


In aqueous solution, "long distance" for electrostatic interaction is more than a few water molecule radii apart.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #116959 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 10:51 pm

"In aqueous solution, "long distance" for electrostatic interaction is more than a few water molecule radii apart."

I dont understand what your saying with this.

There are plenty of very subtle interactions in molecular biology and it just doesnt seem that suprising to me. If these similar pieces of dsDNA happen to come into close proximity of each other they will stay close due to a subtle favorable interaction between electronegative charges on the surface of the molecules.

Other Comments by righton

19. Comment #116963 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 11:05 pm

I dont understand what your saying with this.


Water is very polar. It has highly positive parts (the hydrogen atoms) and highly negative parts (the oxygen atom). Because of this, it interacts strongly with charged ions, or charged areas on other molecules. Suppose you have a highly positively charged area on a large molecule. What will happen is that water molecules will tend to cluster around that charge, with the oxygen atoms facing towards it. This has two effects ... it tends to "screen" the charge, making it appear less intense, and it will also act as a barrier, making the approach of other molecules more difficult.

There are plenty of very subtle interactions in molecular biology and it just doesnt seem that suprising to me. If these similar pieces of dsDNA happen to come into close proximity of each other they will stay close due to a subtle favorable interaction between electronegative charges on the surface of the molecules.


electrostatic interactions generally only happen at very close ranges. The long-range interactions tend to be through dispersion forces, which are normally considered weak.

Water is a strange environment!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #116965 by righton on January 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm

"According to the theory, this recognition mechanism is stronger the longer the genes are."

The affect is cumulative. Either the bases are causing this or God is interveneing. Soon we will know how this works, science rules.

Other Comments by righton

21. Comment #117010 by bugaboo on January 28, 2008 at 3:35 am

Have'nt read the article.A double helix is a not a rigid structure but "breaths", and so perhaps the phenomenon could be explained by intermittant base pairing.

Other Comments by bugaboo

22. Comment #117013 by ianmkz on January 28, 2008 at 4:35 am

 avatar
Water is not very good at letting electrostatic charges have influence over long distances.

So presumably the trick is to herd the homologous regions into close physical proximity. In meiosis this is done via intermediary proteins associating with the centromere. Once tethered at a common point, association of homologous sequences seems a slam dunk.
When not mediated by proteins, as in the case of this paper, it does seem to be an impressive trick that homologous sequences can "find" each other - although the homologous sequences were only twice as likely to be found together as non-homologous sequences. This suggests that DNA likes to clump in the test environment, and that homologous DNA is more likely to stay clumped.

Other Comments by ianmkz

23. Comment #117167 by Duff on January 28, 2008 at 11:13 am

The writers of this paper should be dope slapped for using the word telepathic. They then go on to correctly state that the attraction is not magically telepathic but due to "...complementary patterns of electrical charges...". Well, duh!

Don't they know about the morons and woo woos lurking out there?

Other Comments by Duff

24. Comment #121480 by Geoff Baldwin on February 3, 2008 at 1:16 pm

To Duff - and anyone else who has commented on the use of the word 'telepathic'. Can I please make clear that this word was not used by the authors of the scientific paper published in J. Phys. Chem. B.
You are entirely correct to state that the use of the word is erroneous and we do not support it.

Other Comments by Geoff Baldwin

25. Comment #121503 by Geoff on February 3, 2008 at 2:02 pm

 avatarThanks for that clarification, Geoff, I rather suspected that.

My congratulations to you and your colleagues on a fascinating piece of research (oh, and welcome to RDF, by the way!).

I'd expect such inappropriate sub-editing in a general newspaper; it's more disappointing on a popular science website.

Having looked at some of the other articles, they don't always seem to change the titles that much - perhaps 'DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment' wasn't catchy enough for them?

Apart from that, though, I do recommend the sciencedaily site (for non-experts, at least)

Other Comments by Geoff

26. Comment #123792 by davidstvz on February 7, 2008 at 4:11 pm

What a stupid title for this article.

Other Comments by davidstvz
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: