So Genotype has more layers?? Strange, you would expect a musical representation of a phenotype to be more complex and have more layers and the genotype to be more simple and straightforward.

Written by Jeebneus on 21.10.2015 at 16:35

So Genotype has more layers?? Strange, you would expect a musical representation of a phenotype to be more complex and have more layers and the genotype to be more simple and straightforward.

Nah bro. DNA has to be processed before being translated (expressed as protein). This involves cutting out extra sequences in the mRNA. So all of them layers are just the extra RNA sequences that eventually get spliced out before the DNA is expressed as protein. lol

^ best conversation I've seen on MS in while. I'm actually mildly aroused.

Written by O731 on 21.10.2015 at 17:13


Nah bro. DNA has to be processed before being translated (expressed as protein). This involves cutting out extra sequences in the mRNA. So all of them layers are just the extra RNA sequences that eventually get spliced out before the DNA is expressed as protein. lol

Based on your comment, I would assume you think a phenotype is the protein product of a gene? Or was your comment not serious (hence the 'lol')?

Just to argument my statement: A phenotype is all the characteristics we can observe in an organism that are manifestations of the genotype. A genome is simple code-form (AGTC) that can be read as signals: where to splice the mRNA and how to translate the DNA via RNA into protein etc.

Eventually, the function of the protein can be diverse, depending on additional modifications (e.g. glycosylations, phosphorylations), the subcellular localization, differential tissue expression levels, interactions with many other proteins, ... that eventually lead to specific (mis)traits in morphology and behaviour (i.e. the phenotype). As such, a phenotype is a culmination of different proteins working together in an entire organism (and is thus much more complex with a lot more layers) than a genotype which is just a simple code.

Anyway, that is how I would interpret phenotype and genotype...

That means we have to open a biology book to see how extensively DNA and sub-roots of RNA can be used.

Anyhow, Textures's twins is interesting concept.

Look forward.

Written by Jeebneus on 21.10.2015 at 17:47

Written by O731 on 21.10.2015 at 17:13


Nah bro. DNA has to be processed before being translated (expressed as protein). This involves cutting out extra sequences in the mRNA. So all of them layers are just the extra RNA sequences that eventually get spliced out before the DNA is expressed as protein. lol

Based on your comment, I would assume you think a phenotype is the protein product of a gene? Or was your comment not serious (hence the 'lol')?

Just to argument my statement: A phenotype is all the characteristics we can observe in an organism that are manifestations of the genotype. A genome is simple code-form (AGTC) that can be read as signals: where to splice the mRNA and how to translate the DNA via RNA into protein etc.

Eventually, the function of the protein can be diverse, depending on additional modifications (e.g. glycosylations, phosphorylations), the subcellular localization, differential tissue expression levels, interactions with many other proteins, ... that eventually lead to specific (mis)traits in morphology and behaviour (i.e. the phenotype). As such, a phenotype is a culmination of different proteins working together in an entire organism (and is thus much more complex with a lot more layers) than a genotype which is just a simple code.

Anyway, that is how I would interpret phenotype and genotype...

I was being serious, but I get your point. I don't really wanna get into a debate/argument about this because we're just viewing it from different angles.

Written by Jeebneus on 21.10.2015 at 17:47

Just to argument my statement: A phenotype is all the characteristics we can observe in an organism that are manifestations of the genotype.

The distinction is that the genotype contains genetic information for traits that are both expressed (in the phenotype) and not. I can see your logic, but I think Texture's interpretation is a bit more straight forward

Written by O731 on 21.10.2015 at 18:25


I was being serious, but I get your point. I don't really wanna get into a debate/argument about this because were just viewing it from different angles.

I see what you mean now. No need for debate, as your view is indeed from a different angle. It's just in my line of work, so I can get too caught up into this subject

Written by Guest on 21.10.2015 at 17:33

^ best conversation I've seen on MS in while. I'm actually mildly aroused.

Agreed.

Written by LeKiwi on 21.10.2015 at 19:21

The distinction is that the genotype contains genetic information for traits that are both expressed (in the phenotype) and not. I can see your logic, but I think Texture's interpretation is a bit more straight forward

Well, technically, the non-coding DNA (not expressed as protein) still produces several RNAs (rRNA, tRNA, miRNA, snRNA, snoRNA, exRNA etc) that regulate the function of other RNAs or proteins. The other part of the non-coding DNA are regions to which regulatory elements bind to influence expression of the genes. Even the existence of so-called junk DNA (the DNA is supposed to be without any function) is debated among scientist and probably still has some function that eventually results in the complexity of the organism (or the phenotype).

Even then, non-coding DNA probably still has a role in evolution (inducing mutations by recombination for example, or maybe even creating a locus for new genes if you wait long enough), so it is still involved in the manifestation of the phenotype over time. But now I'm talking about even more layers

Humm, humm. Fascinating. Please, proceed.