Hacker News Reader

Comment by moomin | Hacker News Reader

Surely prion diseases are an example of protein to protein, which the article specifically says was part of the CD?

I’m not unhappy with the tone of the article suggesting that Watson, yet again, vastly misunderstood the work of his betters while taking credit for it.

View on HN

The “dogma” is “information flow from proteins back to genetic material does not occur” not that proteins can’t transfer information. Regardless of considering “shape” as information or not, the transfer is not violating that statement, the information is fully trapped in the protein and not flowed back to DNA.

The article explicitly lists protein -> protein as one of the 3 prohibited information flows.

the article argues that prions do not facilitate the flow of information in the same way the Dogma states. They simply change the way the protein is folded, but not the amino acids in the structure. I disagree with this (I have papers in this field that say the opposite), but that is the argument.

As the first figure says:

> Information here means the sequence of the amino acid residues, or other sequences related to it.

Prions do not transfer sequence information between proteins, so this is in keeping with Crick's idea.

I've always assumed that Watson understood Crick's idea perfectly well, but used the simpler formulation because it was easier to communicate, while still being mostly accurate.

Yes, that is highly likely. Most causality flows in the same direct—from DNA variants through RNA variants, through protein variance to differences in phenotypes.

Many many exceptions, but this is the main causal flow.

I think if prions were considered violations of CD then enzymes or at least ribosomes would be considered to violate CD as well.

ribosomes are not proteins though.

(to clarify: Ribosomes are composed of mostly protein; they are protein/RNA complexes in which the enzymatic functionality is implemented by RNA enzymes that are decorated with proteins that stabilize the complex, as well as increase its efficiency).

It seems the articles purpose is less about what could best be described as dunking on what 10th graders are taught about molecular biology for simplicity’s sake, and more about discrediting Watson by reframing the past, and chipping away at his legacy because of… well, you know.

What?

Because...you know...he stole the DNA discovery from Rosalind Franklin

Don’t forget the eugenics. Dude did an awfully thorough job of trashing his own reputation.

Hanging your name on things has always been a double-edged sword in any context, but science is actively held back by cults of personality. Your contributions might be foundational, but your legacy is harmful.

> Watson, yet again, vastly misunderstood the work of his betters while taking credit for it.

Is this regarding Rosalind Franklin's data?

I mean, there’s that, there’s the eugenics stuff… with Watson it’s a bit of a target-rich environment.

> eugenics stuff

Not really taking credit or misunderstanding the work of his betters.

If you don’t think eugenics involves misunderstanding inheritability I don’t know what to tell you.

>...Specifically, prion proteins do not change the sequence of amino acids; they instead transmit their pathological shape to otherwise “healthy” proteins, causing them to misfold in the same way. Prion diseases do not alter the validity of the Central Dogma because they don’t alter any genetic sequences.

...did you read it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com