What researchers learned as they dug through the most highly cited genomes published this year. By Abby Olena | December 26, 2013
Excerpt: “Researchers sequenced DNA from the liver tissue of a female Yunnan black goat (Capra hircus), one of more than 1,000 goat breeds. They annotated more than 22,000 protein-coding and nearly 490 miRNA genes. The researchers also sequenced and compared the transcriptomes from two different types of hair follicles of an Inner Mongolia cashmere goat. They found 51 genes that were differentially expressed between the two follicles—one that makes typical goat hair and another, which is responsible for the production of soft cashmere fibers.”
Excerpt: “We also identified 487 microRNA (miRNA) genes, of which 157 were located in 44 genomic clusters containing from 2 to 46 miRNA genes (Supplementary Fig. 10a). This distribution pattern is similar to that of cattle. However, there are several miRNA gene clusters specific to goats (Supplementary Fig. 10b). The largest miRNA gene cluster is located on goat chromosome 21 (Supplementary Fig. 11), which is a conserved mammalian miRNA cluster. We used miRNA sequences in other species (human, cattle, dog, chimpanzee, mouse and rat) to identify goat-specific miRNA genes, and found six goat-specific miRNA genes in total (Supplementary Table 12), which have typical miRNA structures (Supplementary Fig. 12) and many target genes (Supplementary Fig. 13).”
My comment: The microRNA (miRNA) : messenger RNA (mRNA) balance appears to be responsible for biophysically-constrained thermodynamically-controlled intercellular signaling, transcription, stochastic gene expression, and organism-level thermoregulation. Similarities across species in what appears to be the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled seemingly futile thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation link differences in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled alternative splicings of pre-mRNA to amino acid substitutions in the mouse to human model of ecological adaptations sans mutations. See for review:
Apparently, the differences in goat hair that were reported here have not been linked to any model of ecological adaptations, but at least there is no mention of mutation-initiated natural selection. Therefore, I am privileged to mention once again that the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection is a ridiculous misrepresentation of biological facts, which may be why there is no mention of it here.
If mutation-driven evolution and natural selection for visually perceived phenotypic characteristics were never mentioned again in any publication by serious scientists, perhaps those topics would also be eliminated from consideration by evolutionary theorists. Is anyone besides me willing to second Dobzhansky’s (1964) thoughts: “The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
Why aren’t others trying to make what is currently known about ecological adaptations known to evolutionary theorists and philosophers? Please join me in making a 2014 New Year’s resolution to stop laughing at the theorists and try harder to teach them about biology. Serious scientist should get serious about helping the bird-watchers and butterfly collectors understand why Dobzhansky was so critical about the possibility that they would ever contribute to the understanding of ecological adaptations in the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.’ Please tell them about the miRNA mRNA balance. After the shock wears off, they may thank you.
Happy New Year!