-
Posted on August 9th, 2011
DNAWellness
Testing for fetal DNA in a pregnant woman’s blood can accurately predict the child’s sex, researchers have found.
In a review of previous research, such tests were able to accurately pin down sex at least 95 percent of the time, Stephanie Devaney of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. and colleagues reported in the August 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Non-invasive DNA testing may provide an alternative to more invasive tests, such as chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis — which can carry a slight risk of pregnancy loss — for determining the gender of a fetus and related heritable disorders, the researchers wrote.
Read this story on www.medpagetoday.com.
Those disorders include ambiguous genitalia, X-linked conditions, and single-gene disorders such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
The presence of cell-free circulating Y-chromosome DNA sequences in the blood of pregnant women was first described in 1997, and has been widely studied since then, albeit in studies that have been limited methodologically.
In some countries — the Netherlands, U.K., France, and Spain — cell-free fetal DNA testing has already become a part of routine clinical care despite the lack of large performance studies.
Gender can typically be accurately assessed via sonogram at 13 weeks, but diagnosis with ultrasound isn’t always possible, the researchers explained, and earlier diagnosis is often favorable.
In order to look at overall performance of the blood tests, the researchers conducted a review and meta-analysis of 57 studies conducted between Jan. 1, 1997 and April 17, 2011, totaling 80 data sets on 3,524 male-bearing and 3,017 female-bearing pregnancies.
Generally, they found high sensitivity and specificity for Y-chromosome detection in maternal blood (95 percent and 99 percent, respectively).
They also found that performance was best when performed at 20 weeks’ gestation or later.
Tests done using urine samples and those run prior to seven weeks’ gestation were unreliable, the researchers said.
Devaney and colleagues noted that a disadvantage of fetal DNA blood testing is the need to validate female sex, because the test looks for male, or Y-chromosome, DNA. Also, the test is not currently available at the doctor’s office, has not yet been approved by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), and is not currently reimbursed by insurers.
They also noted that many of the included studies were small, so it would be “beneficial to help validate test performance under highly controlled testing conditions.”
This could also help test manufacturers to “ensure that their claims are accurate,” as some companies that directly market the tests to consumers say their products have an accuracy of 95 percent to 99 percent as early as five to seven weeks’ gestation.
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ParentingResourceCenter/fetal-dna-test-moms-blood-predicts-babys-sex/story?id=14266954
-
Posted on July 19th, 2011
DNAWellness
If the same is true for human sperm, men could pass genetic defects caused by passive smoking to their children
Alok Jha, science correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 July 2011 19.59 BST
Passive smoking may cause mutations in the DNA of sperm, according to a study in mice. The finding suggests that men exposed to second-hand smoke could pass on any resulting genetic abnormalities to their children.
Men who smoke are known to be at higher risk of developing abnormalities in their sperm, including reduced motility and increased DNA damage. “Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that there is enough evidence to link paternal smoking in humans with increased risk of childhood cancer, suggesting that tobacco smoking causes heritable germ cell mutation in humans,” wrote Francesco Marchetti of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, who led the new research, in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Allan Pacey, a fertility expert at the University of Sheffield, said: “What we don’t know, and what we overlook, is the influence of passive smoking. I guess it’s no surprise that passive smoking causes the same kind of damage, because you’re just inhaling the same stuff, albeit at different levels.”
In Marchetti’s study, 32 mice were exposed to the total amount of smoke generated by between three and 16 cigarettes, for varying times up to 90 minutes per day for two weeks. The different conditions modelled the effects of low and high doses of direct smoking and passive smoking. The scientists then examined the sperm of these mice six weeks later, looking at a region of their DNA that doesn’t code for proteins.
The frequency of mutations in the sperm of control mice – which were not exposed to cigarette smoke – was around 1.3%-1.5%. In those mice simulating direct smoking, the average mutation rate was 4% and 4.7% for low and high doses. For those mice simulating passive smoking, mutation rates were 4.6% and 2.6% for low and high doses respectively.
The researchers wrote that while it wasn’t clear whether the same relationship would apply to regions of the genome that code for proteins, “our data suggest that paternal exposure to second-hand smoke may have reproductive consequences that go beyond the passive smoker.”
Marchetti said that the findings provided “compelling evidence in support of the argument that passive smoking should be regarded as a germ cell mutagen in humans”. Male exposure to second-hand smoke was likely to have harmful consequences for reproduction similar to those from first-hand smoke.
Pacey said that, in human terms, the level of “passive smoking” the mice were exposed to in the study was high. “Most people’s experience of passive smoking is maybe on a Friday night entering and exiting a pub. And it might be the odd whiff when somebody exhales when you’re walking down the street.”
He said that while the long-term consequences for human health were uncertain, the advice for would-be fathers was clear. “If you’re trying to conceive, stopping smoking is good advice and removing yourself from the influences of passive smoking is good advice,” he said. “The advice to any man who wants to be a father is to stop smoking at least three months before he tries.”
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/18/passive-smoking-dna-sperm-mice
-
Posted on September 30th, 2010
DNAWellness
Sep 30, 2010 – usatoday.com
A long-lost stash of correspondence between key players in the discovery of the structure of DNA is revealed in the journal Nature this week.
The letters, postcards and ephemera are from the papers of Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, for which he won a shared Nobel prize in 1962. They had long been believed to be lost, “thrown away without my knowledge by an over-efficient secretary,” in Crick’s words
But actually they’d been mixed in with the papers of Sydney Brenner, another researcher at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, during one of several moves of the researchers’ shared offices. They were discovered earlier this year when Alexander Gann and Jan Witkowski were going through them at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Library, to which Brenner had donated his ‘papers.
Dating from 1950 to 1976, the trove includes over 30 letters. The correspondence gives an intimate portrait of the rivalries between researchers and laboratories, the forward lurch of scientific progress, the race to be first to publish and some fairly negative statements directed at Rosalind Franklin, an X-ray crystallographer whose contribution to the discovery of DNA’s structure has long been controversial.
As the labs are circling around the problem, Crick and James Watson, writing to Maurice Wilkins in 1951, says “…so cheer up and take it from us that even if we kicked you in the pants it was between friends.” The three ended up winning the prize jointly for the discovery.
When Franklin is getting ready to leave to work in a different research group in London in 1953, Wilkins wrote to Crick “I hope the smoke of witchcraft will soon be getting out of our eyes.”
In March of 1953, as three groups, Watson and Crick, Wilkins and Franklin, were readying manuscripts to publish in Nature about the discovery, Wilkins writes to Crick “I feel your remarks about Bruce’s model, in your note, not in very good style. Why be bitter about it?”
This trove of correspondence, while offering no earth-shattering revelations, helps flesh out the background of one of the most important discoveries in biology of the 20th century.
By Elizabeth Weise
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/09/long-lost-correspondence-trove-illuminates-dna-discovery/1
-
Posted on May 7th, 2010
DNAWellness
By Lisa Richwine
GAITHERSBURG, Md., May 7 (Reuters) – Benefits from rotavirus vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK.L) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N) outweigh any risk from recently discovered contamination with a pig virus, members of a U.S. advisory panel said on Friday.
Pieces of DNA from porcine circovirus (PCV) have been detected in Glaxo’s Rotarix and Merck’s Rotateq. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said there was no evidence the virus harms people.
Several members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel said the vaccines carried impressive benefits from preventing rotavirus, which can cause fatal diarrhea, and agreed there was no sign so far of illness in people from PCV.
Any risks “are at best theoretical,” said Dr. Melinda Wharton, a panelist and deputy director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
“Based on where we are with current knowledge, to me the known benefits clearly outweigh the risks,” she said.
The panel did not take any votes on formal recommendations to the agency.
In March the FDA advised doctors to stop using Rotarix after PCV-1 was found in the vaccine. Merck then tested its vaccine and the FDA announced on Thursday the company found pieces of DNA from PCV-1 and a related virus, PCV-2.
The FDA said it wanted the advisory panel’s input before making new recommendations on either vaccine. The agency will issue its latest advice “in the very near future,” said Karen Midthun, acting head of the FDA unit that reviews vaccines. “We need to consider this very expeditiously,” she told reporters.
Both PCV1 and PCV2 are common in pigs but neither is known to cause illness in humans, the FDA said. PCV2 is believed to cause postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome in young piglets, marked by diarrhea and an inability to gain weight.
Advisory panel members urged further study to check for any long-term effects from PCV. Some also said parents needed to be told about the PCV finding.
“The fact that it poses no risk in the short term is certainly comforting. I don’t think that necessarily says it’s risk-free in the long term,” said panelist Stephen Hughes, head of the HIV drug resistance program at the National Cancer Institute.
Some panelists said they wanted to know more about PCV2. The committee heard less about that type as Merck’s finding was so recent. The meeting was originally scheduled just to discuss the Glaxo vaccine.
PCV1 apparently has been in Glaxo’s vaccine since it was first developed, the company said. Testing found DNA from the virus in master cells used to make the product.
The material may have come from a pig-derived enzyme called trypsin used early in development, Glaxo officials said.
“All available data support this is a manufacturing quality issue and not a safety issue. PCV1 does not pose a risk for infants vaccinated with Rotarix,” said Dr. Barbara Howe, a Glaxo vice president.
Glaxo said it planned to develop a rotavirus vaccine free from PCV1 but the process would take time.
Merck was not scheduled to speak at the meeting, but the company said on Thursday the levels of DNA from PCV were low in Rotateq and there was no sign it was harmful to people.
Vaccines against rotavirus have a troubled history. Wyeth’s Rotashield was pulled off the market in 1999 after it was linked with a rare but deadly bowel obstruction.
Rotavirus kills more than 500,000 infants each year, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. In the United States, deaths from the virus are rare but it caused more than 50,000 U.S. hospitalizations annually before Merck’s vaccine won FDA approval in 2006.
The World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency have not recommended any changes in rotavirus vaccine use in Europe or developing countries.
In 2009, sales of Merck’s vaccine totaled $522 million, including $468 million from the United States.
Most of Glaxo’s rotavirus vaccine sales occur outside the United States. Worldwide sales in 2009 were $440 million, including $118 million from the United States. Glaxo’s vaccine won U.S. approval in 2008. (Reporting by Lisa Richwine, editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Carol Bishopric)
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0712973220100507
-
Posted on November 13th, 2009
DNAWellness
In Love & Sex by Jeffery , on Friday, November 13, 2009, 6:33 AM (PST)
Nothing says romance like deoxyribonucleic acid.
If you’ve been looking for love in all the wrong places, maybe you should look a little bit deeper… like in your DNA. In the latest trend in online matchmaking, genetic testing companies are saying your best bet for true romance could be in a quick cheek swab.
Through genetic testing, some companies are saying you can be provided with a better biological match, which theoretically could mean someone you’ll get along with better and possibly even create healthier children with.
According to Eric Holzle, founder of ScientificMatch.com, one of the first sites to offer the service, the idea of genetic testing could revolutionize matchmaking. “How many dating services can you think of where they can suggest you might have better children?” he said.
Folks who sign up for the service get a packet in the mail which includes a cheek swab for skin cells. They then mail it back and within two weeks an analysis is completed, and the swabee can post pictures and profile information to the site. The test, like the one soon to be launched by Swiss company GenePartner, will run the lovelorn around $100.
Still, not everyone is taken with the idea. Dr. Rocio Moran, medical director of the General Genetics Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, calls the idea “ridiculous.”
“They are just trying to make a buck,” she said. “That if it’s genetic, it must be real science.”
So what do you think? Can love be found deep down in our chemical makeups, or is it more complicated than just having the right combination of amino acids?
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/New-Dating-Service-Tests-Your-DNA-for-the-Right-Match/26323.html
-
Posted on November 5th, 2009
DNAWellness
ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2009) — Scientists have an ambitious new strategy for untangling the evolutionary history of humans and their biological relatives: Create a genetic menagerie made of the DNA of more than 10,000 vertebrate species. The plan, proposed by an international consortium of scientists, is to obtain, preserve, and sequence the DNA of approximately one species for each genus of living mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.
Scientists involved in the Genome 10K Project are assembling specimens of thousands of animals spanning a broad range of evolutionary diversity. (Credit: Photos courtesy of San Diego Zoo)
“Understanding the evolution of the vertebrates is one of the greatest detective stories in science,” said David Haussler, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). “No one has ever really known how the elephant got its trunk, or how the leopard got its spots. This project will lay the foundation for work that will answer those questions and many others.”
Known as the Genome 10K Project, the approximately $50 million initiative is “tremendously exciting science that will have great benefits for human and animal health,” Haussler said. “Within our lifetimes, we could get a glimpse of the genetic changes that have given rise to some of the most diverse life forms on the planet.”
Haussler is one of the lead authors of an article, published online November 5, 2009, in the Journal of Heredity, that outlines the project. The other lead authors include Stephen J. O’Brien, chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute, and Oliver A. Ryder, director of genetics at the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research and adjunct professor of biology at the University of California, San Diego. Coauthors and additional authors, who together make up a group called the Genome 10K Community of Scientists (G10KCOS), include geneticists, paleontologists, ecologists, conservationists, and other scientists representing major zoos, museums, research centers, and universities around the world.
The proposal originated at a meeting Haussler hosted at UCSC in April 2009. More than 50 scientists came together to discuss the merits of the project and its daunting logistic and financial challenges. “Some of the people at the meeting were initially skeptical,” Haussler said. “But they quickly recognized the many advantages of a shared infrastructure and data analysis system.”
The primary impetus behind the proposal is the rapidly expanding capability of DNA sequencers and the associated decline in sequencing costs. “We’ll soon be in a situation where it will cost only a few thousand dollars to sequence a genome,” Haussler said. “At that point, most of the cost will be getting samples, managing the project, and handling data.”
All living vertebrates descend from a single marine species that lived 500-600 million years ago. Paleontologists do not know much about the physical appearance of that species, but because all of its descendents share certain characteristics, they know that it had segmented muscles, a forebrain, midbrain, and hind brain attached to spinal cord structures, and a sophisticated innate immune system.
That primitive vertebrate gave rise to what Haussler calls “one of the most spectacularly malleable branches of life.” Vertebrates spread throughout the oceans, conquered land, and eventually took to the air. Over the course of time they produced stunning innovations, including multichambered hearts, bones and teeth, an internal skeleton that has supported the largest aquatic and terrestrial animals on the planet, and a species of primate — Homo sapiens — that has produced sophisticated language, culture, and technology.
By sequencing the DNA of 10,000 vertebrates — roughly one-sixth of the 60,000 species estimated to be living today — biologists will be able to reconstruct the genetic changes that gave rise to this astonishing diversity. Some parts of our DNA are very similar to the DNA of other vertebrates, reflecting our descent from a common ancestor, while other parts are markedly different. “We can understand the function of elements in the human genome by seeing what parts of the genome have changed and what parts have not changed in humans and other animals,” said Haussler.
The project also will help conservation efforts by documenting the genomes and genetic diversity of threatened and endangered vertebrate species. By helping scientists predict how species will respond to climate change, pollution, emerging diseases, and invasive competitors, it will support the assessment, monitoring, and management of biological diversity.
The G10KCOS consortium has been developing guidelines for the collection, preservation, and documentation of cell lines and DNA samples. It also has been discussing potential public and private sources of funding for the project — estimated at $50 million if the price of handling and sequencing each DNA sample eventually falls to $5,000. Said Haussler: “How do you raise $50 million? Ask nicely and make a strong case.”
In planning the project, the G10KCOS group has used the Human Genome Project as a model. For example, the consortium plans to release sequencing data immediately according to standards developed for the sequencing of the human genome. Haussler also cited that project, which began before needed sequencing technologies were available, as evidence that it is worthwhile to begin planning for the Genome 10K Project before the cost of sequencing falls enough to make it feasible. “The time to start is now, or the job will get away from us,” said Haussler. “The sequencing machines will be waiting, but the samples won’t be ready.”
-
Posted on November 3rd, 2009
DNAWellness
By Landon Hall
Orange County Register
SANTA ANA, Calif. — We might never be able to feel sympathy for the speeding driver who swerves into our lane, barely missing the bumper, only to cut back into his original lane a quarter-mile later. But new research may at least help us understand him.
A new study at the University of California, Irvine, reveals that people with a gene variation that gives them less of a brain protein linked to memory retention performed more than 20% worse in a driving simulation than people who had higher levels of the protein.
So can lousy drivers blame their lack of awareness, slow reaction time and ill-considered risk-taking — in short, their infuriating awfulness — on their DNA? Since about 1 in 3 Americans appears to have the gene abnormality, not necessarily. But it could be a factor.
“Any behavior is the sum total of a number of different genes and factors, but this definitely suggests that this particular gene does affect short-term motor learning,” said Stephanie McHughen, a graduate student in UCI’s Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology and the lead author of the study, which appeared recently in the journal Cerebral Cortex.
The researchers, led by Dr. Steven Cramer, chose 29 healthy volunteers ages 18-30. Twenty-two of the subjects had the normal gene that secretes a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF. The protein facilitates communication among brain cells
and keeps the memory fresh. The other seven subjects were known to have the gene variant, which limits the secretion of BDNF.
The subjects were asked to drive a video game-like simulator, complete with steering wheel and a monitor showing a racetrack, for 15 laps. The course was filled with tricky curves, and the drivers were graded on how far they deviated from the center.
Not only did the protein-deficient drivers perform worse on the initial exercise, they also retained less information about the course than their protein-rich counterparts when the exercise was repeated four days later.
While the test group was small, the research has implications for people who have suffered memory loss from brain or spinal trauma, such as accidents or strokes.
BDNF “gushes out” after such an event, said Cramer, an associate professor in UCI’s Neurology and Anatomy and Neurobiology departments.
But if the gene variant reduces the level of secreted BDNF in these victims, it also could slow their cognitive and motor-skill development as they recover.
“Let’s assume that evidence this compass is pointing to is true: that one-third of people have lesser outcomes after an injury as a result of this genetic variation,” Cramer said. “Then we need to do something different for these people.”
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://bit.ly/2Qqbzo
-
Posted on October 29th, 2009
DNAWellness
Omar El Akkad Technology writer
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009 12:00AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Oct. 30, 2009 3:12AM EDT
Art-on-canvas company stretches its concept
Co-founders of CanvasPop are Nazim Ahmed, left, and Adrian Salamunovic. Blair Gable for The Globe and Mail
Ottawa outfit that creates images based on a customer’s DNA launches a new business – transforming snapshots into wall art. The idea is to capitalize on the desire for custom everything.
When DNA 11 started up in 2005, the company hoped to capitalize on the Internet’s power to deliver on-demand custom products.
In that respect, the Ottawa-based startup succeeded. Indeed, its product line might even be a little too custom: Users send in a DNA sample in the form of a cheek swab, and the company creates artwork based on a visualization of that sample. The product is unique, relatively expensive and very, very niche.
Now, the minds behind DNA 11 have launched another business, hoping to better manage the line between customization and mass appeal. This time, the input is photos and digital artwork instead of DNA samples and fingerprints, and the output is large canvas prints. The goal is to turn that photo on your iPhone into a portrait on your wall.
Launched less than a month ago, CanvasPop is built almost entirely on DNA 11′s existing resources, says Adrian Salamunovic, co-founder of both companies.
The business model is also similar, based on the premise that customers will pay for products they can be sure nobody else has.
“We knew early on that on-demand era was coming,” says Mr. Salamunovic, a serial entrepreneur who started his first Web development company at age 16. “More and more companies were looking to customize everything from blue jeans to M&Ms.”
CanvasPop allows customers to upload photos or digital artwork to the site and select the size and style of the canvas they wish to have made. Whereas DNA portraits cost between $200 and about $1,200, the canvas business is tailored toward a lower end of the market, with prices starting at about $40 and topping out at around $540.
There’s no shortage of players already in the market into which CanvasPop is wading. T-shirt makers have been in the online custom printing business for years, and there’s no shortage of companies – both physical and virtual – that will turn images into canvases.
However the company is trying to differentiate itself in two ways. The first is its heavy emphasis on design along with custom sizing. CanvasPop offers customers a variety of styles and options, such as splitting an image into a triptych.
Users can also select a number of filters to apply to the image – a stylistic process that will look familiar to anyone who has used photo manipulation software such as Adobe’s Photoshop.
“In canvas print there really is no design leader,” Mr. Salamunovic says. “There’s no Apple Computer Corp. of this industry.”
But where CanvasPop hopes to really stand out is in the type of images it will process. Traditional printers usually won’t work with images below a certain resolution, since those images have to be enlarged significantly to create the canvas.
However Mr. Salamunovic says the company will accept even very small images. CanvasPop hopes to make that process work by letting users apply filters to the image that will reduce the need for high resolution.
The idea is that a small image may not translate well to a canvas on its own, but if filtered to look like a pencil sketch or an oil painting, for example, it may retain an artistic quality.
That gamble – being able to turn low-resolution photos into wall-worthy art – is at the heart of where CanvasPop hopes to find its market.
The site is actively targeting the massive wealth of photos on the world’s smart phones and on social networking sites such as Facebook, the Web’s largest photo repository. Indeed, much of CanvasPop’s focus in the near future is on making it as easy as possible for users of those platforms to turn their images into artwork.
So far, CanvasPop appears to have at least achieved a less-niche audience than its sister company. Mr. Salamunovic said in three weeks the site is already generating more sales than DNA 11. In fact it was old DNA 11 clients who prompted CanvasPop’s creation, after several customers asked for a similar service for photos.
“Customers have a wealth of knowledge,” Mr. Salamunovic said. “If three people ask for something, chances are 3,000 more want it.”
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://bit.ly/fuN9X
-
Posted on September 8th, 2009
DNAWellness
The article below from differencebetween.net provides a great top-line summary on the difference between DNA and genes using terminology a non-scientist can understand. We hope you find this helpful as you continue your DNA education.
differencebetween.net -
DNA
The terms gene and DNA are often used to mean the same. However, in reality, they stand for very different things. So, next time you want to blame your baldness on your father and don’t know whether to berate your genes or your DNA, take a look at the differences below:
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. This is the chain of ‘ links’ that determines how the different cells in your body will function. Each of these links is called a nucleotide. DNA basically contains two copies of 23 chromosomes each, one from the mother and one from the father of the person. Only some of these complex cells carry the ‘genetic information for your genes. These are the parts that decide what you basically inherit from your parents. This makes genes only a subset of the DNA.
Your genes define the fundamental traits you will inherit from your parents. They are parts of the DNA that determine how the cells are going to live and function. They are special colonies of nucleotides that decide how proteins are going to carry on the process of building and reproducing in your body. All living things depend on their genes to determine how they are going to develop in their lives and how they, in turn are going to pass on their genetic traits to their offspring.
For instance, if you thought about the human body as a book that contained only DNA, the genes would be the chapter containing instructions on how to make proteins and assist in cell production. The other chapters may contain other details like where the cells should start producing new proteins etc.
The DNA is like an instruction booklet that determines the traits you are likely to get. The entire DNA in a human body is packaged in the form of chromosomes. Each of these 
chromosomes has definite characters that will determine a particular trait. This includes such details like your hair color and the color of your eyes. Each of these chapters that contain the codes for a particular trait is known as a gene. So, if you are confused, just think about the gene as a small piece of the total DNA that holds information about a particular trait you have.
The study of genetics has gained widespread acclaim in recent times. However, it was only with the discovery of the DNA that a scientific basis for the genes we inherit was established.
Both DNA and genes are the most basic building blocks of your body. They determine how your cells are going to behave throughout your life. Now you know who to thank for those brains!
Summary:
1. Genes are a part of the DNA.
2. Genes determine the traits you will inherit from your parents, DNA determines a lot more.
3. Genes have been studied for a long time now. The study of DNA is a relatively recent development
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-dna-and-genes/
-
Posted on August 18th, 2009
DNAWellness
Posted: 08/17/2009 04:46:23 PM PDT
Updated: 08/18/2009 11:14:08 AM PDT
Hoping to one day use DNA to make microchips with vastly smaller components than is possible today, scientists with IBM in San Jose and the California Institute of Technology said Monday that they have for the first time coaxed manipulated shapes of the genetic material to collect on specific areas of a silicon wafer.
Caltech researcher Paul Rothmund, who participated in the experiment, previously had formed DNA into triangles and other shapes he termed “origami.” But no one previously had gotten those shapes to align themselves in ways that could be useful in designing semiconductors, said Robert Allen, senior manager of chemistry and functional materials at IBM’s Almaden Research Center.
Allen said the scientists next hope to attach tiny electronic wires and switches to the DNA shapes, a crucial step toward making a microchip. Those chips would be smaller, faster, more energy-efficient and less expensive to manufacture than what is now possible.
“We’re incredibly intrigued by the potential of these things,” said Allen, adding he believes it may be possible to make a DNA microchip within a decade.
Making ever-denser microchips has been the semiconductor industry’s obsession since Gordon Moore, who cofounded Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, proclaimed decades ago that the number of chip transistors would double every year. So far, chip makers have been remarkably successful at fulfilling his prediction.
Whereas some of Intel’s earliest microprocessors had a few thousand transistors, a new one the company is working on will have close to 2 billion on a fingernail-size surface.But shrinking these components is getting enormously expensive and challenges the laws of physics. If microscopic DNA molecules can be used the way the IBM and Caltech scientists envision, chip components could become at least 10 times smaller than they are today.
“This could be called helping the industry maintain Moore’s Law,” Allen said.
As the scientists described in an article published in Nature Nanotechnology, the strands of genetic material first were formed into triangles, a shape chosen merely to demonstrate the concept can work. The triangles were made by mixing long strands of viral DNA with synthetic oligonucleotide strands, which bind to the DNA and cause it to fold in predictable ways.
By forming the DNA into uniform shapes, the scientists believe they can turn the DNA into a kind of scaffold onto which wires and switches made of carbon nanotubes or similar material eventually can be attached.
Although IBM makes microchips, Allen said the company, which has been working on the DNA concept for several years, may wind up licensing the technology to others.
Contact Steve Johnson at 408-920-5043
What IBM and Caltech scientists did
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary genetic material in humans and almost all other organisms. After forming DNA stands into uniform shapes, scientists got the genetic material to collect on pre-specified areas of a silicon wafer.
Why it’s important
The DNA needs to be in a certain shape and alignment so that wires and switches can be attached and it then can function like a traditional microchip. .
When DNA chips could be available
Although much work needs to be done to prove the concept feasible, the researchers hope to make genetically based chips within a decade.
DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13146256?nclick_check=1
-
Social Links