Bio-Rad has sponsored the development of
this site to advance the productivity of the American Biotechnology sector and the fine people who
work in it across the country. We invite readers to contribute content:
posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music
downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org more information.
Download the Protein Blotting Guide
Download the Stem Cell Guide for Life Science Researchers
Long segments of RNA—encoded in our DNA but not translated into protein—are key to physically manipulating DNA in order to activate certain genes. These non-coding RNA-activators (ncRNA-a) have a crucial role in turning genes on and off during early embryonic development, researchers say, and have also been connected with diseases, including some cancers, in adults.
In an online article of the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Wistar’s Ramin Shiekhattar, Ph.D., detail the mechanism by which long non-coding RNA-activators promote gene expression. They show how these RNA molecules help proteins in the cell to create a loop of DNA in order to open up genes for transcription. Their experiments have also described how particular ncRNA-a molecules are related to FG syndrome, a genetic disease linked to severe neurological and physical deficits.
:: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 12-30-2010
As the year comes to a close, I would like to draw your attention to an inspirational article published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year. The article pays tribute to an icon of modern day science whose name graces the blackboards (do they even use those anymore these days?) of pretty much all first year genetic classrooms across the nation.
James Watson, the man who discovered the DNA double helix, continues to inspire us with his firm belief that cancer can be conquered in his lifetime. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Although Dr. Watson says leaders should think in the long term, he is critical of those who say we might find a cure for cancer in another 10 to 20 years. “If you say we can get somewhere in 10 to 20 years, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be saying 20 to 40, except then people would just give up hope. So 10 to 20 still maintains hope, but why not five to 10?” He adds that there’s no reason we shouldn’t know all of the genetic causes of major cancers in another few years.
In the article, Watson maintains that bureaucracy and red tape, not scientific technology, are the main obstacles to finding a cure.