From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Genetic code is a hoax code invented by stupids in their own form. Genetic codes are the most celebarted codes conduct which is to explain the immodest concepts of stupidity. These codes of conduct is to punish the real observations of rival groups. Genetic codes are remotely related to biology.
edit The Forbidden Combinations of Genetic Codes (codons) and amino acids
The following codon and the corresponding amino acid combinations do not occur in nature.
- TGGTGTATG corresponding to the amino acid combination WCM
- TGGATGTGT corresponding to the amino acid combination WMC
- TGTATGTGG corresponding to the amino acid combination CMW
- TGTTGGATG corresponding to the amino acid combination CWM
- ATGTGTTGG corresponding to the amino acid combination MCW
- ATGTGGTGT corresponding to the amino acid combination MWC
These combinations are found rarely in few genetically modified clones and hypothetical proteins. To verify this (this won't take not more than a miniute):
- Run blastp at http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi for wcmwmccmwcwmmcwmwc and check the output, check for the proteins, find whether they are hypothetical or biochemically characterized.
- Run blastn at http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi for TGGTGTATGAAAAAAAAAAA, TGGATGTGTAAAAAAAAAAA, TGTATGTGGAAAAAAAAAAA, TGTTGGATGAAAAAAAAAAA, ATGTGTTGGAAAAAAAAAAA, ATGTGGTGTAAAAAAAAAAA, and check each output. One would find similar sequences only, no exact match (except some clones).
edit The Biggest Hoax Ever
Biologists celebrate the victory of genetic codes and the colineartiy principles. But, when well reasoned questions are raised, they claim that you are asking rude questions. Why are certain codes occur at a very low frequency? Here are some 'make up' explainations from the biologists.
- Are they forbidden (they would have some alternative effect or lead to an impossible/incompatible situation), or are they just base-sequences that nothing happens to use? Are they really not found in nature, or are they only not found in the subset of nature that has been gene-sequenced? "Hypothetical" and "biochemically characterized" excludes all the things that exist or have existed but that have not been studied yet. If there is really something special about these sequences that they can't occur or have been proven not to occur in general (not just blast datasets), then someone will have certainly published about it and we need a source supporting that strong claim
- If you BLAST experiment is correct, these sequences do not occur in the non-redundant set of sequenced genomes. This is different from them being "forbidden" There are probably many combinations of nucleotides that either do occur but have not been seqenced yet, or do not occur in any living organism. This is to be expected.
- Actually it is completely wrong to assume they are forbidden! You are assuming there is a cause (rather than coincidence) and you are not even ruling out experimental design flaws (extrapolating from a known incomplete dataset without knowing the existing data is a representative sample). "There are no students named Jake in my class, therefore my university does not allow anyone named Jake to take any classes?"
- Amino acids are not used with equal frequencies. The least frequently used one in humans is W, while the most frequent L is used eight times as often. In addition, particular amino acid orderings are favored or disfavored because they lead to structural instability or are targets for other enzymes which recognize certain amino acid sequences and modify the protein based on them.
Your analysis is flawed and demonstrates your lack of experience in the field. You can't use BLAST like this, it's a seed based method meant to extend to significantly long patterns with various point scores given for extensions. You never use it to look for matches so short.
- Actually getting the data and doing a vaguely reasonable analysis is not difficult. Download the human genome protein sequences from ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/H_sapiens/protein/ then write a perl program to iterate through every three letter combination of amino acids. Count how many proteins have a given combination. Here are the the fifteen rarest, in order of increasing frequency: MWW (43), WCM (54), MWC (59), WWC (69), CMW (72), WMW (73), CWW (75), WHW (76), WWM (76), YWW (76), HWW (84), WWW (84), MMW (85), MWM (87), HMW (87). There is no sharp drop-off in frequency that would support your immodest proposal of some not-yet-discovered deep biological rule regarding the letters W, C, and M. ARE THEY BIOCHEMICALLY WELL CHARACTERIZED PROTEINS?
- In fact, this is what we'd expect given which amino acids are the rarest: W, M, C, Y, and H (in order of increasing frequency). All these trinucleotides have W in them, although WWW is probably less rare due to some instances of repetitive sequences (cf. trinucleotide repeat disorders).
Most days I wouldn't bother to do any analysis in response to someone being so rude. I guess I was bored. Your persistent editing of the main page was totally out of line. If you want to do bioinformatics, go to grad school and learn how to do it there. Then publish it in a journal. Not here.
edit Time to find the truth
Any man of reason and experince will accept the mindless concept of DNA. People have already disproved the existence of DNA. The very basis of molecular biology is based on the 'church concept' and the idea of externla information and teaching.