Is it time to review the Central Dogma??

Which biologist worth his or her salt doesn’t know it? It is the main stay of biology and genetics. It describes the basic structures of living organisms. To jog your memory I will revisit it. The central Dogma has been in existence for the longest time and is the main and central doctrine in biology and specifically genetics.  The term was first mentioned by Francis Crick in the 1950s. Principally, it states that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has codes of bases that are transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) which is in turn translated into proteins that are part of tissues and organs in organisms.

The central Dogma has been the main stay in molecular biology for the many years. There have however been discoveries that over time have challenged the ‘linearity’ of the central dogma ie DNA-RNA-protein. The first formative discovery was the ‘reversed’ central dogma by the discovery of reverse transcriptase by David Baltimore in 1978. Reverse transcriptase was observed to use RNA as a template to make DNA. In the classical central dogma is unidirectional and so this observation goes against it and only considers it as an ‘exemption’.  

The second discovery was the observation that there exists non-coding RNA.  The central dogma indicates that translation yielding to proteins is the final step. However it does not envisage a case like that of non-coding RNAs which are in their self finality.  This goes against the central dogma.

The third and the most recent discovery is ‘reverse translation’. This has been established through the discovery that proteins (now called PRIONs) can be use in transferring information an observation that has never been thought of in the central dogma. Prions are essentially proteins that can propagate themselves and can as well be transmitted. They are known to cause disease by entering an organism and causing the conformation of existing proteins into their ‘disease conformation’. The fact that a protein affects the conformation of another protein goes against the central dogma.

The other discovery that dents the central dogma is the observation of the functioning of the ribosome quality control complex (RQC) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This complex plays a role in translation even in eukaryotes. If protein synthesis at the ribosomal stage goes wrong then this mechanism comes into play where the protein being translated to is destroyed. A twist was observed in RQC where proteinswithin this complex (rqc2p and Ltn1) were observed to initiate loading of alanine and threonine charged amino acids without the involvement of mRNA and ribosome. This shows that proteins can dictate formation of other proteins without involvement of mRNA. This violates the central dogma in a huge way.

The observations detailed above apart from reverse transcription which is detailed as an exemption of the central dogma indicate violations of the central dogma. Despite some of these observations being actively being researched on, there are still enough points that prove that the central dogma might have many more ‘exemptions’. It is only time that will tell how long proven discoveries will continue being treated as ‘exemptions’.

Is Seralini's anti-GMO paper the reason behind GM import ban in Kenya.

The paper: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

Seralini et al's paper published on September 19th 2012 in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology  reports the results of a 2-year feeding study in Sprague–Dawley strain of rats. The study aimed at purportedly unearthing health effects of genetically modified maize NK603 with and without Roundup WeatherMAX and Roundup GT Plus alone.  Critical questions on the dependability of the study have arose. Why is it that the Kenyan cabinet has banned the importation of GM food all over sudden? is Seralini's paper the cause?. Whether this or otherwise, a critical look at the paper is essential. 

Gilles-Eric Seralini  is a known anti-GMO crusader. This does not mean that he does not have a right to conduct such a study, however it is professional for him to declare interests in the publication. Over and above this many questions have been raised about the credibility of his study. Individual researchers and organizations including the The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) have raised a red flag on the credibility of the study. The credibility of the reviewers has also been questioned.The data analyses and ethical issues have also been questioned. Other clear questions are on the technical and pathological aspects of the study including the strain of rat which are known to have 22-33% higher chance of having tumors and this increases with age. The ESTP response to the paper concludes with a question:  what is the scientific rationale that led the journal reviewers and the editorial board of Food and Chemical Toxicology to accept this article for publication?


Having read and understood the content of Seralini's study, I ponder and ask how well our cabinet reads and understands if the decision was based on this study and the consequent uninformed uproar.  What facts were followed in enforcing this ban?. Could Seralini be the Motivation for the Kenyan Cabinet ban on importation of GM maize e.t.c? I hypothesise that it might not  be the paper informing the decision but the rumours following the publication of this paper. My hypothesis may be true as I don't know how much the cabinet may have read and internalized the contents of the study. May be they don't even know that there is such a study!!. How many scientists leave alone biotechnologists sit in the cabinet?. Before making a rush decision and discrediting professionals in the area, the cabinet should have consulted the NBA the mandated body.
What was the aim of establishing the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) and has it been rendered redundant now?. I wish to know from the cabinet how they will know that the maize is non-GMO without involving the assistance of NBA?. Cabinet you have fallen prey to Seralini and his cohorts!!

NB// If you value transparency in Scientific publications then sign here to push Seralini release the raw data of his research.

Are you overweight or obese: Know the facts

Overweight and Obesity are the excessive accumulation of fats which is more or less abnormal. Overweight and obesity are now more than ever known to be the major risk factors for chronic diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. These two were once considered to be a preserve of the rich and the affluent and a problem of only high income countries. However, overweight and obesity are now sharply increasing in low- and middle-income countries especially in urban settings. The World Health Organization estimates that cases of overweight and obesity have increased more than two fold since 1980. More facts on obesity and overweight indicate that in 2008, more than 200 million men and 300 million women were obese and that at least one in three of the world's adult population is overweight and almost one in 10 is obese.

             Source:http://www.all4humor.com/picture/funny-animal-pictures/obese-  monkey.html

It is also certain that 65% of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. Another fact is that nearly 43 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2010 and that obese is preventable. Some people feel that they are not overweight or obese while it might be clear that they might. How do you simply know that you are neither overweight or obese? The simplest way to ascertain this is by taking your Body Mass Index (BMI), this you can simply do at the comfort of your home. BMI is as simple as the name suggests and is based on weight and height. BMI can be simply defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres (kg/m²). For example, an adult who weighs 100kg and whose height is 2m will have a BMI of 100/4 giving us 25. A BMI equal or greater than 25 indicates overweight while that equal or greater that 30 is obese. Do your maths and get the facts yourself. Take care of yourself avoid junk and exercise.

French fries "chips": The cancer bait

Non-communicable diseases have been considered the "ills of opulence", as they have been most common in developed countries. The trends are however changing, where developing countries are also fighting the same problems. These diseases started with the urban affluent. The World Health Organization WHO statistics on non communicable diseases   indicates that they are now wide spread in developing countries and not restricted to urban areas.  With the rise in the costs of living, the most common and cheaply available food is the fast foods. French fries commonly called "chips" in Kenya are the most conveniently and cheaply available fast food especially in major towns.

 

When  deep fried, most starchy food undergo a chemical reaction called Maillard reaction discovered by Louis Camille Maillard (1878-1936). This reaction leads to the formation of a compound called a acrylamide (Donald S.M et. al, Nature 419, 448-449). This compound is formed when proteins react with carbohydrates at high temperatures. The compound acrylamide is known to be carcinogenic. With these "chipos" being the poor man's food, danger is looming. Increased cases of cancer may continue to observed as a result of these fast foods. Next time you are having your plate of chips, think twice, it might not be as safe as you think.