
How RNA Unseated DNA as the Most Important Molecule in Your Body
Molecular biology's mission, it seemed, was to decipher those genetic instructions. But in recent years researchers have discovered a dizzying array of 'noncoding' RNA (ncRNA) molecules that do something other than ferry DNA instructions for proteins. They perform a surprisingly wide range of biochemical functions. It now seems that our genome may be at least as much a repository of plans for vital, noncoding RNA as it is for proteins. This shift in thinking has been 'revolutionary,' says Thomas Cech, who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Sidney Altman for discovering RNA molecules, called ribozymes, that can catalyze biochemical reactions. 'DNA is old stuff, 20th-century stuff,' Cech says. 'It's a one-trick pony. All it does is store biological information, which it does exquisitely well. But it's inert—it can't do anything without its children, RNA and proteins.'
RNA is created when an enzyme called RNA polymerase reads a DNA sequence and builds a corresponding RNA molecule—a process known as transcription. The discovery, over the past three decades, of thousands of previously unknown noncoding RNAs 'has been mind-blowing,' says Maite Huarte, a molecular biologist at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain. Noncoding RNA plays many roles, often involving the regulation of other genes—for example, determining whether protein-coding genes get transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA) and how (or if) that molecule is edited and then translated into a protein. In this case, RNA seems to control how cells use their DNA. These functions turn the popular central dogma, which was a one-way street from DNA to mRNA to proteins, into an open system with information flowing in all directions among DNA, proteins, cells and organism.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Equally fascinating, Huarte says, is that ncRNAs don't belong to just one family of molecules. 'RNA is highly versatile, and nature exploits this versatility,' she says. Scientists have known since the 1950s that ribosomes contain ribosomal RNA and use transfer RNA to collect amino acids that are stitched together in proteins. But for a long time those seemed like anomalies. Then, in the 1980s, Cech and Altman discovered a new type of ncRNA: ribozymes that cleave and edit themselves and other RNAs. And in the 1990s researchers began to find human ncRNAs that had regulatory functions. A gene called XIST, involved in the 'silencing' of one of the two X chromosomes in the cells of chromosomal females, encoded not a protein but a long noncoding RNA that appears to wrap around the chromosome and prevent its transcription.
'Textbooks 25 years ago confidently stated that RNA consisted of [three types]. Now there are hundreds, likely many thousands, of other types.' —Thomas Cech University of Colorado Boulder
Meanwhile molecular biologists Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun found short noncoding RNA molecules that interact with mRNA to silence a corresponding gene. This extra layer of gene regulation—controlling whether an mRNA is used to make a protein—seems to be an essential feature in the growth of complex organisms. Scientists have linked genetic mutations that hinder gene regulation by ncRNAs to a wide range of diseases, including cancers. 'We're getting closer to some really exciting biomedical applications,' Huarte says. 'From new diagnostic tools to innovative, targeted therapies, the potential of ncRNAs is huge.'
Cech says it was a 'big surprise' RNA could perform such diverse roles. That surprise was apparent in 2012 when scientists working on an international project called ENCODE reported that as much as 80 percent of our DNA has biochemical function in some cells at some point, and much of that DNA is transcribed into RNA, challenging the long-held belief that most of our genome is 'junk' accumulated over the course of evolution.
This is not a consensus view. Some researchers argue that, on the contrary, most of the RNA transcribed from DNA but not translated into protein is 'noise,' made because the transcription machinery is rather indiscriminate. Such noise will indeed be the end result for some transcription. It now appears that known noncoding genes outnumber genes encoding proteins by a factor of about three, according to some estimates.
It's often hard, however, to figure out just what the RNA is doing. Some of these molecules might get transcribed only in particular types of cells or at a particular stage in embryonic development, so it would be easy to miss their moment of action. 'They are incredibly cell-type specific,' says molecular biologist Susan Carpenter of the University of California, Santa Cruz. But because of that, she says, 'the more we look, the more we find.'
Ambiguities notwithstanding, the rise of RNA has transformed molecular biology. 'Textbooks 25 years ago confidently stated that RNA consisted of messenger RNA, transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA,' Cech says. 'Now there are hundreds, likely many thousands, of other types.' The 21st century, he says, 'is the age of noncoding RNA.'
We have much more to learn. We don't know how much functional ncRNA there is, let alone what the many varieties do. And 'when we answer one question, it raises 10 new ones,' Carpenter says. As scientists discover more about the many types and roles of RNA, medical researchers may discover potential therapeutic applications, yet the more profound implications are about how life works. For complex organisms to be viable, it's simply not enough to have a 'genetic blueprint' that gets read. They need to be able to change, on the fly, how their genes get used. RNA seems to offer incredibly responsive and versatile ways of doing that.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gene that differs between humans and Neanderthals could shed light on the species' disappearance, mouse study suggests
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A protein that helps synthesize DNA is different in modern humans than it is in Neanderthals and Denisovans — our closest extinct relatives — and new experiments in mice genetically modified to express the modern human version hint that this may have made us behave differently. That discovery, in turn, could shed light on why Neanderthals and Denisovans vanished, researchers propose in a new study. But the significance of the findings for humans is still unclear. "It's too early to translate these findings directly to humans, as the neural circuits of mice are vastly different," study lead author, Xiangchun Ju, a postdoctoral researcher at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, said in a statement. However, this work hints that the variant seen in modern humans "might have given us some evolutionary advantage in particular tasks relative to ancestral humans," such as competing for scarce resources. Key protein Previous research found that modern humans diverged from their closest evolutionary relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans, about 600,000 years ago. It's not clear why modern humans survived while our closest relatives died off. To search for potential genetic clues to solve this mystery, the researchers analyzed the enzyme ADSL (adenylosuccinate lyase). This protein helps synthesize purine, one of the fundamental building blocks of DNA and other vital molecules. Related: A braided stream, not a family tree: How new evidence upends our understanding of how humans evolved "There are a small number of enzymes that were affected by evolutionary changes in the ancestors of modern humans. ADSL is one of them," study co-author Svante Pääbo, Nobel laureate, leader of the human evolutionary genomics unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said in a statement. ADSL is made up of a chain of 484 amino acids. The version of this enzyme found in virtually all modern humans differs from that seen in both Neanderthals and Denisovans by just one amino acid — the 429th amino acid in ADSL is valine in modern humans but alanine in our extinct relatives. The scientists noted the ADSL mutation is seen in modern humans and not our closest extinct relatives, and so likely appeared after we separated from the lineage that led to Neanderthals and Denisovans. This led the researchers to investigate the possible behavioral effects of this mutation. Previous research on lab-grown cells found that the ADSL variant seen in modern humans resulted in a more unstable version of the enzyme that broke down more quickly compared to the one in Neanderthals and Denisovans. Behavior changes The new study, published Aug. 4 in the journal PNAS, similarly found that, in mice, the modern variant leads to higher levels of the chemicals that ADSL normally acts on to synthesize purine in several organs, especially the brain. This finding supported the idea that the modern human version of ADSL is less active than the variant seen in Neanderthals and Denisovans. In experiments where mice learned they could get a drink of water following specific lights or sounds, female mice genetically modified to possess a version of ADSL similar to the kind seen in modern humans were better at getting water than their littermates without this variant were. This might suggest the human-like variant made female mice better at learning to connect the dots between the water and the lights or sounds, or more motivated to seek out the water in some way. The changes in behavior and ADSL levels seen in female mice with the modern-human variant of the enzyme was not seen in male mice. "It's unclear why only female mice seemed to gain a competitive advantage," study co-author Izumi Fukunaga, a researcher at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, said in a statement. "Behavior is complex." Statistical tests analyzing Neanderthal; Denisovan; and modern African, European and East Asian DNA found that mutations in the ASDL gene appeared in modern human genomes at higher rates than random variations over time would suggest, making it likely that these mutations provided some evolutionary advantage. Perhaps running counter to the new findings, prior work found that genetic disorders leading to ADSL deficiency in modern humans can lead to intellectual disability, speech and language impairment, and other problems. This suggests that during evolution, modern humans had to balance the potential benefits of reducing ADSL activity with the problems that could occur from ADSL deficiency, study co-author Shin-Yu Lee, also of the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, said in a statement. Implications unclear Not everyone thinks the study has direct implications for why modern humans thrived or for why Neanderthals or Denisovans disappeared. These results in mice "don't say too much about human evolution at this stage," Mark Collard, a paleoanthropologist at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia who did not take part in this research, told Live Science. RELATED STORIES —What was the first human species? —2.6 million-year-old stone tools reveal ancient human relatives were 'forward planning' 600,000 years earlier than thought —'It makes no sense to say there was only one origin of Homo sapiens': How the evolutionary record of Asia is complicating what we know about our species However, the strategy of using mice to study the behavioral effects of genetic differences between modern humans and our closest extinct relatives "seems very promising as a way of investigating the evolution of our brain and behavior," Collard said. "I expect we'll see a cascade of studies like this one in the next few years." Future research can investigate the specific mechanisms by which changes in ADSL activity influence behavior. Scientists can also explore how changes in ADSL activity are associated with other behaviors and how multiple genetic changes might work in concert, the study authors wrote. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Gene that differs between humans and Neanderthals could shed light on the species' disappearance, mouse study suggests
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A protein that helps synthesize DNA is different in modern humans than it is in Neanderthals and Denisovans — our closest extinct relatives — and new experiments in mice genetically modified to express the modern human version hint that this may have made us behave differently. That discovery, in turn, could shed light on why Neanderthals and Denisovans vanished, researchers propose in a new study. But the significance of the findings for humans is still unclear. "It's too early to translate these findings directly to humans, as the neural circuits of mice are vastly different," study lead author, Xiangchun Ju, a postdoctoral researcher at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, said in a statement. However, this work hints that the variant seen in modern humans "might have given us some evolutionary advantage in particular tasks relative to ancestral humans," such as competing for scarce resources. Key protein Previous research found that modern humans diverged from their closest evolutionary relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans, about 600,000 years ago. It's not clear why modern humans survived while our closest relatives died off. To search for potential genetic clues to solve this mystery, the researchers analyzed the enzyme ADSL (adenylosuccinate lyase). This protein helps synthesize purine, one of the fundamental building blocks of DNA and other vital molecules. Related: A braided stream, not a family tree: How new evidence upends our understanding of how humans evolved "There are a small number of enzymes that were affected by evolutionary changes in the ancestors of modern humans. ADSL is one of them," study co-author Svante Pääbo, Nobel laureate, leader of the human evolutionary genomics unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said in a statement. ADSL is made up of a chain of 484 amino acids. The version of this enzyme found in virtually all modern humans differs from that seen in both Neanderthals and Denisovans by just one amino acid — the 429th amino acid in ADSL is valine in modern humans but alanine in our extinct relatives. The scientists noted the ADSL mutation is seen in modern humans and not our closest extinct relatives, and so likely appeared after we separated from the lineage that led to Neanderthals and Denisovans. This led the researchers to investigate the possible behavioral effects of this mutation. Previous research on lab-grown cells found that the ADSL variant seen in modern humans resulted in a more unstable version of the enzyme that broke down more quickly compared to the one in Neanderthals and Denisovans. Behavior changes The new study, published Aug. 4 in the journal PNAS, similarly found that, in mice, the modern variant leads to higher levels of the chemicals that ADSL normally acts on to synthesize purine in several organs, especially the brain. This finding supported the idea that the modern human version of ADSL is less active than the variant seen in Neanderthals and Denisovans. In experiments where mice learned they could get a drink of water following specific lights or sounds, female mice genetically modified to possess a version of ADSL similar to the kind seen in modern humans were better at getting water than their littermates without this variant were. This might suggest the human-like variant made female mice better at learning to connect the dots between the water and the lights or sounds, or more motivated to seek out the water in some way. The changes in behavior and ADSL levels seen in female mice with the modern-human variant of the enzyme was not seen in male mice. "It's unclear why only female mice seemed to gain a competitive advantage," study co-author Izumi Fukunaga, a researcher at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, said in a statement. "Behavior is complex." Statistical tests analyzing Neanderthal; Denisovan; and modern African, European and East Asian DNA found that mutations in the ASDL gene appeared in modern human genomes at higher rates than random variations over time would suggest, making it likely that these mutations provided some evolutionary advantage. Perhaps running counter to the new findings, prior work found that genetic disorders leading to ADSL deficiency in modern humans can lead to intellectual disability, speech and language impairment, and other problems. This suggests that during evolution, modern humans had to balance the potential benefits of reducing ADSL activity with the problems that could occur from ADSL deficiency, study co-author Shin-Yu Lee, also of the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, said in a statement. Implications unclear Not everyone thinks the study has direct implications for why modern humans thrived or for why Neanderthals or Denisovans disappeared. These results in mice "don't say too much about human evolution at this stage," Mark Collard, a paleoanthropologist at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia who did not take part in this research, told Live Science. RELATED STORIES —What was the first human species? —2.6 million-year-old stone tools reveal ancient human relatives were 'forward planning' 600,000 years earlier than thought —'It makes no sense to say there was only one origin of Homo sapiens': How the evolutionary record of Asia is complicating what we know about our species However, the strategy of using mice to study the behavioral effects of genetic differences between modern humans and our closest extinct relatives "seems very promising as a way of investigating the evolution of our brain and behavior," Collard said. "I expect we'll see a cascade of studies like this one in the next few years." Future research can investigate the specific mechanisms by which changes in ADSL activity influence behavior. Scientists can also explore how changes in ADSL activity are associated with other behaviors and how multiple genetic changes might work in concert, the study authors wrote. Solve the daily Crossword


Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
How RNA Unseated DNA as the Most Important Molecule in Your Body
In 1957, just four years after Francis Crick and other scientists solved the riddle of DNA's structure—the now famous double helix—Crick laid out what he called the 'central dogma' of molecular biology, which his colleague James Watson later said implied that biological information flows inexorably from DNA to RNA to proteins. Although Watson was oversimplifying, the message was that the purpose of the double helix in our chromosomes is to hold, in encoded form, blueprints for the proteins that build and maintain our bodies. DNA's chemical cousin, RNA, was the messenger that carries DNA instructions from the double helix in the cell's nucleus to the protein-making machinery, called the ribosome, scattered around the cell. Molecular biology's mission, it seemed, was to decipher those genetic instructions. But in recent years researchers have discovered a dizzying array of 'noncoding' RNA (ncRNA) molecules that do something other than ferry DNA instructions for proteins. They perform a surprisingly wide range of biochemical functions. It now seems that our genome may be at least as much a repository of plans for vital, noncoding RNA as it is for proteins. This shift in thinking has been 'revolutionary,' says Thomas Cech, who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Sidney Altman for discovering RNA molecules, called ribozymes, that can catalyze biochemical reactions. 'DNA is old stuff, 20th-century stuff,' Cech says. 'It's a one-trick pony. All it does is store biological information, which it does exquisitely well. But it's inert—it can't do anything without its children, RNA and proteins.' RNA is created when an enzyme called RNA polymerase reads a DNA sequence and builds a corresponding RNA molecule—a process known as transcription. The discovery, over the past three decades, of thousands of previously unknown noncoding RNAs 'has been mind-blowing,' says Maite Huarte, a molecular biologist at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain. Noncoding RNA plays many roles, often involving the regulation of other genes—for example, determining whether protein-coding genes get transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA) and how (or if) that molecule is edited and then translated into a protein. In this case, RNA seems to control how cells use their DNA. These functions turn the popular central dogma, which was a one-way street from DNA to mRNA to proteins, into an open system with information flowing in all directions among DNA, proteins, cells and organism. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Equally fascinating, Huarte says, is that ncRNAs don't belong to just one family of molecules. 'RNA is highly versatile, and nature exploits this versatility,' she says. Scientists have known since the 1950s that ribosomes contain ribosomal RNA and use transfer RNA to collect amino acids that are stitched together in proteins. But for a long time those seemed like anomalies. Then, in the 1980s, Cech and Altman discovered a new type of ncRNA: ribozymes that cleave and edit themselves and other RNAs. And in the 1990s researchers began to find human ncRNAs that had regulatory functions. A gene called XIST, involved in the 'silencing' of one of the two X chromosomes in the cells of chromosomal females, encoded not a protein but a long noncoding RNA that appears to wrap around the chromosome and prevent its transcription. 'Textbooks 25 years ago confidently stated that RNA consisted of [three types]. Now there are hundreds, likely many thousands, of other types.' —Thomas Cech University of Colorado Boulder Meanwhile molecular biologists Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun found short noncoding RNA molecules that interact with mRNA to silence a corresponding gene. This extra layer of gene regulation—controlling whether an mRNA is used to make a protein—seems to be an essential feature in the growth of complex organisms. Scientists have linked genetic mutations that hinder gene regulation by ncRNAs to a wide range of diseases, including cancers. 'We're getting closer to some really exciting biomedical applications,' Huarte says. 'From new diagnostic tools to innovative, targeted therapies, the potential of ncRNAs is huge.' Cech says it was a 'big surprise' RNA could perform such diverse roles. That surprise was apparent in 2012 when scientists working on an international project called ENCODE reported that as much as 80 percent of our DNA has biochemical function in some cells at some point, and much of that DNA is transcribed into RNA, challenging the long-held belief that most of our genome is 'junk' accumulated over the course of evolution. This is not a consensus view. Some researchers argue that, on the contrary, most of the RNA transcribed from DNA but not translated into protein is 'noise,' made because the transcription machinery is rather indiscriminate. Such noise will indeed be the end result for some transcription. It now appears that known noncoding genes outnumber genes encoding proteins by a factor of about three, according to some estimates. It's often hard, however, to figure out just what the RNA is doing. Some of these molecules might get transcribed only in particular types of cells or at a particular stage in embryonic development, so it would be easy to miss their moment of action. 'They are incredibly cell-type specific,' says molecular biologist Susan Carpenter of the University of California, Santa Cruz. But because of that, she says, 'the more we look, the more we find.' Ambiguities notwithstanding, the rise of RNA has transformed molecular biology. 'Textbooks 25 years ago confidently stated that RNA consisted of messenger RNA, transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA,' Cech says. 'Now there are hundreds, likely many thousands, of other types.' The 21st century, he says, 'is the age of noncoding RNA.' We have much more to learn. We don't know how much functional ncRNA there is, let alone what the many varieties do. And 'when we answer one question, it raises 10 new ones,' Carpenter says. As scientists discover more about the many types and roles of RNA, medical researchers may discover potential therapeutic applications, yet the more profound implications are about how life works. For complex organisms to be viable, it's simply not enough to have a 'genetic blueprint' that gets read. They need to be able to change, on the fly, how their genes get used. RNA seems to offer incredibly responsive and versatile ways of doing that.