Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!jyamato From: jyamato@cory.Berkeley.EDU (YAMATO JON AYAO) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Nature Articles. Anyone read them? Message-ID: <4256@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> Date: 5 Jul 88 17:22:27 GMT References: <1628@runx.ips.oz> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu Reply-To: jyamato@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (YAMATO JON AYAO) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 30 In article <1628@runx.ips.oz> jon@runx.ips.oz (Jonathon Seymour) writes: >I'm after issue dates for two issues of Nature which have been referred >to recently in the Sydney Morning Herald. >The first article is about a discovery made by Prof. Paul Schimmel, a >professor of biochemistry and biophysics at MIT. It centres around what >Schimmel thinks is a second, more primitive genetic code which performs some >of the functions of DNA. It was referred to in an article in the SMH on May >17th this year as "appearinging in this week's issue of ... Nature ". Given >the media's propensity for distorting reality in order to squeeze it between >the cigarette advertisements I wouldn't be at all suprised if the article is >a few months old. >jon. I don't have the magazine in question, but I suspect that the work referred to may be the discovery of the part of the tRNA molecule which determines which amino acid it picks up. The media likes to refer to this as "the second genetic code", for no particularly good reason that I can see. It has actually been established only for one tRNA, by mutating parts of it until it loses/gains specificity, and may not be the same for others. A lot of people said "New genetic code!" to me, and then pointed me to articles which proved to discuss exactly this. As for the homeopathy, I wouldn't get too upset until you actually see the reference. I'll look for it this afternoon. Mary Kuhner genetics, UC Berkeley (but my opinions are my own)