My trek continues onward toward a more robust credential in understanding the human body (ideally, eventually Physical Therapy). One of the larger sections in my biology class this semester was on genetics, which is quite fascinating. The complexity beyond the simple distinction between dominant and recessive alleles is massive. Codominance means that both dominant traits phenotypically express themselves and incomplete dominance means that as they both express themselves it changes the way they express together. Respectively, great examples that are frequently used are blood types and Mendel’s pea plants.
The incomplete dominance of blood types A, B, AB, and O can be explained simply. A and B are both dominant traits. If one does not have either allele, then neither A or B are phenotypic, resulting in the smooth blood type O which (if negative) can be used by anyone of any blood type. A and B present some modifications to the blood which require the similarity of a blood donor. How I had this described to me was with spikes on the outside with corresponding to A, and bumps with B. One can have both phenotypically present themselves and then the dominance of both the A-spikes and B-bumps are present on the blood cell, which means it is not complete.
While blending does not occur with genes (either they are active or inactive, there is no halfway), codominance could be mistaken for blending. When Gregor Mendel bred white and purple pea plants the only the alleles for purple or white pea plants expressed themselves. They did not become pink petaled plants. However, wavy hair in humans and petal color for roses are examples of how both alleles for curly and straight hair or the color of a rose petal can be different from both parents once heterozygous individuals are bred together. Grey cats also can exhibit incomplete dominance when they are born from a black and white parent.
The human body is a fascinating organism. Everything is reduceable to basic codes of four nucleic acids (five because of the different relationship of adenine to DNA and RNA). Everything in the code all returns to maintaining homeostasis for pH and temperature so that reactions can be properly catalyzed. Due to the human body’s inability to naturally produce some amino acids (produced during translation into polypeptides attached to the tRNA) which are necessary for specific proteins which have specific purposes based on shape and structure, one still needs to get those amino acids from somewhere. The myriad of ways that those four basic codes can be expressed in codons of three before being converted to proteins folded into the perfect shape to be used for anything from anti-bodies to muscle growth.
Due to the qualities of epistasis and pleiotropy, I don’t think it would be a good idea to artificially teach the body to insert a codon which would produce these same amino acids. Histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine are essential amino acids which must be acquired through food, but since one could have tRNA release them with a different code, I don’t see why it couldn’t be produced with our new technology. The issue is that it is very easy to make a dangerous mistake with something like that. A deletion or insertion of a codon into the genetic code would cause a frameshift, which can result in dangerous mutations making a protein function improperly or not at all. Perhaps I am a little conservative here, but I can’t help but think that some adjustments could reduce the T-cell production we need to naturally fight of diseases or shut off the trigger for density dependent division or something.
Since we can’t just force the body to produce the amino acids necessary on its own, it is important to eat complete proteins, like soy, meats, eggs, Huel, rice and beans, and so on and so forth. Some of these are better than others because of the micronutrient content and the bioavailability of the nutrients (such as B vitamins) meaning the ease at which out body puts the fuel through chemical reactions to break down the content to allow the nutrients to be absorbed by our body. One way to track that effort is through the thermic effect of various foods.
And yet the modern lifestyle is supposed to be unhealthy not just for ourselves but also the environment. Everything from the meat we eat to the shipping around the globe to the plastics used to contain the food to the water used in monocrop culture seems to lead the human species toward on a destructive path. If not for ourselves through war, then through greed and short-sided behavior. Some projections have doomsday scenarios in a few decades. I think it will be a slow decline instead of a catastrophic rapid shift. No one wants to admit there is a problem, so the wound will just fester instead.
The world is projected to end in 30 years. Well, not the world, but humanity and their relation to it. It appears that one part of the ecosystem can completely flip the table, so to speak. Scientists say it’s possible to use the resources of the earth to feed 10 or 11 billion people, with radical changes to management. The world population will reach that in the late 2050s. At that point the plastics in the ocean will outnumber the fish. It would end far sooner if everyone on the planet was using resources and driving vehicles at either the US or EU rate per capita.
Thankfully smart and prescient people have been on the job for a while now. We have been informed we can trust them as experts. If you can’t stop people from having sex, you can slow their population growth with contraception, abortion, and information campaigns. This is even more important as energy and resource use increases instead of decreasing. As such, an unending stream of migration toward countries of high per capita resource use is not feasible. Some risky experimental actions could be rationalized away for the greater good and perpetuated on a poorly informed populace.
I still hold out hope that humanity can make the world better than we found it. The technology for wonderous advances such as to burn through waste faster than it is produced and generate energy from it exist. The mental benefits from a simple walk in the woods imply to me that as a species our ecosystem is not one of concrete, fossil fuels, and steel, but one of trees, water, and flowers (although there may be ways to make concrete even more effective). And if we don’t engage in such a way, then I don’t see how a finite planet can support infinite growth.
The incomplete dominance of blood types A, B, AB, and O can be explained simply. A and B are both dominant traits. If one does not have either allele, then neither A or B are phenotypic, resulting in the smooth blood type O which (if negative) can be used by anyone of any blood type. A and B present some modifications to the blood which require the similarity of a blood donor. How I had this described to me was with spikes on the outside with corresponding to A, and bumps with B. One can have both phenotypically present themselves and then the dominance of both the A-spikes and B-bumps are present on the blood cell, which means it is not complete.
While blending does not occur with genes (either they are active or inactive, there is no halfway), codominance could be mistaken for blending. When Gregor Mendel bred white and purple pea plants the only the alleles for purple or white pea plants expressed themselves. They did not become pink petaled plants. However, wavy hair in humans and petal color for roses are examples of how both alleles for curly and straight hair or the color of a rose petal can be different from both parents once heterozygous individuals are bred together. Grey cats also can exhibit incomplete dominance when they are born from a black and white parent.
The human body is a fascinating organism. Everything is reduceable to basic codes of four nucleic acids (five because of the different relationship of adenine to DNA and RNA). Everything in the code all returns to maintaining homeostasis for pH and temperature so that reactions can be properly catalyzed. Due to the human body’s inability to naturally produce some amino acids (produced during translation into polypeptides attached to the tRNA) which are necessary for specific proteins which have specific purposes based on shape and structure, one still needs to get those amino acids from somewhere. The myriad of ways that those four basic codes can be expressed in codons of three before being converted to proteins folded into the perfect shape to be used for anything from anti-bodies to muscle growth.
Due to the qualities of epistasis and pleiotropy, I don’t think it would be a good idea to artificially teach the body to insert a codon which would produce these same amino acids. Histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine are essential amino acids which must be acquired through food, but since one could have tRNA release them with a different code, I don’t see why it couldn’t be produced with our new technology. The issue is that it is very easy to make a dangerous mistake with something like that. A deletion or insertion of a codon into the genetic code would cause a frameshift, which can result in dangerous mutations making a protein function improperly or not at all. Perhaps I am a little conservative here, but I can’t help but think that some adjustments could reduce the T-cell production we need to naturally fight of diseases or shut off the trigger for density dependent division or something.
Since we can’t just force the body to produce the amino acids necessary on its own, it is important to eat complete proteins, like soy, meats, eggs, Huel, rice and beans, and so on and so forth. Some of these are better than others because of the micronutrient content and the bioavailability of the nutrients (such as B vitamins) meaning the ease at which out body puts the fuel through chemical reactions to break down the content to allow the nutrients to be absorbed by our body. One way to track that effort is through the thermic effect of various foods.
And yet the modern lifestyle is supposed to be unhealthy not just for ourselves but also the environment. Everything from the meat we eat to the shipping around the globe to the plastics used to contain the food to the water used in monocrop culture seems to lead the human species toward on a destructive path. If not for ourselves through war, then through greed and short-sided behavior. Some projections have doomsday scenarios in a few decades. I think it will be a slow decline instead of a catastrophic rapid shift. No one wants to admit there is a problem, so the wound will just fester instead.
The world is projected to end in 30 years. Well, not the world, but humanity and their relation to it. It appears that one part of the ecosystem can completely flip the table, so to speak. Scientists say it’s possible to use the resources of the earth to feed 10 or 11 billion people, with radical changes to management. The world population will reach that in the late 2050s. At that point the plastics in the ocean will outnumber the fish. It would end far sooner if everyone on the planet was using resources and driving vehicles at either the US or EU rate per capita.
Thankfully smart and prescient people have been on the job for a while now. We have been informed we can trust them as experts. If you can’t stop people from having sex, you can slow their population growth with contraception, abortion, and information campaigns. This is even more important as energy and resource use increases instead of decreasing. As such, an unending stream of migration toward countries of high per capita resource use is not feasible. Some risky experimental actions could be rationalized away for the greater good and perpetuated on a poorly informed populace.
I still hold out hope that humanity can make the world better than we found it. The technology for wonderous advances such as to burn through waste faster than it is produced and generate energy from it exist. The mental benefits from a simple walk in the woods imply to me that as a species our ecosystem is not one of concrete, fossil fuels, and steel, but one of trees, water, and flowers (although there may be ways to make concrete even more effective). And if we don’t engage in such a way, then I don’t see how a finite planet can support infinite growth.
RSS Feed
