Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOGMA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

Modeling the Activity of Single Genes

The central dogma of molecular biology states that information is stored in DNA, transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then translated into proteins. This picture is significantly augmentated when we consider the action of certain proteins in regulating transcription. These transcription factors provide a feedback pathway by which genes can regulate one another's expression as mRNA and then as protein. To review: DNA, RNA and proteins have different functions. DNA is the molecular storehouse of genetic information. When cells divide, the DNA is replicated, so that each daughter cell maintains the same genetic information as the mother cell. RNA acts as a go-between from DNA to proteins. Only a single copy of DNA is present, but multiple copies of the same piece of RNA may be present, allowing cells to make huge amounts of protein. In eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus), DNA is found in the nucleus only. RNA is copied in the nucleus then translocates(moves) outside the nucleus, where it is transcribed into proteins. Along the way, the RNA may be spliced, i.e., may have pieces cut out. RNA then attaches to ribosomes and is translated to proteins. Proteins are the machinery of the cell other than DNA and RNA, all the complex molecules of the cell are proteins. Proteins are specialized machines, each of which fulfills its own task, which may be transporting oxygen, catalyzing reactions, or responding to extracellular signals, just to name a few. One of the more interesting functions a protein may have is binding directly or indirectly to DNA to perform transcriptional regulation, thus forming a closed feedback loop of gene regulation. The structure of DNA and the central dogma were understood in the 50s; in the early 80s it became possible to make arbitrary modifications to DNA and use cellular machinery to transcribe and translate the resulting genes; more recently, genomes (i.e., the complete DNA sequence) of many organisms have been sequenced. This large-scale sequencing began with simple organisms, viruses and bacteria, progressed to eukaryotes such as yeast, and more recently (1998) progressed to a multi-cellular animal, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Sequencers have now moved on to the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, whose sequence is slated for completion by the end of 1999. The human genome project is expected to determine the complete sequence of all 3 billion bases of human DNA within the next five years. In the wake of genome-scale sequencing, further instrumentation is being developed to assay gene expression and function on a comparably large scale. Much of the work in computational biology focuses on computational tools used in sequencing, finding genes that are related to a particular gene, finding which parts of the DNA code for proteins and which do not, understanding what proteins will be formed from a given length of DNA, predicting how the proteins will fold from a one-dimensional structure into a three dimensional structure, and so on. Much less computational work has been done regarding the function of proteins. One reason for this is that different proteins function very differently, and so work on protein function is very specific to certain classes of proteins. There are, for example, proteins such enzymes that catalyze various intracellular reactions, receptors that respond to extracellular signals and ion channels that regulate the flow of charged particles into and out of the cell. In this chapter, we will consider a particular class of proteins called transcription factors(TFs), which are responsible for regulating when a certain gene is expressed in a certain cell, which cells it is express in, and how much is expressed. Understanding these processes will involve developing a deeper understanding of transcription, translation, and the cellular processes that control those processes. All of these elements fall under the aegis of gene regulation or more narrowly transcriptional regulation. Some of the key questions in gene regulation are: What genes are expressed in a certain cell at a certain time? How does gene expression differ from cell to cell in a multicellular organism? Which proteins act as transcription factors, i.e., are important in regulating gene expression? From questions like these, we hope to understand which genes are important for various macroscopic processes. Nearly all of the cells of a multicellular organism contain the same DNA. Yet this same genetic information yields a large number of different cell types. The fundamental difference between a neuron and a liver cell, for example, is which genes are expressed. Thus understanding gene regulation is an important step in understanding development. Furthermore, understanding the usual genes that are expressed in cells may give important clues about various diseases. Some diseases, such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, are caused by defects in single, non-regulatory genes; others, such as certain cancers, are caused when the cellular control circuitry malfunctions - an understanding of these diseases will involve pathways of multiple interacting gene products. There are numerous challenges in the area of understanding and modeling gene regulation. First and foremost, biologists would like to develop a deeper understanding of the processes involved, including which genes and families of genes are important, how they interact, etc. From a computation point of view, there has been embarrassingly little work done. In this chapter there are many areas in which we can phrase meaningful, non-trivial computational questions, but questions that have not been addressed. Some of these are purely computational (what is a good algorithm for dealing with a model of type X) and others are more mathematical (given a system with certain characteristics, what sort of model can one use? How does one find biochemical parameters from system-level behavior using as few experiments as possible?). In addition to biological and algorithmic problems, there is also the ever-present issue of theoretical biology - what general principles can be derived from these systems, what can one do with models other than just simulate time-courses, what can be deduced about a class of systems without knowing all the details? The fundamental challenge to computationalists and theorists is to add value to the biology - to use models, modeling techniques and algorithms to understand the biology in new ways.

Mjolsness, Eric↗

Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: I. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vitro

A long-standing dogma in the radiation sciences is that energy from radiation must be deposited in the cell nucleus to elicit a biological effect. A number of non-targeted, delayed effects of ionizing radiation have been described that challenge this dogma and pose new challenges to evaluating potential hazards associated with radiation exposure. These effects include induced genomic instability and non-targeted bystander effects. The in vitro evidence for non-targeted effects in radiation biology will be reviewed, but the question as to how one extrapolates from these in vitro observations to the risk of radiation-induced adverse health effects such as cancer remains open.

Review, Tutorial↗

A model for protocellular coordination of nucleic acid and protein syntheses

The proteinoid model for the coordination of protein synthesis with nucleic acid coding within the evolving protocell is discussed. Evidence for the self-ordering of amino acid chains, which would enhance the catalytic activity of a lysine-rich proteinoid, is presented, along with that for the preferential formation of microparticles, particularly proteinoid microparticles, in various solutions. Demonstrations of the catalytic activity of lysine-rich proteinoids in the synthesis of peptide and internucleotide bonds are pointed out. The view of evolution as a two stage sequence in which the geological synthesis of peptides evolved to the protocellular synthesis of peptides and oligonucleotides is discussed, and contrasted with the alternative view, in accord with the central dogma, that nucleic acids arose first then governed the production of proteins and protocells.

Fox, S. W.↗

Evidence for a scaling solution in cosmic-string evolution

Numerical simulations are used to study the most fundamental issue of cosmic-string evolution: the existence of a scaling solution. Strong evidence is found that a scaling solution does indeed exist. This justifies the main assumption on which the cosmic-string theories of galaxy formation is based. The main conclusion coincides with that of Albrecht and Turok (1985) but the results are not consistent with theirs. In fact, the results indicate that the details of string evolution are very different from the standard dogma.

Bennett, David P.↗

Bacterial Actins? An Evolutionary Perspective

According to the conventional wisdom, the existence of a cytoskeleton in eukaryotes and its absence in prokaryotes constitute a fundamental divide between the two domains of life. An integral part of the dogma is that a cytoskeleton enabled an early eukaryote to feed upon prokaryotes, a consequence of which was the occasional endosymbiosis and the eventual evolution of organelles. Two recent papers present compelling evidence that actin, one of the principal components of a cytoskeleton, has a homolog in Bacteria that behaves in many ways like eukaryotic actin. Sequence comparisons reveml that eukaryotic actin and the bacterial homolog (mreB protein), unlike many other proteins common to eukaryotes and Bacteria, have very different and more highly extended evolutionary histories.

Doolittle, Russell F.↗

Characterization of a novel epigenetic effect of ionizing radiation: the death-inducing effect

The detrimental effects associated with exposure to ionizing radiation have long been thought to result from the direct targeting of the nucleus leading to DNA damage; however, the emergence of concepts such as radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects have challenged this dogma. After cellular exposure to ionizing radiation, we have isolated a number of clones of Chinese hamster-human hybrid GM10115 cells that demonstrate genomic instability as measured by chromosomal destabilization. These clones show dynamic and persistent generation of chromosomal rearrangements multiple generations after the original insult. We hypothesize that these unstable clones maintain this delayed instability phenotype by secreting factors into the culture medium. To test this hypothesis we transferred filtered medium from unstable cells to unirradiated GM10115 cells. No GM10115 cells were able to survive this medium. This phenomenon by which GM10115 cells die when cultured in medium from chromosomally unstable GM10115 clones is the death-inducing effect. Medium transfer experiments indicate that a factor or factors is/are secreted by unstable cells within 8 h of growth in fresh medium and result in cell killing within 24 h. These factors are stable at ambient temperature but do not survive heating or freezing, and are biologically active when diluted with fresh medium. We present the initial description and characterization of the death-inducing effect. This novel epigenetic effect of radiation has implications for radiation risk assessment and for health risks associated with radiation exposure.

Non-NASA Center↗

Molecular evolution inferred from small subunit rRNA sequences: what does it tell us about phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy of the parabasalids?

The Parabasala are a primitive group of protists divided into two classes: the trichomonads and the hypermastigids. Until recently, phylogeny and taxonomy of parabasalids were mainly based on the comparative analysis of morphological characters primarily linked to the development of their cytoskeleton. Recent use of molecular markers, such as small subunit (SSU) rRNA has led to now insights into the systematics of the Parabasala and other groups of prolists. An updated phylogeny based on SSU rRNA is provided and compared to that inferred from ultrastructural data. The SSU rRNA phylogeny contradicts the dogma equating simple characters with pumitive characters. Hypermastigids, possessing a hyperdeveloped cytoskeleton, exhibit the most basal emergence in the parabasalid lineage. Other observations emerge from the SSU rRNA analysis, such as the secondary loss of some cytoskeleton structures in all representatives of the Monocercomonadidae, the existence of secondarily free living taxa (reversibility of parasitism) and the evidence against the co-evolution of the endobiotic parabasalids and their animal hosts. According to phylogenies based on SSU rRNA, all the trichomonad families are not monophyletic groups, putting into question the validity of current taxonomic assignments. The precise branching order of some taxa remains unclear, but this issue can possibly be addressed by the molecular analysis of additional parabasalids. The goal of such additional analyses would be to propose, in a near future, a revision of the taxonomy of this group of protists that takes into account both molecular and morphological data.

NASA Discipline Exobiology↗

GO/NO-GO - When is medical hazard mitigation acceptable for launch?

Medical support of spaceflight missions is composed of complex tasks and decisions that dedicated to maintaining the health and performance of the crew and the completion of mission objectives. Spacecraft represent one of the most complex vehicles built by humans, and are built to very rigorous design specifications. In the course of a Flight Readiness Review (FRR) or a mission itself, the flight surgeon must be able to understand the impact of hazards and risks that may not be completely mitigated by design alone. Some hazards are not mitigated because they are never actually identified. When a hazard is identified, it must be reduced or waivered. Hazards that cannot be designed out of the vehicle or mission, are usually mitigated through other means to bring the residual risk to an acceptable level. This is possible in most engineered systems because failure modes are usually predictable and analysis can include taking these systems to failure. Medical support of space missions is complicated by the inability of flight surgeons to provide "exact" hazard and risk numbers to the NASA engineering community. Taking humans to failure is not an option. Furthermore, medical dogma is mostly comprised of "medical prevention" strategies that mitigate risk by examining the behaviour of a cohort of humans similar to astronauts. Unfortunately, this approach does not lend itself well for predicting the effect of a hazard in the unique environment of space. This presentation will discuss how Medical Operations uses an evidence-based approach to decide if hazard mitigation strategies are adequate to reduce mission risk to acceptable levels. Case studies to be discussed will include: 1. Risk of electrocution risk during EVA 2. Risk of cardiac event risk during long and short duration missions 3. Degraded cabin environmental monitoring on the ISS. Learning Objectives 1.) The audience will understand the challenges of mitigating medical risk caused by nominal and off-nominal mission events. 2.) The audience will understand the process by which medical hazards are identified and mitigated before launch. 3.) The audience will understand the roles and responsibilities of all the other flight control positions in participating in the process of reducing hazards and reducing medical risk to an acceptable level.

Hamilton, Douglas R.↗

Lighting the Way for Quicker, Safer Healing

Who's to say that a little light can t go a long way? Tiny light-emitting diode (LED) chips used to grow plants in space are lighting the way for cancer treatment, wound healing, and chronic pain alleviation on Earth. In 1993, Quantum Devices, Inc. (QDI), of Barneveld, Wisconsin, began developing the HEALS (High Emissivity Aluminiferous Light-emitting Substrate) technology to provide high-intensity, solid-state LED lighting systems for NASA Space Shuttle plant growth experiments. The company evolved out of cooperative efforts with the Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics (WCSAR) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison a NASA center for the Commercial Development of Space. Ronald W. Ignatius, QDI s president and chairman, represented one of WCSAR s industrial partners at the time. WCSAR was conducting research on light sources for promoting food growth within closed environments where humans would be present for a long duration, such as the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. With the support of WCSAR, Ignatius experimented with LEDs, which provide high-energy efficiency and virtually no heat, despite releasing waves of light 10 times brighter than the Sun. Ignatius admits that some scientists involved in the project were skeptical at first, thinking that the idea of using LEDs to promote plant growth was far-fetched. The experiments, however, demonstrated that red LED wavelengths could boost the energy metabolism of cells to advance plant growth and photosynthesis. This finding prompted Ignatius to develop a line of LED products that emit the exact wavelength of light that plants use in photosynthesis. Our company gives credit to Dr. Ray Bula, the director of WCSAR, for having the foresight to go against the prevailing dogma of the time and design the first plant experiment using monochromatic light to grow lettuce plants, Ignatius proclaims. In 1989, Ignatius formed QDI to bring the salt grain-sized LEDs to market, and in October 1995, the light sources made their Space Shuttle flight debut on the second U.S. Microgravity Laboratory Spacelab mission (STS-73, Columbia)

Source record↗

Focused Metabolite Profiling for Dissecting Cellular and Molecular Processes of Living Organisms in Space Environments

Regulatory control in biological systems is exerted at all levels within the central dogma of biology. Metabolites are the end products of all cellular regulatory processes and reflect the ultimate outcome of potential changes suggested by genomics and proteomics caused by an environmental stimulus or genetic modification. Following on the heels of genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, metabolomics has become an inevitable part of complete-system biology because none of the lower "-omics" alone provide direct information about how changes in mRNA or protein are coupled to changes in biological function. The challenges are much greater than those encountered in genomics because of the greater number of metabolites and the greater diversity of their chemical structures and properties. To meet these challenges, much developmental work is needed, including (1) methodologies for unbiased extraction of metabolites and subsequent quantification, (2) algorithms for systematic identification of metabolites, (3) expertise and competency in handling a large amount of information (data set), and (4) integration of metabolomics with other "omics" and data mining (implication of the information). This article reviews the project accomplishments.

Source record↗

Modeling the Activity of Single Genes

The central dogma of molecular biology states that information is stored in DNA, transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then translated into proteins. The human genome project is expected to determine the complete sequence of all human genes, and the genomes of several other organisms are already completely sequenced.

gene↗