top of page
Search
Writer's pictureAmruth B Arun

The Genetic Showdown



The recent trends suggest there is an increase in research works on RNA. Labs that were earlier working on DNA have now shifted their focus on RNA. Does this mean we have all the information about DNA from previously done research? Would this mean that concluding that DNA is the genetic material in human beings was a mistake by Hershey and Chase?! Is RNA better for working with than DNA? What will be the winner of DNA v/s RNA? We’ll be able to analyze this better at the end of this blog!


Before we even start the analysis and the comparison, let’s start from the basics.

DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid - is the genetic material of our body. DNA is double-stranded and has information for the long run. It is mainly found in the cell's nucleus and sparsely found in mitochondria. It consists of 4 nucleotides: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. DNA is chemically stable and therefore does not react with enzymes that easily.


RNA - Ribonucleic Acid - is generally single-stranded - it can arrange itself in different 3D structures and perform numerous functions. It has information relatively for the short run. Similar to DNA, RNA consists of 4 nucleotides, the difference being that there is Uracil instead of Thymine (nothing important for this blog… but you can still know ;) ). RNA is chemically not as stable as DNA.


The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is a principle that we should know. Do not go by these big, fat words. DNA produces RNA by Transcription; RNA produces amino acids (proteins - building blocks of our body) by Translation.


From the above, we can understand how DNA and RNA are connected.


From everything we have read, let’s only consider that RNA is single-stranded and performs different functions by arranging itself in various 3D structures; RNA is chemically less stable, and RNA is theoretically near the protein formation than DNA.

The above three reasons are some of the main points why the labs are shifting towards RNA research!


RNA having different shapes linked with various RNA functional capabilities may lead to better and more accurate findings. RNA being chemically less stable is considered an advantage by the researchers because RNA reacts with enzymes. Somehow, scientists believe in RNA-seq more than the DNA-seq even though RNA-seq has an extra step (the RNA extracted is reverse transcribed to form a cDNA which can further be fragmented using next-generation sequencing). Thanks to new and evolving techniques, the RNA-seq produces more precise and defined information that the scientists need. Moreover, the cost of this sequencing is reducing every day. Thereby ensuring it is more accessible.


So, can we conclude the future of DNA is in danger? Or were Hershey and Chase wrong? Or have we got to know everything about DNA? The answer to the former two questions is IT DOES NOT MATTER! We need to understand how science works! Every concept proposed will lead science forward and ultimately lead to a better and a quality life!! We can say there has been a shift in the focus on RNA. RNA is comparatively less known in the scientific community when compared to DNA which may lead to new developments than what we know now. However, the answer to the latter question is a definite NO! There can be no complete discovery of a particular thing; this is what I believe is correct.



References -







59 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page