How Microprocessor precisely initiates miRNA production

A scientific group from the Center for RNA Research within the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) and School of Biological Sciences in Seoul National University has reported an insightful molecular mechanism of how Microprocessor, the DROSHA-DGCR8 complex, precisely determines cleavage sites on miRNA-containing primary transcripts allowing faithful initiation of microRNA biogenesis.

The group's findings, published in Cell on 28th May as Advance Online Publication, not only reveal the function of each part of human Microprocessor, but also outline future work on the molecular structure of the protein complex which will enable various new applications of RNA interference technology in basic research and human therapeutics.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short RNA species of ~22 nucleotides, but play critical roles in a wide variety of cellular processes, including stem cell differentiation and tumorigenesis. Their gene silencing mechanism is dependent on their sequences which are acquired through the miRNA production process, called miRNA biogenesis. This process is initiated in the nucleus by Microprocessor, a complex of the catalytic subunit DROSHA and a co-factor DGCR8, which cleaves primary transcripts (pri-miRNAs) containing miRNA sequences. It is thought that the pri-miRNA processing step determines the sequences of miRNAs and thereby their actions, thus it is greatly important to understand how Microprocessor accurately process pri-miRNAs.

A group of researchers in IBS and SNU led by Dr. Jae-Sung Woo and Dr. V. Narry Kim have made a significant advance toward understanding the of pri-miRNA processing by using highly pure recombinant Microprocessor which was lacking in this field. They discovered that Microprocessor consists of one DROSHA and two DGCR8 molecules. They also disclosed an important and surprising role of DROSHA as a "molecular ruler" by showing that DROSHA can recognize the ssRNA-dsRNA junction at the lower side of pri-miRNA and measure the distance of ~11 base pairs from the junction to find the precise . DROSHA was also found to specifically recognize the UG motif located at the lower junction, allowing it to interact with pri-miRNAs more specifically. Over the previous knowledge, DGCR8 was found to have three functionally distinct parts: the tail to stabilize DROSHA, the body to enhance the processing efficiency by recruiting pri-miRNA, and the head to ensure the processing accuracy by recognizing the upper elements of pri-miRNA including the apical UGU motif.

Dr. Nguyen T. A., the first author of this paper, has integrated various biochemical, biophysical, and bioinformatical data and proposed a current model showing that the functional parts of Microprocessor interact with the cis-acting elements on pri-miRNA for accurate processing. This model also represents an interesting molecular mechanism of the Microprocessor orientation on pri-miRNAs which has been unknown so far. Furthermore, it brings out a comprehensive understanding how Microprocessor acts differently on various pri-miRNA substrates with different sequence and structural features, and clarify decade-standing controversies over the pri-miRNA processing mechanism.


Explore further

Regulation of maternal miRNAs in early embryos revealed

More information: Nguyen, T. A., Jo, M. H., Choi, Y.-G., Park J., Kwon, S. C., Hohng, S., Kim, V. N.* and Woo, J.-S.* (2015) "Functional anatomy of the human Microprocessor" Cell, in press, (*co-corresponding authors), DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.010
Journal information: Cell

Provided by Institute for Basic Science
Citation: How Microprocessor precisely initiates miRNA production (2015, June 2) retrieved 15 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-microprocessor-precisely-mirna-production.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
17 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

JVK
Jun 02, 2015
...the first author of this paper, has integrated various biochemical, biophysical, and bioinformatical data and proposed a current model.... This model ... brings out a comprehensive understanding how Microprocessor acts differently on various pri-miRNA substrates with different sequence and structural features, and clarify decade-standing controversies over the pri-miRNA processing mechanism.


The mechanism links viruses from viral microRNAs and entropic elasticity to cell type differentiation and the stability of organized genomes that is created and maintained by the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs. There is also a model for that. It is great to see that others understand the need to link biochemical, biophysical, and bioinformatical data in the context of an atom to ecosystems model.

See also: http://figshare.c...s/994281

Jun 02, 2015
See also: http://figshare.c...s/994281
@jk
your model has been falsified and debunked as creationist dogma, not science

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

JVK
Jun 03, 2015
http://journals.p....1002145
Conclusion: "More intriguingly, the sustained presence of genetically and functionally equivalent MHC molecules in both humans and chimps (and quite possibly in gorillas) implies that despite the relatively recent origins of HIV and SIV, hominids may have been battling related lentiviruses for the best part of 10 million years."

Excerpt: "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla." ( p. 127) http://www.jstor..../4444260

Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that the single amino acid substitution that differentiates the cell types of these primate blood cells was the result of evolution across millions of years? Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that mutations caused the evolution?

Jun 03, 2015
Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that mutations caused the evolution?
@jk
no
but there are SCIENTISTS who have actually PROVEN that mutations is a major operator and fundamental part of our Evolution and the Theory, like Dr. Extavour, Lenski and Dr. Whittaker

which is a far cry from what you have demonstrated so far with your fundamentalist religion and pseudoscience with unsubstantiated conjectures

in fact, you yourself got one of those SCIENTISTS involved in this thread:
http://phys.org/n...ols.html

flooding the PO site with studies that you can't understand and intentionally misrepresent is NOT going to prove your point, BTW

JVK
Jun 03, 2015
Anyone who is not capable of understand the obvious requirement to link the immune system to cell type differentiation in all genera, should not claim to understand anything about biologically-based cause and effect.

That's the problem with theorists. They think that the math explains what's required to link physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms -- except when confronted with "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over-the-weekend. They can then claim no knowledge of the findings or claim that they are taken out-of-context.

If over-the-weekend is out-of-context to theorists, is ~2 billion years of no evolution also out of context? http://phys.org/n...ars.html

SCIENTISTS who have actually PROVEN that mutations is a major operator and fundamental part of our Evolution and the Theory


Proved that de Vries definition is a major operator in a ridiculous theory. How did they do that?

Jun 05, 2015
Proved that de Vries definition is a major operator in a ridiculous theory. How did they do that?
@jk
back to this blatant lie again?

not only have we demonstrated that this is blatantly false, but we have also shown you where de vries definition is no longer used and the word definition specifically states a definition that is not the same as the one used by de vries

http://phys.org/n...ton.html

by all means, continue to point this out, though, because it specifically labels you as blatantly stupid and demonstrates your lack of intelligence regardless of your Mensa claims

just because YOU are stuck in 1903 with regard to definitions and your ability to assimilate new science doesn't mean we all are

try learning the more modern uses of the word
After all, it was explained to you...
just because you WANT to believe in something doesn't mean it is real or true, jk

your religion has been falsified

JVK
Jun 05, 2015
The religious belief in neo-Darwism is not shared by serious scientists who are making progress based on what is known about the role of amino acid substitutions and the nutrient-dependent stability of organized genomes in all genera.

See: http://rna-mediat...-virome/

Excerpt: Epistasis is perturbed by viruses, which is why the viruses are linked to pathology. They are not linked to beneficial mutations because there is no such thing as a pathological benefit.

Even if you change the definition of mutation to something that encompasses anything that can happen to the organized genomes of all genera, you cannot link virus-perturbed protein folding to the increasing organismal complexity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes, because of the link from viruses to pathology, which does not link the physiology of reproduction to proper selection of nutrients.

Jun 05, 2015
They are not linked to beneficial mutations because there is no such thing as a pathological benefit.
@jk
but that was the purpose of a paper you linked elsewhere, mensa-boy

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

http://beacon-cen...ns-name/

Every once in a while, a deleterious mutation will interact with other mutations in a way that makes them more beneficial together; interactions such as these are known in the literature as "epistatic" mutations.
in fact, you linked PROOF that deleterious mutations can be beneficial with a study by Lenski and then got educated about your fallacious interpretation of said article from Dr. Whittaker

See: http://phys.org/n...ols.html

so AGAIN, you provided the science and links which SPECIFICALLY prove you wrong with experimental evidence and empirical evidence

i thought you were just a fundamentalist
not illiterate too

JVK
Jun 05, 2015
you linked PROOF that deleterious mutations can be beneficial


No. I did not. Only a biologically uninformed science idiot would suggest such a thing.

http://www.the-sc...Viruses/

Jun 06, 2015
you linked PROOF that deleterious mutations can be beneficial


No. I did not. Only a biologically uninformed science idiot would suggest such a thing.

http://www.the-sc...Viruses/]http://www.the-sc...Viruses/[/url]


@JVK

You're funny but not in a humorous way. You most certainly have linked to beneficial mutations
but are so blinded by your creationists bias you didn't realize it.

Now you try to run away by linking an unrelated article.

I'm looking forward to responses to your comments athttp://www.the-sc...Viruses/]http://www.the-sc...Viruses/[/url]

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
Thank you for your patience.

http://rna-mediat...-virome/
http://rna-mediat...mutants/
http://rna-mediat...ulation/

Others: Please thank Vietvet for his ongoing displays of ignorance. Without biologically uninformed science idiots like Stephen Taylor (aka Vietvet), others would not recognize how foolish they have been to believe in ridiculous theories about cell type differentiation.

Jun 06, 2015
you linked PROOF...

No. I did not
@jk
so which other jvk posted THIS?
Co-authored by Lenski:
Experiments on the role of deleterious mutations as stepping stones in adaptive evolution
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

A serious scientist responded: http://beacon-cen...ns-name/
may 27th, here:

http://phys.org/n...ols.html

it even spells out WHY you are wrong, and actually uses experimental data to validate the claims

that is proof by almost any definition that i have read
(i've not been able to reference the definitions that you use as they are obviously altered on a whim for personal reasons, be they religious or simply dislike for a term
there is also no known lexicon compiling your altered definitions)


JVK
Jun 06, 2015
Thanks also to retired SSgt James Stumpy (aka Captain Stumpy).

The ignorance he exemplifies is the ignorance of all theorists who think that definitions and assumptions can be linked to biologically-based cause and effect. According to biologically uninformed science idiots like him, definitions and assumptions are more important than facts.

See for comparison: http://rna-mediat...pment-2/

Jun 06, 2015
See for comparison: http://rna-mediat...pment-2/
@JK
REPORTED

this is a known PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE which promotes CREATIONIST DOGMA over science
ALSO
it is SPAMMING as well as SELF PROMOTION CLICK BAIT

the site also uses PHISHING tactics

feel free to utilize reputable science links in your endeavor to promote your religion because those can be directly refuted as well as direct inquiries made to authors to clarify... utilization of KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE and self-authority arguments only solidify the fact that your argument is one of religious and NOT SCIENTIFIC evidence


Jun 06, 2015
@jk continued
According to biologically uninformed science idiots like him, definitions and assumptions are more important than facts
communication is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human brain
one thing that is well known is that there are ways to concisely communicate an idea or set of known FACTS with clear, concise language

normally this is determined by a common acceptance of a lexicon/nomenclature that is accepted by all (dictionary)
For professional specific jargon, there is also an additional lexicon of definitions that must be used that is ALSO accepted by everyone in the field (technical jargon definitions)

For clear, concise communication, these definitions must be adhered to & accepted by EVERYONE

PSEUDOSCIENCE commonly uses terms incorrectly (or redefines at whim) to attempt to establish some sort of legitimacy for their faith in a topic

this is one of your tactics, jk
mostly due to ignorance and creationist dogma inhibiting science

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
@JK
REPORTED

this is a known PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE


From http://rna-mediat...pment-2/ I linked to:

April 15, 2015 Quantum Criticality in life's proteins (Update)

May 20, 2015 John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools

June 2, 2015 Comparison of bonobo anatomy to humans offers evolutionary clues

June 2, 2015 How Microprocessor precisely initiates miRNA production

June 4, 2015 Decaying RNA molecules tell a story

June 4, 2015 DNA breakage underlies both learning, age-related damage

June 5, 2015 A controversial theory of olfaction deemed implausible

Excerpt: Challenge a theorist to address any aspect of the experimentally established facts that link physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
PSEUDOSCIENCE commonly uses terms incorrectly (or redefines at whim) to attempt to establish some sort of legitimacy for their faith in a topic

this is one of your tactics, jk


de Vries definition of "mutation" was changed by Masatoshi Nei.

"Mutation is the change of genomic structure and includes nucleotide substitution, insertion/deletion, segmental gene duplication, genomic duplication, changes in gene regulatory systems, transposition of genes, horizontal gene transfer, etc." http://www.amazon...99661731

The term was used in the context of re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days.

Challenge a theorist to address any aspect of the experimentally established facts that link physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

Watch them try to tell you the need to use definitions, instead.

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
See also: http://rna-mediat...pment-3/

No definitions were harmed during the accurate portrayal of biologically based RNA-mediated cause and effect.

Jun 06, 2015
From http://rna-mediat...pment-2/
@jk
1- making one valid claim but burying it under pseudoscience is NOT valid science
2- the site also states
Claims ...should be supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, or abandoned along with claims of Mutation-Driven Evolution
as well as
For comparison, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model, which was published on the same day as Nei's textbook
BOTH are KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as based upon creationist idealism
also- promotion of CREATIONIST ideals over science (as you do on your site) is NOT SCIENCE
it is called PSEUDOSCIENCE

you forgot to actually LINK the evidence supporting mutation-driven evolution, like Lenski, Extavour and Whittaker etc
why is that?

your site is CREATIONIST PROPAGANDA
not SCIENCE

REPORTED AGAIN


Jun 06, 2015
de Vries definition of "mutation" was changed by Masatoshi Nei.
@jk
so?
it is published in your lexicon as being
any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element
and i linked various sources which made the exact same claim and supported the definition

it is possible to CHANGE a definition, but not arbitrarily for personal creationist reasons, it MUST have the approval of the bulk of the profession

your "definitions" do NOT have education or approval behind them
they have creationist dogma

that still doesn't make your claims any more effective nor does it make what you post as accurate or legitimate validated science

when you ignore empirical evidence (from Lenski, Dr. Extavour, Dr. Whittaker and others) for the sake of a religion, then it is DOGMA and PSEUDOSCIENCE

your last post is reported too

Jun 06, 2015
Others: Please thank Vietvet for his ongoing displays of ignorance.


Okayeei JVK-Skippy I will do that.

@ Vietvet-Skippy thank for displaying his ignorance, you are playing him like the master puppeteer. (But he do give a lot material to work with, eh?)

Jun 06, 2015
Others: Please thank Vietvet for his ongoing displays of ignorance.


Okayeei JVK-Skippy I will do that.

@ Vietvet-Skippy thank for displaying his ignorance, you are playing him like the master puppeteer. (But he do give a lot material to work with, eh?)


@Uncle Ira

Thanks for the best laugh I've all day.

Jvk is comedy gold.

Jun 06, 2015
For some more laughs at JVK's expense see: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Jun 06, 2015
Bot alert!

Joined June 6 2015

dehoji 5:45 pm
logub 5:48 pm
nuvepatif 5:49 pm
koralohulo 5:50 pm
wezutipeta 5:52 pm

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
http://nar.oxford...abstract
Excerpt: "Naturally occurring nucleic acids are composed of nucleotides in the d-configuration, whereas proteins almost exclusively consist of amino acids in the l-configuration, a phenomenon known as the homochirality of life.

Since the accidental incorporation of a d-aa into a nascent protein may hamper the folding into its native conformation, a high evolutionary selection pressure on chiral discrimination during the translation process can be assumed."

This assumption doesn't go far without running into questions about how the substitution of achiral glycine in the GnRH decapeptide is involved in the hormone-dependent biodiversity of all vertebrate morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

Have evolutionary theorists tried to explain why a single amino acid substitution links food odors and pheromones to the physiology of reproduction in all vertebrates without their ridiculous theories?

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
your "definitions" do NOT have education or approval behind them


I don't use definitions or the assumptions of population geneticists in my model because I was taught to start with gene activation or my model could not be validated. It would have remained no more than a ridiculous theory -- if I had built the model on definitions and/or assumptions.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

JVK
Jun 06, 2015
Understanding the bases of sex differences http://www.ncbi.n.../7209509

Excerpt: "The articles in this issue summarize the factors surrounding sex differences with respect to ontogeny, phenotype, and hormone-sensitive actions. They follow a sequence that begins with genetic sex differences and carries through to cell, tissue, organ and, finally, systemic effects of gender."

If I had started with mutations as the basis for sex differences, no serious scientist would have spoken with me about my model, which was first detailed in a 1992 presentation to a scientific forum. Instead, understanding the basis of sex differences in cell types led me to explain all cell type differences in all cells of all individuals of all genera with the same model.

It is great to see how much scientific progress has been made by serious scientists who are linking changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

Jun 06, 2015
I don't use definitions or the assumptions of population geneticists in my model
Neither do you use biology, facts, or good methodology as it is refuted as being garbage here:

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

the funny thing about your "model" is that even with your ignorance regarding definitions in the field you proclaim to be some expert in, you are using mutations to claim mutations are not possible and you can't get the FACTS straight

another fine point is this: your "model" is not only debunked, but Jones used ACTUAL biology and facts as well as experimental evidence to debunk you

facts like Lenski and more

so why not tell everyone the truth, jk
At one point you were trying to use Dr. Extavour and her work to support your claims
she debunked you outright...
now you denigrate her...

WHY?
it would be nice to see the truth, jimmy
tell us the REAL reason why you don't use her and denigrate her now

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
Widespread Co-translational RNA Decay Reveals Ribosome Dynamics http://www.cell.c...900556-5
Conclusion: Here, we presented a rapid and straightforward approach to study ribosome dynamics in vivo by measuring natural mRNA degradation intermediates. This approach can be applied to different organisms and to any previously isolated RNA samples. By examining ribosome dynamics, we can uncover new layers of translational regulation, distinguish those acting at the level of translation termination or elongation through specific codons, and improve the understanding of how complex biological systems respond to external stimuli.

My comment: Please ask an evolutionary theorist to explain how mutations link any response to external stimuli to the biological basis of increasing organismal complexity that I modeled in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions. See: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
Neither do you use biology, facts, or good methodology as it is refuted as being garbage here:


Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model http://www.socioa...ew/24367

Andrew Jones regurgitated the garbage taught to him by biologically uninformed science idiots, which led him to claim: "The evolution of a successful RNA polymerase ribozyme... would represent an important stepping stone between prebiotic chemistry and life. The encapsulation of such a ribozyme.... would enable a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection. ...it is only a matter of time before that ribozyme is discovered."

Ask any serious scientist whether they believe a link from abiogenesis to that ribozyme will be discovered or whether they believe that the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in yeasts links species from microbes to humans.

Jun 07, 2015
My comment: blah blah blah mutations don't exist except in my model blah blah blah See: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
1- you are posting PSEUDOSCIENCE
2- your ONLY citation is from Jones critique of your paper which proves you WRONG

http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

again, your model relies upon mutations for the change, and you already admit this, so you are claiming that your model is either BS crap or you are proving you don't know what you are talking about

i prefer the latter
especially considering that you've proven it time and again with your interpretations of other works and failure to comprehend your own field terminology

AND
you repeatedly demonstrate this, over and over again
Ask any serious scientist
i asked a few to compare your paper to Jones

the tally so far is:
100% AGREE with Jones in his paper linked above
the ONLY agreement given for your paper was from a priest who admitted no scientific literacy

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
see Jones thesis at http://www.scribd...s#scribd

Also see from Feb 16, 2015: http://medicalxpr...ood.html

Edit: Oh yeah, and I contacted Vosshall. Guess what? You're misinterpreting.

Thanks for being our advocate! I now do remember glancing at some of [Kohl's claims] a few years ago, and it is ridiculous. My approach is just to ignore rather than engage pseudoscience.


Vosshall's works link RNA-mediated events in yeasts to the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes and cell type differentiation in all genera via their nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction. Her works also link mutations in olfactory receptor genes to loss of function.

http://www.nature...SF3.html
"Dots represent amino acid differences with respect to the genome reference, not an inferred ancestor."

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
the ONLY agreement given for your paper was from a priest who admitted no scientific literacy


https://www.faceb...diated/#

The top down epigenetic effect of the sun's biological energy at the level of particle physics is linked to the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding and the development of the human brain.

At any level of examination in the context of biologically-based cause and effect, viruses and viral microRNAs link entropic elasticity to perturbed protein folding and pathology. Nutrient-dependent microRNAs and glycosylation link the anti-entropic effects of the sun to healthy longevity, which is perturbed by viruses in the context of nutrient stress and/or social stress.

Note: The video representation of how top-down causation is epigenetically linked to your ability to see and understand the origins of biological complexity.
https://www.faceb...6774493/

Jun 07, 2015
https://www.faceb...diated/#
@jk
your links are to a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE advocate supporting CREATIONIST dogma

AND
facebook is NOT a legit science site, nor is it a legit science reference
can't get your creationist dogma published in a journal?

ever think there is a REASON for that?

https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

REPORTED for PSEUDOSCIENCE
SELF PROMOTION
SPAMMING
PHISHING
TROLLING
BAITING

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
100% AGREE with Jones in his paper linked above


You are making 100% of those scientists appear to be biologically uninformed science idiots, which is what Andrew Jones did to Leslie Vosshall. You've done this with Extavour and Lenski, and I expected someone to stop you, since you are threatening their careers and past achievements. Please finish quickly with the review/profile of my works that you are writing so others can see what you have done by misrepresenting my claims and their responses.

Do any of them know that you claimed to have been raised for 10 years by wolves?

Jun 07, 2015
Hopefully this is just the start of better times ahead.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
@Vietvet

Are you claiming that you want the biologically uninformed science idiots to continue to make serious scientists appear to be biologically uninformed?

See instead: WEBINAR: Exosome Biogenesis and the Budding of Proteins and Viruses
https://labroots....ld-jul2#

Jun 07, 2015
Are you claiming that you want the biologically uninformed science idiots to continue to make serious scientists appear to be biologically uninformed?


That transference of yours is acting up again, JVK, for your own words have already established that it is YOU who is biologically uninformed:
The biologically uninformed continue to yell: MUTATIONS! (JVK, DEC 18, 2014)

You have introduced that term into at least 30 comments threads, amply demonstrating the truth of your comment!

But even then you are incorrect - you merely TRY (and fail), to make serious scientists appear to be biologically uninformed.

JVK
Jun 07, 2015
"...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements" (p. 199).

Mutation-Driven Evolution
http://www.amazon...99661731

See instead: WEBINAR: Exosome Biogenesis and the Budding of Proteins and Viruses
https://labroots....ld-jul2#

The link from viruses and viral microRNAs to entropic elasticity and genomic entropy/pathology that is prevented by the epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs is obvious to serious scientists who are not biologically uninformed.

See for examples: Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing http://www.medsca...24253661

Jun 09, 2015
... I expected someone to stop you, since you are threatening their careers and past achievements
@jk
if i had misrepresented ANYONE, they would have already contacted me: still nothing from them saying i misrepresented them in any way
so others can see what you have done by misrepresenting my claims and their responses
1- you have the exact same ability that i do to contact the same people and get the same information
2- EVERY time i contact ANYONE, i use your own EXACT words
i don't "paraphrase" you
if YOU cannot correctly communicate what you mean, that is upon YOU, not i
Do any of them know ...
1- that is a direct misrepresentation intentionally designed to inflame and misdirect the conversation - called TROLLING : reported
it is PUBLIC knowledge i raise and rehabilitate wolves
100% of those scientists appear to be biologically uninformed science idiots
because only YOU have the answers right?

BTW- thats called Dunning Kruger

Jun 09, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

JVK stepped into it again. His pattern of suggesting his model is supported when is not.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more