JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 17 2007,18:31) | | Yes, I would be interested in seeing that. |
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/174/24/7948?view=long&pmid=1459943
I apologize because I garbled it; unfortunately, it's more bad news for your hypothesis.
It turns out that it was the same bug, Flavobacterium. One of the nylonase genes was deleted, and selection produced a completely new one.
| Quote | | Thank you for the explanations and the data. The second page you cited really helped me understand what I was looking at (and not understanding) in the VISTA program. |
You're most welcome. How's your hypothesis?
| Quote | | The rat genome appears to be a re-arrangement of the mouse genome, so how do we know that the "junk" (as you call it) wasn't rearranged in similar manner? |
It clearly was--it just wasn't conserved, as is clearly shown by the spaces between the pink humps of conserved sequences. Why are you not acknowledging my point about all the breakpoint sequences?
| Quote | | Does the VISTA program check for this? |
Specifically? No, but it answers your question clearly. The spaces between conserved sequences are mostly still there, but they aren't conserved. Do you understand that the spaces in between the conserved pink humps mean that your hypothesis is DOA?
| Quote | | Or does it only compare genes? |
It compares genomes. Genes are only a part of it.
|
