(in the best possible way)
I'm scanning through Science when BAM:
He's imaging RNA polymerase as it transcribes DNA .... nucleotide by freakin' nucleotide ... it's sequencing at the individual molecule level.
(To all those thinking about the future of biology and day dreaming of "big biology", this is where it's at ... single molecule enzymology.)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In biological labs, the term junk DNA is commonly used to describe portion of the genome which have no described function. When I first moved my blog to Scienceblogs, I wrote a little summary of a great theory advanced by William Martin and Eugene V. Koonin on the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus…
First up read yesterday's entry on Genomic Organization.
Now that you've done that, let's talk about a paper that appeared in Nature about a month ago. The article is entitled:
Stepwise chromatin remodelling by a cascade of transcription initiation of non-coding RNAs (link)
Superficially you would…
One of the many very cool things going on in the Laser Cooling Empire at NIST is a series of experiments using optical tweezers to study various biological systems. I used to share an office with the biochemist in the group, who was there to handle the wet chemistry that physicists are notoriously…
Well last night I was invited to dine at Clio's with our Seminar Speaker, James Manley and some of the local transcription gurus, Kevin Struhl, Danesh Moazed, Steve Buratowski and Miriam Bucateli, a postdoc in the Buratowski lab. Unfortunately Dr. Manley had to leave early to catch a flight back to…
Why you do you always make the big/small biology an either/or debate? You'd be hard pressed to argue that "big biology" projects haven't produced some outstanding results (Human Genome Project anyone?) There's also plenty of evidence that suggests that the two approaches complement each other in all kinds of useful ways.
Why don't we all just get along and focus on the real issue facing science: How to get more funding and get more mileage out of the funding we have?
alright, yeah, that's pretty damn cool. but I don't understand the anti-big biology thing. if that gets scaled up and widely used, it would be "big", no?
and while the future of biology might be in that technology, it might also be in technologies like this one, which is excellent "big biology" (though microarrays as well started "little"). the difference between big and little is smaller than you think.
I guess I hit a nerve. No more gratuitous Big Biology bashing, I promise (and you used a DB paper to bat me down, tsk tsk). Let me paste a comment I left at evolgen: