juan_gandhi: (Default)

[personal profile] juan_gandhi 2024-12-30 12:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, very interesting. Thank you!
calimac: (Default)

[personal profile] calimac 2024-12-30 03:36 pm (UTC)(link)
1) Author mentions YouTube essays, and I could easily imagine this piece presented that way. The difference is, if it were I wouldn't watch it, because having to take it in aurally would take much more time than reading it visually.

4) Wikipedia entries on technical subjects in which the reader is not a technical expert are some of the most opaque writing on the planet, yet this one is almost comprehensible. Good job.
hairyears: Spilosoma viginica caterpillar: luxuriant white hair and a 'Dougal' face with antennae. Small, hairy, and venomous (Default)

[personal profile] hairyears 2024-12-31 07:39 am (UTC)(link)
4) Fascinating, but the Wikipedia article describes them as:
Features of obelisks include circular RNA genome assemblies

...And that makes them a subset of plasmids, which are varied and wonderful, and well-known in conventional microbiology.
channelpenguin: (Default)

[personal profile] channelpenguin 2024-12-31 11:55 am (UTC)(link)
Hmmm. If so, why is this not mentioned in the Wikipedia article or either of the 2 linked articles I read?

Someone, in fact many someones, must think differently, to the point of not even mentioning the similarity. I wonder why? Because plasmids are DNA fragments and obelisks RNA? Or that "The RNA sequences of obelisks are unlike any previously described and do not match the DNA or RNA of any known plant, animal, bacterium, or virus."?

It's been 30 years since I studied biology, I would have to go off and do some catch-up reading to decide if I think the structural similarity is close enough. But I do tend towards thinking that because they do have totally novel sequences, they do deserve to be thought of as a thing apart.