Talk:CH391L/S13/Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction
Revision as of 17:00, 19 February 2013 by Siddharth Das (Questioning the validity of this technique since Jeff brought up many objections.)
- Gabriel Wu 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST): Remove the cost and methods of gene synthesis (or just reference the dna assembly section we've already gone over). Expand the codon optimization section (unless this fits better in somewhere else).
- Gabriel Wu 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST): How does Pauling's proposal for ancestral gene construction relate to the actual discovery of DNA structure?
- Kevin Baldridge 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST):How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?
- Gabriel Wu 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST): Can you include a little more detail in your figures? At least give some detail about the methods used to determine time and explain the acronyms (e.g. PNCA, GNCA, etc).
- Gabriel Wu 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST): What's the oldest intact DNA? What's the oldest species being sequenced today?
- Gabriel Wu 17:08, 18 February 2013 (EST): Separate topic on sequencing wooly mammoths and neanderthals?
- Kevin Baldridge 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST):On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.
- Jeffrey E. Barrick 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST):Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from Matz's website?
- Gabriel Wu 17:20, 18 February 2013 (EST): From Andre: Discussion of Red Queen hypothesis and how ancestral gene reconstruction can show us evolution of interactions between host and virus proteins.
- Siddharth Das 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST): With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.