[continued from previous message]   
      
   > specific genes.  Micro RNAs work just like RNA interference small RNAs   
   > had always worked, but you could make constructs that would produce the   
   > micro RNA sequence that you wanted in the cell.   
   >   
   > The reason why no one made a big deal about the discovery, was because   
   > it wasn't anything that was really new and exceptional.  I didn't think   
   > that it was very exceptional at the time.  Using small RNAs to interfere   
   > with translation was already a working technology in animal research   
   > that had been spawned by the plant discoveries.   
   >   
   > The lab that I did my genomics post doc in was already using RNA   
   > interference in chicken cell culture in 1993.  Finding out that animals   
   > also used RNA interference like plants did wasn't that exciting because   
   > researchers were already using RNA interference in animal tissue culture   
   > to inhibit gene expression.  Their findings were not rejected, just did   
   > not spawn much excitement.  Their findings were published in a very   
   > important journal (Cell) and were never rejected by the scientific   
   > community.   
      
   Exactly. Note that another of Casey's main references for the supposed   
   death of junk DNA is the main ENCODE paper. What a maroon.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)