Fucking DNA, how does it work?

Hey,

I was writing some fiction which took an unexpected twist in which it became necessary to discuss and consider some genetic issues.

I started reading up, and that is when I discovered that there's something called "imprinting" of DNA, which if I understand correctly regulates which parts of the DNA are actually in use for each thing - and I might not be right *at all*.

Then I found something that blew my mind in Wikipedia (Yeah I know, it's a shit, but I'm a noob) in the Genomic Imprinting article.

>In diploid organisms (like humans), the somatic cells possess two copies of the genome, one inherited from the father and one from the mother.

Does that mean that I contain the entire DNA from my mother and my father, but that imprinting decides which parts actually get used when building me? And that theoretically I could be used to clone my parents?

With that in mind, if I have children, do they contain my DNA code, but only the parts which were actually after all used?

Last but not at all least: What do you guys recommend I could read in order to actually come to understand what I am dealing with?

I thought I knew "everything" and all of a sudden I'm really a freaking newfag and the more I read, the less I understand. So I thought I'd come to you guys for guidance.

It's impossible to have all of your parents DNA.

That is what I assumed was the norm.

>And I don't want to talk to a Veeky Forumsentist, 'cause y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

You should have learned this in middle school. Please don't go around thinking you know almost everything.

"But everybody knows almost everything!
And everybody else is always wrong."

I haven't been to school for a really long time. I would like to stop being an ignorant fuck on this subject.

Then buy or torrent a biology book, and top asking racist teenagers what their opinions are about genetics.

A typical cell inside you has 23 pairs of chromosomes, so 46 in total. In each chromosome pair, one is from the mother and the other is from the father. The chromosomes in each PAIR are nearly identical (called homologous chromosomes), have the same genes but might have different alleles, that is, alternative forms of a gene at the same location. What your sperm contributes to the zygote when you fertilise a female is 23 chromosomes (half of your genetic makeup), and the rest is contributed by the female egg (so the 23 UNPAIRED chromosomes from you and 23 unpaired from the female make up 46 chromosomes in total, or 23 pairs).

Imprinting happens after fertilisation. It is the phenomenon by which, in a certain pair of chromosomes, only the genes from one chromosome (either the paternal or maternal one, depending on the gene) at a specific location of said chromosome is expressed, and the gene from the version of the other parent is not expressed.

It's pretty late and I might have made some mistakes, if anyone spots anything let me know.

Edit: Forgot to say that this doesn't mean only one chromosome out of each pair is expressed. Imprinting is being researched, but for now, we know that only a very small proportion of genes are imprinted, including in humans. Also, the genes that are imprinted still have functions, they just don't express the same genes that the other chromosome in the pair expresses.

Alright, so it actually works the way I assumed it did, but Wikipedia's wording and my own poor understanding on the subject had confused me.

And this imprinting phenomena refers to a way to regulate (for certain pairs) which genes are going to be expressed, but we still don't know the exact purpose and mechanics of the whole deal.

That is perfect. Thank you.

>Does that mean that I contain the entire DNA from my mother and my father, but that imprinting decides which parts actually get used when building me? And that theoretically I could be used to clone my parents?

No, first of... before you were born both your mother and father suffered a genetic recombination which in short added a lot of errors in the copy of the gametes that later formed you(although this only happened on the extremes of the chromosome)

So you can't reconstruct your fathers from your DNA, but you can actually tell from who you came from because the "errors" didn't affect all the chromosomes so you share both halfs of nucleic DNA of your mother and father.

On the other hand I don't know if its because I studied this in another language or but genetic imprinting doesn't give me any clue. But this smells to the famous epigenetics that everyone is talking around.

To understand epigenetic first you must think that the DNA is not alone, nor pure. From time to time, certain segments have proteins joined that blocks the replication of the chain and some pairs(A,T,G,C) have a CH3 group united that act as a small "neutral" signal that marks that small nucleic acid to be destroyed or inactivated(because another protein went over the DNA chain and detected an aberrant pair chain like C-T or U-A and must be destroyed and corrected) or maybe some free radical(generated in the III complex in the mithocondria) just magically made its way to the nucleus and joined with the DNA, or maybe radiation gave enough energy to the DNA atoms to form aberrant joins with things that shouldn't be there(or the radiation destroyed the chain and when it tried to repair itself created a frankensteins of loose strings).

So you see, the DNA is not pure nor static, it gets damaged, badly copied and most of the time you don't even need half of it so you tell to the RNApol what can be copied and what not,

Not the guy you responded to but
>Alright, so it actually works the way I assumed it did
Your original post is full of errors and it seems like you were surprised to learn that humans are diploid, so I would say no, it doesn't work the way you assume it did.

Imprinting basically means that one allele is epigenetically silenced during fertilization.

>so it actually works the way I assumed it did
Well, kind of. Imprinting isn't nearly as widespread as you implied in your OP. Plus, you don't contain all of the DNA from both of your parents, as I explained. Also, you can't clone your parents from your DNA because a) you inherit only half of their genetic makeup that made them unique and b) genetic recombination happens when your sperm is produced, which produces variation within your genome, which is one of the reasons you are different from your parents.

What I meant to say is, that "it actually works the way I assumed it did" as OPPOSED to what I wrote on the OP, which is what some shitty site and Wikipedia told me, which didn't seem to make sense and made me stupidly confused - which is the reason I came here for clarification. What I had read contradicted everything I thought was normal.

You are correct, it's some epigenetic thing that, as I understand it, is still bleeding edge research.

That is a fascinating way to view DNA. Well - fascinating and correct.

What happens if you take the DNA itself without the epigenetics around it, like, for cloning? Wouldn't you need the DNA plus the epigenetic data if you're going to create a viable organism? Or is that simply not how cloning works at all?

You can find epigenetics when suddenly the body feels certain needs on the long run. For example; if you're a fat fuck and eat a shit load of Cholesterol, your body won't have to synthetise more enzymes for lyposynthesis and so there will be some proteins that inhibits the replication of that part of the DNA that creates the enzymes to make more lypids, on the other hand some proteins would promote the synthesis of more lipids(therefore decreasing its number in the cytosol and allowing more fats int)

although this happen if you do that repeatedly, in normal conditions some fosforilations are enough to regulate this process.

I heard that there is another mechanism for this where the histidines show "more" specific parts of the genome to promote its replication, like a whore showing tits. Although I never get how histidines can work like whores since the RNApol goes over the DNA chain like a train until it finds the right gooesbumps(like the TATA box) to start replicating.

>r cloning? Wouldn't you need the DNA plus the epigenetic data if you're going to create a viable organism? Or is that simply not how cloning works at all?

To put it simple, epigenetics is a buzzword for what it means; things that go out of genetics and Im not sure where the line is draw between things that change the DNA and its replication and things that change how the DNA is replicated,

With that I mean that there is no epigenetic "data", all the data is in the DNA since most epigenetics change that I know are from proteins and proteins are made from DNA, so in reality it would be the very same DNA creating its own epigenetic regulation mechanism for the well being of the cell or the organism. Also, when you clone another living being, you usually try to take the DNA from the creature, make a replica out of it and then let nature take its course, and as far as I know you let out the mithochondrial DNA that includes methabolical information for the organism.

Alright, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

>Cholesterol

Not cholesterol but lipids, I was going to take the example for the synthesis of new cholestrol out of HMG-co synthase and how its transcription is regulated with the SREBP protein, but then I realiced that I should really avoid technicall things and sounding too much pedantic for no reason at all.

Also is quite late and the caffeine I took hours ago its not so effective now.

how about you stop speaking on things you've clearly never studied further than a google search
> things that go out of genetics and Im not sure where the line is draw between things that change the DNA and its replication and things that change how the DNA is replicated,
fuck off

Well I'm trying to study right now, if you would mind to make some corrections I would gladly add them to my notes for the future, or I will keep doing those mistakes in the future.

>For example; if you're a fat fuck and eat a shit load of Cholesterol, your body won't have to synthetise more enzymes for lyposynthesis and so there will be some proteins that inhibits the replication of that part of the DNA
Christ's sake. That's not epigenetics, that's just regulation.
Epigenetics are HERITABLE changes in gene expression, such as the DNA methylation in imprinting.

Take the things people post here with a spoonful of salt.
Most people here are just like you who got their information from the internet and thus their knowledge is lacking at best.

>Christ's sake. That's not epigenetics, that's just regulation.

But the process involved isn't a change in how much enzyme is transcribed by modifiyiing the DNA? The proteins directly affect the normal DNA processes by directing what can be replicated and what not, so even though is not a hereditable change its still changing normal transcription in the genetic level.

>But the process involved isn't a change in how much enzyme is transcribed by modifiyiing the DNA?
Depends on what exactly you mean by "modifying DNA".
Covalent modifications? No
Modification in the sense of transcription factors binding to regulatory sequences? Yes.
It's still not epigenetics.

The problem that I'm seeing here is that in univesity a teacher told us("a" teacher, maybe I'm not too advanced in the degree but this subject was never touched) that epigenetics are changes in the DNA without changing the DNA itself but how its rather treated. They never specified that these changes should be transmited to future genertions.

>Covalent modifications? No

Are methylation of wrong base pairs epigenetics then? Its a change that is hereditable but its part of the normal processes to maintain DNA, and not a change by itself but a way to maintain things as they're.

>that epigenetics are changes in the DNA without changing the DNA itself but how its rather treated.
If the base sequence remains the same but there is a heritable change in expression, then it is epigenetics.

,,,

ow.

thanks

half from mum half from daddy; but then there are recombinations and rare mutations/transpositions so shit mixes and matches

>imprinting
are you referring to parental imprinting? That only refers to a small amount of genes

what decides what gets used via specific parts of the body depends originally on protein concentration of the zygote, once multiplication occurs it becomes a cluster fuck of enhancers, inhibitors, gene interactions, etc.

>theoretically i can be used to clone my parents?

see the first point about recombination. I mean, theoretically huge edits can be made to DNA using systems like CRISPR and targeted methylation/demethylation to get the DNA to be exactly like your father (assuming you're male) but it's so much effort it would never be worth it.

>what can you recommend I read

pretty much any genetics book, what you're looking for seems to be basic information on the subject. May want to read a general bio book too depending on how in depth you want to go (most genetics books are tougher reads than general bio so you may need to take baby steps anyway)