This is an important milestone in understanding the three dimensional structure of chromosomes, but like most great papers, it raises more questions than it provides answers…
My comment: That claim is common among researchers who need to keep being funded.
“There’s a growing appreciation that some diseases are related to how the genome is oriented rather than just a mutation,” adds Rao. “This is a little speculative, but there might be diseases where you could go in, put a loop back, and fix the problem.”
My comment: That claim is becoming more common as reseacrhers realize they cannot continue to misrepresent what is already known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect.
Virus-perturbed protein folding links the accumulation of viral microRNAs to genomic entropy and pathology when nutrient-dependent microRNAs can no longer link pre-mRNA splicing from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes.
There is no mystery machine that sculpts any genome. The molecular epigenetics of RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types link nutrient-dependent feedback loops to the physiology of reproduction and back in all living genera.
Keep watching as science journalists change their claims about mutations and evolution to accurate representations of how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptation or extinction via RNA-mediated events.
Did anyone report on these two companion papers?
Structure of a yeast spliceosome at 3.6-angstrom resolution
See also: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA and the musical parody All About that Base
…every angstrom is dynamic from the 5 prime to the three…”
My comment: In yeasts that reproduce sexually the dynamics of the atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptation are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
“I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries” (p. 732). –Lewis Thomas
“On Smell” as cited in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality (1995/2002)
Note the difference between medical intelligence (1980) and pseudoscientific nonsense (2015) touted by evolutionary theorists and science journalists who have never learned how cell type differentiation occurs. See also, for example: The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity
Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.
My comment: Among the biologically uninformed, increasing organismal complexity “just happens” to arise via a mystery machine. Alternatively,
“…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world.” (p. 199)