La cuestión de las secuencias reguladoras en el problema del gen
Análisis de las posiciones de Carlson y Griffiths & Neumann–Held
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/bys9.18-279Palabras clave:
Gen, Genética, Definición, Información, PluralismoResumen
El concepto de gen ha sido abordado por diversos autores desde principios del siglo XX hasta la actualidad, sin alcanzarse una definición única que integre de manera satisfactoria los distintos campos de la biología. Diversos autores han propuesto definiciones ajustadas a sus respectivos campos de estudio, en un marco plural de aproximaciones conceptuales. Lejos de estar concluida la “cuestión del gen”, se ha complejizado a la luz de descubrimientos como los intrones, el empalme alternativo, la edición del ARN mensajero, los elementos reguladores distantes y los genes solapados. En el presente trabajo se analizan dos posturas que afectan al concepto de gen: la definición exclusiva de Carlson, y la inclusiva de Griffiths y Neumann–Held, según incluyan únicamente secuencias codificantes o también elementos reguladores dentro del concepto de gen. Se sostiene que la pluralidad del concepto de gen constituye una consecuencia inevitable de la complejidad del fenómeno biológico que se pretende explicar.
Descargas
Citas
Allen, G.E. 2003. Mendel and modern genetics: The legacy for today. Endeavour. 27(2): 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00065-6.
Baltimore, D. 1970. Viral RNA–dependent DNA polymerase: RNA–dependent DNA polymerase in virions of RNA tumour viruses. Nature. 226(5252): 1209–1211. https://doi.org/10.1038/2261209a0.
Barton, P.J.R., K.R. Boheler, N.J. Brand, P.S. Thomas. 1995. Basic concepts in molecu-lar biology. Pp. 1–24. En: Barton, P.J.R., K.R. Boheler, N.J. Brand & P.S. Thomas (Eds.). Molecular Biology of Cardiac Development and Growth. Springer, Berlín–Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22192-1_1.
Benzer, S. 1955. Fine structure of a genetic region in bacteriophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 41(6): 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.41.6.344.
Beurton, P. (Ed.). 2008. The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Histori-cal and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Breathnach, R., J.L. Mandel, P. Chambon. 1977. Ovalbumin gene is split in chicken DNA. Nature. 270(5635): 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/270314a0.
Carlson, E.A. 1991. Defining the gene: An evolving concept. American Journal of Hu-man Genetics. 49(2): 475–487.
Churchill, F.B. 1974. William Johannsen and the genotype concept. Journal of the His-tory of Biology. 7(1): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00179291.
Corella, D., J.M. Ordovas. 2017. Basic concepts in molecular biology related to genetics and epigenetics. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition). 70(9): 744–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2017.05.011.
Dawkins, R. 1981. The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dawkins, R. 1990. The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.
Depew, D.J., B.H. Weber (Eds.). 1986. Evolution at a crossroads: The new biology and the new philosophy of science. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
El–Hani, C.N. 2007. Between the cross and the sword: The crisis of the gene concept. Genetics and Molecular Biology. 30(2): 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572007000300001.
Epp, C.D. 1997. Definition of a gene. Nature. 389(6651): 537–537. https://doi.org/10.1038/39166.
Eyster, W.H. 1924. A genetic analysis of variegation. Genetics. 9(4): 372–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/9.4.372.
Falk, R. 1986. What is a gene? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 17(2): 133–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(86)90024-5.
Gasper, P. 1992. Reduction and instrumentalism in genetics. Philosophy of Science. 59(4): 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1086/289700.
Graubard, M. 1935. The theory of the gene. Pp. 41–51. En: Genetics and the social or-der. Tomorrow Publishers.
Griffiths, P.E., E.M. Neumann–Held. 1999. The many faces of the gene. BioScience. 49(8): 656–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313441.
Jacob, F., J. Monod. 1961. Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology. 3(3): 318–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(61)80072-7.
Manier, E. 1969. The experimental method in biology: T. H. Morgan and the theory of the gene. Synthese. 20(2): 185–205.
Morange, M., M. Morange. 2000. A history of molecular biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Oyama, S. (Ed.). 2001. Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Portin, P. 2002. Historical development of the concept of the gene. The Journal of Med-icine and Philosophy. 27(3): 257–286. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.27.3.257.2980.
Portin, P. 2009. The elusive concept of the gene. Hereditas. 146(3): 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2009.02128.x.
Rushton, A.R. 2014. William Bateson and the chromosome theory of heredity: A reap-praisal. The British Journal for the History of Science. 47(1): 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087413000320.
Schrödinger, E. 1992. What is life?: With mind and matter and autobiographical sketch-es. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stent, G.S. 1977. Explicit and implicit semantic content of the genetic information. Pp. 131–149. En: Butts, R.E. & J. Hintikka (Eds.). Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht.
Waters, C.K. 1994. Genes made molecular. Philosophy of Science. 61(2): 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1086/289794.
Watson, J.D., F.H.C. Crick. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 171(4356): 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0.
Williams, G.C. 1971. Group selection. Aldine–Atherton, Chicago.
Williams, G.C. 1996. Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolu-tionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Yanofsky, C., B.C. Carlton, J.R. Guest, D.R. Helinski, U. Henning. 1964. On the colin-earity of gene structure and protein structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 51(2): 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.51.2.266.
