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/bys9.18-279Keywords:
Gene, Genetics, Definition, Information, PluralismAbstract
The concept of the gene has been addressed by various authors from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present, without reaching a single definition capable of satisfactorily integrating the different fields of biology. Various authors have proposed definitions tailored to their respective fields of study, within a plural framework of conceptual approaches. Far from being settled, the “gene question” has become more complex in light of discoveries such as introns, alternative splicing, messenger RNA editing, distant regulatory elements, and overlapping genes. This paper analyzes two positions that bear on the concept of the gene: Carlson’s exclusive definition and the inclusive definition proposed by Griffiths and Neumann–Held, depending on whether the concept of gene includes only coding sequences or also regulatory elements. It is argued that the plurality of the concept of the gene constitutes an inevitable consequence of the complexity of the biological phenomenon it seeks to explain.
Downloads
References
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.
