[Mjhavok]

Nice Post and Summary, that must have taken a lot of work!

Except, is there not some evidence that some epigenetic (neuvo Lamarkian) inheritance does exist?

Yes, there are definitely some epigenetic forms of inheritance and these are generally considered exceptions to the central dogma.

Some more obvious exceptions . . Reverse Transcription- where an RNA can be a template for DNA.

Prions might be considered an exception too- proteins making heritable proteins.

Of course this is my favorite version of the central dogma:  [ Invalid Attachment ]

Sorry about the lousy drawing

RNA---->DNA----->RNA----->Protein is the central dogma.

[Mjhavok]

Another_someone are you refering to something like this.

In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[3] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutagenesis.

I can't see how this disproves the central dogma. I have to admit I haven't studied epigenetics in details yet. Can you point me to the evidence you mentioned.

[another_someone]

Another_someone are you refering to something like this.

In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[3] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutagenesis.

I can't see how this disproves the central dogma. I have to admit I haven't studied epigenetics in details yet. Can you point me to the evidence you mentioned.

As you say, the above does not undermine the doctrine, but it was not what I had in mind at all.

I cannot offhand recall the research, but I vaguely recollect there having been evidence that there can be maternal inheritance in animal studies that is not attributable to nuclear or mitachondrial DNA.

At least one form of epigenetic inheritance is well documented, but is short lived (i.e. the maternal diet can cause changes in offspring, but at most to the second generation - i.e. it can effect the eggs of female children born to mothers with a modified diet, and thus can effect the grandchildren of those mothers, but not the great grandchildren).

I cannot find at present anything but vague speculation that other epigenetic inheritable mechanisms that might be more long lasting exist.

In all cases, DNA is part of the process by which the inherited trait is translated into changes in cellular activity, but the means of inheritance itself is not by changes in the DNA itself, but by the means by which the DNA is read (i.e. the dogma that protein derives from DNA remains true, but it is not necessarily the case that DNA is the only variable that is inherited that will dictate the form of that protein, hence the means of inheritance is epigenetic, even though the means of protein production may not be).

[Mjhavok]

I'll read some of my textbooks for any information and do some web research on this. Interesting stuff.

[WylieE]

RNA---->DNA----->RNA----->Protein is the central dogma.

Right-O, I think an easier way is Crick's original version:
Nucleic Acid ---->Protein
Except he had this cool triangle didn't he?
I can't find it easily on the web now to post here.
Colleen

[Mjhavok]

His original version was expanded upon. We know a lot more than he did back then.