Nature what is a gene

The implications of such findings for our understanding of evolution have yet to be figured out. But research into the role of RNA as a carrier of information across generations promises to enrich — and complicate — the notion of a gene yet further. Leaving aside the can of worms that studies on epigenetics are beginning to open up, does it matter that many scientists not directly concerned with molecular mechanisms continue to think of genetics in simpler terms?

Some geneticists say yes. They worry that researchers working with an oversimplistic idea of the gene could discard important results that don't fit. A medical researcher, for example, might gloss over the many different transcripts generated by a sequence at one location.

And the lack of a clear idea of what a gene is might also hinder collaboration. Without a clear definition of a gene, life is also difficult for bioinformaticians who want to use computer programs to spot landmark sequences in DNA that signal where one gene ends and the next begins.

But reaching a consensus over the definition is virtually impossible, as Karen Eilbeck can attest. Eilbeck, who works at the University of California in Berkeley, is a coordinator of the Sequence Ontology consortium. This defines labels for landmarks within genetic-sequence databases of organisms, such as the mouse and fly, so that the databases can be more easily compared. The consortium tries, for example, to decide whether a protein-coding sequence should always include the triplet of DNA bases that mark its end.

Eilbeck says that it took 25 scientists the better part of two days to reach a definition of a gene that they could all work with. The group finally settled on a loose definition that could accommodate everyone's demands. Rather than striving to reach a single definition — and coming to blows in the process — most geneticists are instead incorporating less ambiguous words into their vocabulary such as transcripts and exons.

But however much geneticists struggle to pin down the elusive gene, it is precisely its ambiguous nature that fuels their continued curiosity. Some things, it seems, are not best portrayed by a crude four-letter word. Science philosophers Karola Stotz, at Indiana University in Bloomington, and Paul Griffiths, now at the University of Queensland in Australia, are attempting to measure the extent of working biologists' bewilderment over genes.

They collected together 14 weird and wonderful but real genetic arrangements and asked biologists to decide whether each represents one, or more than one, gene. One is a DNA segment that uses some of the same protein-coding sequences to manufacture two entirely different proteins with distinct functions. Another protein is assembled when four different RNA molecules, made from DNA scattered over 40, base pairs, are assembled into one transcript.

So were the biologists who completed the questionnaire. Hardly any confess that they don't know. Stotz wants to examine whether scientists working in separate disciplines tend to view the situations in different lights. Traits are determined by discrete units that are passed from one generation to the next.

The winner is announced, but geneticists acknowledge that they don't know the true answer. Lolle, S. Rassoulzadegan, M. Nature , — Cheng J. Science , — Parra, G.

Genome Res. Akiva, P. Spilianakis, C. Willingham, A. Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Plan matures for partner to genome quest. Cress overturns textbook genetics.

Gene regulation: The brave new world of RNA. Reprints and Permissions. Pearson, H. What is a gene?. Download citation. Published : 24 May Issue Date : 25 May Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative.

BMC Bioinformatics Advanced search. Skip to main content Thank you for visiting nature. What is a gene? Download PDF. Credit: C. Spools of DNA above still harbour surprises, with one protein-coding gene often overlapping the next.

Credit: P. Credit: M. Box 2: Muddling over genes Science philosophers Karola Stotz, at Indiana University in Bloomington, and Paul Griffiths, now at the University of Queensland in Australia, are attempting to measure the extent of working biologists' bewilderment over genes.

Box 1: Hard to track. References 1 Lolle, S. Rights and permissions Reprints and Permissions. About this article Cite this article Pearson, H. Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in empiricism. The behaviorists believe that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

For example, when a person achieves tremendous academic success, did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to be successful or is it a result of an enriched environment? If a man abuses his wife and kids, is it because he was born with violent tendencies or is it something he learned by observing his own parent's behavior?

A few examples of biologically determined characteristics nature include certain genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things like life expectancy and height have a strong biological component, but they are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

An example of a nativist theory within psychology is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device or LAD. Some characteristics are tied to environmental influences. How a person behaves can be linked to influences such as parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, a child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say 'please' and 'thank you. One example of an empiricist theory within psychology is Albert Bandura's social learning theory. According to the theory, people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Even today, research in psychology often tends to emphasize one influence over the other. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, which emphasizes the nature side of the debate. In social psychology , researchers might conduct studies looking at how things such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture.

What researchers do know is that the interaction between heredity and environment is often the most important factor of all. Perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and believe that it might be tied to a single gene.

However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene alone is not enough to develop this ability. Instead, musical training during early childhood is necessary to allow this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait that is influenced by nature and nurture interaction. A child might come from a family where everyone is tall, and he may have inherited these genes for height. However, if he grows up in a deprived environment where he does not receive proper nourishment, he might never attain the height he might have had he grown up in a healthier environment.

Throughout the history of psychology , however, this debate has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach. Psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of the naturalist Charles Darwin, coined both the terms nature versus nurture and eugenics and believed that intelligence was the result of genetics.

Galton believed that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing. Today, the majority of experts believe that both nature and nurture influence behavior and development. However, the issue still rages on in many areas such as in the debate on the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence.

While few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, researchers and experts still debate the degree to which biology and environment influence behavior.

Increasingly, people are beginning to realize that asking how much heredity or environment influence a particular trait is not the right approach. The reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist. These influences include genetic factors that interact with one another, environmental factors that interact such as social experiences and overall culture, as well as how both hereditary and environmental influences intermingle.

Instead, many researchers today are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa.

Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour.

Life Sci Soc Policy. Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature. Anal Verbal Behav. Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered. Clin Med Lond. Bandura, A. Ross, D. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.

Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for VerywellMind. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.

These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification.