So there you have it: AlphaGenome is a great start, and will surely be a valuable tool. Whether it will lead to clinical advances remains to be seen. Its applicability will be limited by its very nature. And we still need to do the basic science. 32/32

… as the researchers say, because they involve “broader biological processes… beyond the direct sequence-to-function scope of the model”. Let me say that more plainly: they are not predictable from genomic sequence, because that is not where the predominant causes lie. /31

Great book! I am enjoying the dynamics of regulation and TAD section a lot! 🙌 😊

(If only someone had written a book explaining all this stuff about the complexities of gene regulation, regulatory sequences, noncoding genes etc… A book about "how life works" 😉). /18

But not only is more of our genome functional than we once thought; also the distinction between what is functional and what isn’t is rather blurry, and there’s no cut-and-dry technique for distinguishing them. /15

This was never really the case. We have known since the 1960s that some of our non-coding DNA has a crucial role in gene regulation: turning the expression of coding genes on & off. It’s been clear for decades that the regulatory DNA is at least comparable in proportion to the protein-coding DNA. /5

Great photo. Her omission from the 1944 Nobel Prize for the discovery of nuclear fission is said to represent "one of the worst examples of blatant racism and sexism by the Nobel committee."

theconversation.com/lise-meitner...

For decades, it was thought animals arose via a rapid burst of genetic innovation. But by sequencing their closest unicellular relatives (our beloved protists), we now know most of those genes originated before animals evolved. We have tons of data on that! 😀

🤩