|
|
|
|
|
by jazzyjackson
1468 days ago
|
|
> It says that some genes result in the same outcome when knocked out as other genes a very useful map to make, but I don't see that this contradicts my comment - both genes in this case are dependencies to the outcome, without either of them, the outcome fails this does not sound to me like we know the "function" of these genes, only that they're nessary for each phenotype not to knock the research, just trying to make sense of what they're really mapping, in my own language of computer code (i suppose "function" has a different connotation in genetics) |
|
But they're not even measuring the phenotype. They're using the transciptional signature as a substitute for phenotype/cell function (i.e. the bag of RNA model). This is a poor substitute if you try to apply this to practical applications such as cell engineering. Let's say I perturb a cell to match it's transcriptional signature to that of a neuron. Does that make it a neuron? Not if it doesn't function like a neuron.