Itoero

Yes,suicide is not an evolutionary trait, it's caused by a trait.

ok, it just seems that a 100% dominant mutant that codes for a nonfunctional repressor is very unlikely so doesn't it make more sense that the mutant is codominant to the wildtype?

It's not but the evolutionary trait causes the genetic predisposition.

Suicide is an evolutionary trait. One man's death is another man's bread. "Carpenter ants and some species of termite will rupture glands in a process called autothysis. Termites will use autothysis to defend their colony, as the ruptured gland produces a sticky secretion that leads to a tar baby effect in defense. When threatened by a ladybug, the pea aphid will explode itself, protecting other aphids and sometimes killing the ladybug" When there is a predator, male boars will run away from wife and kids...possibly leading to their own death but securing the safety of the rest of the family. This also explains why male boars are a lot bigger then females.

The good dinosaur...amazing movie

Does this makes any sense?

You can read English books.

-A haploid organism has no need for a mechanism to mask an allele but haploid organisms use RNA polymerase, just like diploid organisms. RNA polymerase has the ability to chose between 1 or 2 alleles, regardless in which organism it's used. -Maybe they are codominant?

We are made to die...it allows us to adapt to a changing environment. If we find everything in our DNA which limits our lifespan then maybe we can cut and paste in our DNA until we can live forever.

My favorite books are the ones of Tolkien and Conn Iggulden (3 books about Genghis Khan) I hope the Silmarillion will ever be used to make a TV-show.

I doubt it will be cleared, it's in the customs for 7 weeks now. If it arrives then I will compare it with idebenone from a known brand, under a microscope. It's a yellow/orange crystalline powder. I have a digital microscope with max magnification of 300. I hope that will suffice.

That's not true. Again, describing a dominant relationship does not explain what causes the relationship. Many recessive alleles are just as functional as dominant alleles. Those recessive alleles must be blocked which is only possible if there is a chemical difference between dominant and recessive alleles, noticeable by RNA polymerase/mRNA. A small RNA encoded by the first allele recognises a specific sequence on the second allele and blocks its expression. It's explained on this website: http://www.inra.fr/en/Scientists-Students/Mechanisms-of-living-organisms/All-reports/Understanding-the-mechanism-behind-dominant-and-recessive-gene-expression/Chapter-Three-Back-to-evolution/(key)/2 RNA polymerase binds to promotor DNA and separates the double helix. It then adds complementary RNA nucleotides at the correct allele. This is the start of mRNA. A ribosome translates mRNA to an amino acid chain (protein) This process is the main cause for the dominant relationship between alleles. When I asked for the cause, I asked why mRNA is formed at the correct allele. It seems that RNA polymerase forms mRNA at the correct allele by the presence of sRNA or RNA targets on the allele.

Do you want to be my friend? I'm a miserable little shit as well!

A small RNA encoded by the first allele recognises a specific sequence on the second allele and blocks its expression. http://www.inra.fr/en/Scientists-Students/Mechanisms-of-living-organisms/All-reports/Understanding-the-mechanism-behind-dominant-and-recessive-gene-expression I asked the cause for dominance/recessiveness and found it myself. And explaining how alleles behave dominant does not explain what causes it.

Yes I do. I asked those questions because you are imo wrong. In your example proteins decoded by alleles of the same gene modify each other's function. The modification of proteins is a property of genes working together, not alleles in a gene. It's called post-translational modification.

Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

There is a way a dominant allele can block a recessive allele, so why wouldn't that be used in most genes?

Can you plz answer my questions? *Do a and c modify the function of b? I thought this was only possible between genes and not alleles of a gene. *A recessive allele is masked by a dominant allele in a gene. This is visible in the alleles which cause our blood type, alleles which cause the colors of mammals, alleles which cause diseases... Do you deny this? *This is the Wikipedia definition: "Dominance in genetics is a relationship between alleles of one gene, in which the effect on phenotype of one allele masks the contribution of a second allele at the same l" This is wrong in your opinion?

A dominant allele masks the contribution of a recessive allele on a phenotype. Since dominant alleles can block recessive alleles with sRNA, isn't it logic that most dominant alleles use that? I don't know the exact system, but I'm not confused. A recessive allele is masked by a dominant allele in a gene. This is visible in the alleles which cause are blood type and alleles which cause the colors of mammals. Do a and c modify the function of b? I thought this was only possible between genes and not alleles of a gene.

thx, I did not look in that column...pretty stupid of me. Idebenone is approved for the treatment of Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy...a degeneration of retinal ganglion cells. Two days ago I had an appointment with my ophthalmologist and he saw damage on my optic nerve which partially exists out of retinal ganglion cells. I suppose I can just ask a doctor for a prescription for idebenone.(raxone)

No but it's never said idebenone is on prescription.

I meant to ask: 'What else can block a recessive allele?' I suppose you mean something like a modifier gene? There is a dominance-based relationship between the alleles of a modifier gene.

I would do it differently but what you say is very true.

Damn that's true. I did order capsuled idebenone from the uk, I'm curious if that will arrive. It's strange that idebenone is on prescription.

It's strange to ask this on a forum.