Code Biology vs Predatory Publishing (3)
…the researchers report that in catnip terpenes are formed in a two-step process; an enzyme activates a precursor compound which is then grabbed by a second enzyme to produce the substance of interest.
This two-step process has previously never been observed, and the researchers also expect something similar is occurring in the synthesis of anti-cancer drugs vincristine and vinblastine from Madagascan periwinkle, Catharanthus roseus, and elsewhere in olive and snapdragon.
The study also identifies three new enzymes with unusual activity.
Light-activated microRNA biogenesis is required for the creation of enzymes, but Dr Benjamin Lichman claims
We are also working to understand the evolution of catnip to understand how it came to produce the cat-active chemicals.
Simply put, he is asking how how a light-activated two-step process could link the creation of three enzymes to the evolution of species-specific cat-active chemicals in catnip. He is a biologically uninformed theorist who cannot think outside the box of so-called mathematical models.
But see: Plasmodesmata-mediated intercellular signaling during plant growth and development (2014) is #94 of 101 citations in Chapter 6 of Mathematical Modelling in Plant Biology.
The authors attest to the fact that microRNAs appear to be fundamental for patterning, which means the role that microRNAs play in plants must be included in other models. The fact that light-activated microRNA biogenesis in plants has been linked from gene activation in insects to their food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled behavior via the creation of enzymes that link chemicals from plants to the species-specific behavior of cats can also be linked to food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled gene expression in Drosophila and Bombyx mori.
The problem for pseudoscientists and other biologically uninformed theorists is clear.
See: Bmo-miR-79 downregulates the expression of BmEm4 in the silkworm Bombyx mori They failed to link the food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled behavior of moths to all biophysically constrained viral latency and healthy longevity despite the facts about insect pheromones that were first reported in 1959.
See for comparison: Methods in MicroRNA Biogenesis, Identification, Function and Decay
There is no abstract and no authors are listed at this time. This probably is an attempt to claim that pseudoscientists have known all along that energy-dependent light-activated microRNA biogenesis was the key to pheromone-controlled healthy longevity.
But see also: MicroRNA-145 replacement effect on growth and migration inhibition in lung cancer cell line
…increased miR-145 expression exerted a critical role in subsiding the growth, survival, and migration of lung cancer cell line.
If I had any form of cancer, I would want to know how it could be effectively treated with microRNA-mediated therapy. Why would anyone else, such as John Greally or Kevin J. Mitchell make claims that exclude what is known about the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of healthy longevity at the time the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA can be linked to all pathology? What would they claim if one of their loved ones had cancer? Would they tell them there was no hope and that my blog posts are self-glorifying before causing someone else to suffer unnecessarily and die prematurely?