Skip to main content

Genes in the Postgenomic Era

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics volume 27, Article number: 499 (2006) Cite this article

Abstract

We outline three very different concepts of the gene—instrumental, nominal, and postgenomic. The instrumental gene has a critical role in the construction and interpretation of experiments in which the relationship between genotype and phenotype is explored via hybridization between organisms or directly between nucleic acid molecules. It also plays an important theoretical role in the foundations of disciplines such as quantitative genetics and population genetics. The nominal gene is a critical practical tool, allowing stable communication between bioscientists in a wide range of fields grounded in well-defined sequences of nucleotides, but this concept does not embody major theoretical insights into genome structure or function. The post-genomic gene embodies the continuing project of understanding how genome structure supports genome function, but with a deflationary picture of the gene as a structural unit. This final concept of the gene poses a significant challenge to conventional assumptions about the relationship between genome structure and function, and between genotype and phenotype.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., Raff M., Roberts K. and Watson J.D. (1994) The Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3 ed. Garland, New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., Raff M., Roberts K. and Watson J.D. (2002) Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4 ed. Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranov Pavel. V., Olga L. Gurvich, Andrew W. Hammer, Raymond F. Gesteland and John F. Atkins (2003) Recode 2003. Nucleic Acids Research 31(1):87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal T., Evans D., Link C. D., Guffanti A., Lawson D., Thierry-Mieg, D., Thierry-Mieg W. L., Chiu K. Duke, Duke, M., Kiraly M. and S. Kim (2002) A global analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans operons. Nature 417(6891):851–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burian Richard M. (2004) Molecular Epigenesis, Molecular Pleiotropy and Molecular Gene Definitions. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26(1):59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapdelaine Y., Bonen L. (1991) The Wheat Mitochondrial Gene for Subunit I of the Nadh Dehydrogenase Complex: A Trans-Splicing Model for This Gene-in-Pieces. Cell 65(3):465–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho P.S.R., Bryan A.C., et al. (2002) A Novel Mitochondrial Protein,Tar1p, Is Encoded on the Antisense Strand of the Nuclear 25S rDNA. Genes andDevelopment 16:2755–2760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Communi D., Suarez-Huerta N., et al. (2001) Cotranscription and intergenic splicing of human P2Y(11) SSF1 genes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276(19):16561–16566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press ,Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins Richard (1982) The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich Michael R. (2000) From Hopeful Monsters to Homeotic Effects: Richard Goldschmidt’s Integration of Development, Evolution and Genetics. American Zoologist 40:738–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich Michael R. (2000) The Problem of the Gene. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Series III - Sciences de la Vie 323(12):1139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon Niall. (2003) Positions, Please... Nature 425:457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Raphael. “Genetic Analysis,” In International Handbook of the Philosophy of Biology. Edited by Mohan Matthen and Chris Stephens. Elsevier, In Press.

  • Falk Raphael (2000) The Gene: A Concept in Tension. In: Peter B., Falk R., Rheinberger H.-J. (eds) The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 317–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk Raphael (1986) What Is a Gene? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 17:133–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finta C. and Zaphiropoulos P.G. (2001) A Statistical View of Genome Transcription. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53:160–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogle Thomas (2001) The Dissolution of Protein Coding Genes in Molecular Biology In: P. Beurton., Falk R., Rheinberger H.-J. (eds) The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes Frederic L. (2000) Seymour Benzer and the Definition of the Gene. In: Beurton P., Falk R., Rheinberger H.-J. (eds) The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 115–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M.W. (2003) “Diversity and evolution of mitochondrial RNA editing systems.” IUBMB Life 55(4–5):227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampa D., Cheng J., Kapranov P., Yamanaka M., Brubaker S., Cawley S., Drenkow J., Piccolboni A., Bekiranov S., Helt G., Tammana H. and Gingeras T.R. (2004) Novel Rnas Identified from an in-Depth Analysis of the Transcriotome of Human Chromosomes 21 and 22. Genome Research 14:331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapranov P., Drenkow J., Cheng J., Long J., Gregg H., Dike S. and Gingeras T.R. (2005) Examples of the Complex Architecture of the Human Transcriptome Revealed by Race and High-Density Tiling Arrays. Genome Research 15:987–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn Thomas (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1 ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morange Michael (1998) A History of Molecular Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan Thomas Hunt (1917) The Theory of the Gene. American Naturalist 51:513–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss Lenny (2003) What Genes Can’t Do. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann-Held E.M. (1998) The Gene Is Dead - Long Live the Gene: Conceptualising the Gene the Constructionist Way. In: P. Koslowski (Eds) Sociobiology and Bioeconomic: The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 105–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby Robert C. (1974) The Path to the Double Helix. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S., Griffiths P.E. and Gray R.D. (eds) (2001) Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portin Petter (1993) The Concept of the Gene: Short History and Present Status. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68(2):173–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stent G. (1977) You Can Take the Ethics out of Altruism but You Can’t Take the Altruism out of Ethics. Hastings Center Report 7(6):33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K. and Griffiths P.E. (1999) Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stotz Karola, Bostanci A. and Griffiths Paul E. (2006) Tracking the Shift to ‘Postgenomics’,” Community Genetics 9(3):190–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stotz K. and Griffiths P.E. (2004) Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26(1):5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters C. Kenneth (1994) Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61:163–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters C. Kenneth (2000) Molecules Made Biological. Rev. Int. de Philosophie 4(214):539–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters C. Kenneth (2004) What Was Classical Genetics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35(4):783–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. Kenneth. “Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won’t Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics.” In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Edited by A. Fine, M. Forbes and L. Wessells. 125–139. Columbia, SC: Philosophy of Science Association, 1990.

  • Weber Marcel (2004) Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams G.C. (1966) Adaptation & Natural Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biohumanities Project, University of Queensland, 301 Michie Building, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Paul E. Griffiths

  2. Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, 810 Eigenmann, Bloomington, IN, 47406, USA

    Karola Stotz

Authors
  1. Paul E. Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karola Stotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul E. Griffiths.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Griffiths, P.E., Stotz, K. Genes in the Postgenomic Era. Theor Med Bioeth 27, 499 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006-9020-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006-9020-y

Keywords

  • Gene definition
  • gene concepts
  • postgenomics
  • history of genetics
  • conceptual change