Scherrer and Jost’s symposium: the gene concept in 2008

Abstract

Reconsideration of the term “gene” should take into account (a) the potential clash between hierarchical levels of information discussed in the 1970s by Gregory Bateson, (b) the contrast between conventional and genome phenotypes discussed in the 1980s by Richard Grantham, and (c) the emergence in the 1990s of a new science—Evolutionary Bioinformatics—that views genomes as channels conveying multiple forms of information through the generations. From this perspective, there is conceptual continuity between the functional “gene” of Mendel and today’s GenBank sequences. If the function attributed to a gene can change specifically as the result of a DNA mutation, then the mutated part of DNA can be considered as part of the gene. Conversely, even if appearing to locate within a gene, a mutation that does not change the specific function is not part of the gene, although it may change some other function to which the DNA sequence contributes. This strict definition is impractical, but serves as a guide to more workable, context-dependent, definitions. The gene is either (1) The DNA sequence that is transcribed, (2) The latter plus the immediate 5′ and 3′ sequences that, when mutated, specifically affect the function, (3) The latter two, plus any remote sequences that, when mutated, specifically affect the function. Attempts, such as that of Scherrer and Jost, to redefine Mendel’s “gene,” may be too narrowly focused on regulation to the exclusion of other important themes.