Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down

From: Joao Magalhaes (jpnitya@sapo.pt)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 08:50:50 MDT

Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Martha Stewart and her Merrill Lynch Broker"

Previous message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: [Iraq] The real reason for the war"
In reply to: Damien Broderick: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Next in thread: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Reply: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi!

Sorry to pop up on this threat like this but I had to temporarily
unsubscribe from the list.

Robert, can you repeat the reference to this revised number of human genes?
Also, do you know if human coding regions are bigger than that of other
species? For instance, we may have twice as many genes than bread mold but
our genes may be twice as big and therefore have twice as many functions.
Just wondering.

All the best.

Joao Magalhaes (joao.magalhaes@fundp.ac.be)

Website on Aging: http://www.senescence.info
Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com

Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Martha Stewart and her Merrill Lynch Broker"
Previous message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: [Iraq] The real reason for the war"
In reply to: Damien Broderick: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Next in thread: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Reply: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: GENOMES: Human gene number revised down"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 07:28:16 MDT