Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28488159›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2017

Arbitrariness is not enough: towards a functional approach to the genetic code.

Ľudmila Lacková, Vladimír Matlach, Dan Faltýnek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Self-Organisation of Prediction Models.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ľudmila LackováDepartment of General Linguistics, Palacký University, Křížkovského 14, 771 47, Olomouc, Czech Republic. ludmila.lackova01@upol.cz.
Vladimír MatlachDepartment of General Linguistics, Palacký University, Křížkovského 14, 771 47, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Dan FaltýnekDepartment of General Linguistics, Palacký University, Křížkovského 14, 771 47, Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arbitrariness in the genetic code is one of the main reasons for a linguistic approach to molecular biology: the genetic code is usually understood as an arbitrary relation between amino acids and nucleobases. However, from a semiotic point of view, arbitrariness should not be the only condition for definition of a code, consequently it is not completely correct to talk about "code" in this case. Yet we suppose that there exist a code in the process of protein synthesis, but on a higher level than the nucleic bases chains. Semiotically, a code should be always associated with a function and we propose to define the genetic code not only relationally (in basis of relation between nucleobases and amino acids) but also in terms of function (function of a protein as meaning of the code). Even if the functional definition of meaning in the genetic code has been discussed in the field of biosemiotics, its further implications have not been considered. In fact, if the function of a protein represents the meaning of the genetic code (the sign's object), then it is crucial to reconsider the notion of its expression (the sign) as well. In our contribution, we will show that the actual model of the genetic code is not the only possible and we will propose a more appropriate model from a semiotic point of view.

Indexed as

Genetic CodeAmino AcidsDNAHistonesModels, GeneticModels, TheoreticalNucleotidesPoint MutationProtein FoldingRNAAmino AcidsDNAHistonesNucleotidesRNAArbitrarinessBiosemioticsGenetic codeProtein functionSemiotics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.