Ohno’s 1984 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper put forward the hypothesis that frameshift mutations can create novel proteins and illustrated his claim with the supposed evolution of nylon eating bacteria. Several researchers cite Ohno’s 1984 paper favorably including Dennis Venema, Ken Miller and our very own Arlin Stoltzfus of TSZ. Unfortunately, Ohno’s 1984 hypothesis, as far as nylon eating bacteria, is dead wrong.
Here is another paper that also cited Ohno’s 1984 hypothesis favorably. This paper may or may not hold promise as it claims to have found 470 frameshift translations in the human genome.
Now, just going through the first few examples of framshifts in the paper, when I actually went to the NIH GenBank to look up the exmaples I got messages like this for the very first “example”
NCBI Reference Sequence: NM_207478.1 (click to see this obsolete version)
Record removed. NM_207478.1 was permanently suppressed because currently there is insufficient support for the transcript and the protein.
and then the third “example”:
NCBI Reference Sequence: NM_022085.3 (click to see this obsolete version)
Record removed. NM_022085.3: This RefSeq was permanently suppressed because currently there is insufficient support for the transcript and the protein.
and then the fourth “example”
NCBI Reference Sequence: NM_023939.3 (click to see this obsolete version)
Record removed. NM_023939.3 was permanently suppressed because currently there is support for the transcript but not for the protein.
What the heck does this imply about the claims of the paper? Does it rely on dubious data? Is it possible after the paper was published, that these errors were found and corrected in the databases, hence the paper is making claims on now obsolete premises? I mean a lot can happen in 12 years since the paper’s publication in 2006.
If these “proteins” were predicted, rather than verified proteins in the first place, then maybe nothing got frameshifted if the first place. The error is in the gene prediction, not that a real frameshift translation was actually discovered.
That’s not to say there aren’t proteins generated from alternative reading frames. There are such proteins. But this paper claims some sort of gene duplication followed by an alternative reading frame translation. That’s not completely outrageous given we have proteins coded by alternative reading frames, but I just want to try to work through what this paper is saying vs. what the data is saying.
Thanks to all in advance who decide to participate.