<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_2158209</id>
	<title>Scientists Discover How DNA Is Folded Within the Nucleus</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255601400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mikael writes <i>"Sciencedaily.com is reporting that scientists have discovered <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm">how DNA is folded within the nucleus of a cell</a> such that active genes remain accessible without becoming tangled. The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. The second observation is that all genes are stored as <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html">fractal globules</a>, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mikael writes " Sciencedaily.com is reporting that scientists have discovered how DNA is folded within the nucleus of a cell such that active genes remain accessible without becoming tangled .
The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations .
The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept .
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept .
The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules , which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded , even though they may be far apart when unfolded .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mikael writes "Sciencedaily.com is reporting that scientists have discovered how DNA is folded within the nucleus of a cell such that active genes remain accessible without becoming tangled.
The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations.
The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept.
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept.
The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763463</id>
	<title>So....</title>
	<author>RabidMoose</author>
	<datestamp>1255605720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, what you're telling me, is that DNA naturally defragments itself, in order to be usable even in an archived state?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're telling me , is that DNA naturally defragments itself , in order to be usable even in an archived state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're telling me, is that DNA naturally defragments itself, in order to be usable even in an archived state?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763609</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1255606560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is DNA folded into the nucleus of a cell without being tangled?<br> <br>
Very carefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is DNA folded into the nucleus of a cell without being tangled ?
Very carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is DNA folded into the nucleus of a cell without being tangled?
Very carefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423</id>
	<title>Hilbert Curve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, life figured out a form of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert\_curve" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hilbert Curve</a> [wikipedia.org] for storing data? Cool!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [ wikipedia.org ] for storing data ?
Cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [wikipedia.org] for storing data?
Cool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765137</id>
	<title>Re:What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the folding referred to in that Wikipedia article is the folding that takes place when cells are about to divide. those X shapes you see under the microscope are two compressed copies of the gene. one copy goes into each cell. then the neat package is unzipped. the folding that is referred to in in this Slashdot post is how it is stored in the cell while it is actively in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the folding referred to in that Wikipedia article is the folding that takes place when cells are about to divide .
those X shapes you see under the microscope are two compressed copies of the gene .
one copy goes into each cell .
then the neat package is unzipped .
the folding that is referred to in in this Slashdot post is how it is stored in the cell while it is actively in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the folding referred to in that Wikipedia article is the folding that takes place when cells are about to divide.
those X shapes you see under the microscope are two compressed copies of the gene.
one copy goes into each cell.
then the neat package is unzipped.
the folding that is referred to in in this Slashdot post is how it is stored in the cell while it is actively in use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764131</id>
	<title>Re:Hilbert Curve</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1255609560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, life figured out a form of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert\_curve" title="wikipedia.org">Hilbert Curve</a> [wikipedia.org] for storing data? Cool!</p></div><p>
Now, if life could just figure out how to get the blinking numbers off of my VCR...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [ wikipedia.org ] for storing data ?
Cool ! Now , if life could just figure out how to get the blinking numbers off of my VCR.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [wikipedia.org] for storing data?
Cool!
Now, if life could just figure out how to get the blinking numbers off of my VCR...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763437</id>
	<title>OH YEAH!!!!</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1255605540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA:<blockquote><div><p>In the past, many scientists had thought that DNA was compressed into a different architecture called an "equilibrium globule," a configuration that is problematic because it can become densely knotted and does not easily open up.
<br> <br>
Key to deciphering the genome's structure was the development of <b>the new Hi-C technique</b>, which permits genome-wide analysis of the proximity of individual genes.</p></div></blockquote><p>When questioned about the research, <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=kool-aid+mascot&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;ei=tp\_XSoKVJ4OHlAe7h9GhAQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=image\_result\_group&amp;ct=title&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CCEQsAQwAw" title="google.com">Kool-Aid Man</a> [google.com] could only sob dejectedly as his rival took the glory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : In the past , many scientists had thought that DNA was compressed into a different architecture called an " equilibrium globule , " a configuration that is problematic because it can become densely knotted and does not easily open up .
Key to deciphering the genome 's structure was the development of the new Hi-C technique , which permits genome-wide analysis of the proximity of individual genes.When questioned about the research , Kool-Aid Man [ google.com ] could only sob dejectedly as his rival took the glory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:In the past, many scientists had thought that DNA was compressed into a different architecture called an "equilibrium globule," a configuration that is problematic because it can become densely knotted and does not easily open up.
Key to deciphering the genome's structure was the development of the new Hi-C technique, which permits genome-wide analysis of the proximity of individual genes.When questioned about the research, Kool-Aid Man [google.com] could only sob dejectedly as his rival took the glory.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767673</id>
	<title>When can I get my nuclear RAM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363</id>
	<title>Origami?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1255605180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How soon before we get folding-paper DNA model artwork?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How soon before we get folding-paper DNA model artwork ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How soon before we get folding-paper DNA model artwork?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1255606560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now maybe Apple could apply this structure to my iPod earphones. They're \_always\_ getting tangled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe Apple could apply this structure to my iPod earphones .
They 're \ _always \ _ getting tangled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe Apple could apply this structure to my iPod earphones.
They're \_always\_ getting tangled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764725</id>
	<title>I call dibs on the patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255614660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I patent this new invention!  You all owe me money or you may not reproduce!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I patent this new invention !
You all owe me money or you may not reproduce !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I patent this new invention!
You all owe me money or you may not reproduce!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774377</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. Therefore, God did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
Therefore , God did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
Therefore, God did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765573</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1255624380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all fractal. All the turtles. All the way down.

</p><p>So look at the large scale, and it is clearly evident that the DNA folding is simply a self-similar scaling of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all fractal .
All the turtles .
All the way down .
So look at the large scale , and it is clearly evident that the DNA folding is simply a self-similar scaling of the Flying Spaghetti Monster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all fractal.
All the turtles.
All the way down.
So look at the large scale, and it is clearly evident that the DNA folding is simply a self-similar scaling of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764127</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it isn't all junk.  Yes there are vestigial genes and repeats such as Ala however, that does not mean that it serves no structural role.  Some repeats especially GGG can distort the DNA coiling structure from the normal B form to other forms that are less useful (eg. Z).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it is n't all junk .
Yes there are vestigial genes and repeats such as Ala however , that does not mean that it serves no structural role .
Some repeats especially GGG can distort the DNA coiling structure from the normal B form to other forms that are less useful ( eg .
Z ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it isn't all junk.
Yes there are vestigial genes and repeats such as Ala however, that does not mean that it serves no structural role.
Some repeats especially GGG can distort the DNA coiling structure from the normal B form to other forms that are less useful (eg.
Z).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763863</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....I'll see myself out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God !
....I 'll see myself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God!
....I'll see myself out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765941</id>
	<title>Just great..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255629960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.. Thats just great. I suppose everyone is gonna want to have their \_own\_ DNA now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great.. Thats just great .
I suppose everyone is gon na want to have their \ _own \ _ DNA now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.. Thats just great.
I suppose everyone is gonna want to have their \_own\_ DNA now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774137</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of some of it as being the code stashed in the library. Obviously you're not going to call on every function stored in there when the program runs, but it's nice to have the functions there when you need them. I'm sure some of those functions are only "run once" during install (embryonal growth stage) and seem junky in that regard but other functions may be used quite often when things like proteins, enzymes, etc. get made in regards to metabolic processes. It seems to make sense that some parts of the library may even only be called up by different cell types. So figuring out what it does wouldn't be obvious unless you were looking at its activity within a particular cell type. (So the specific DNA snippet a liver cell uses will be different than the one used by a skin cell, etc.) There's probably something like a flag or register in the nucleolus or ribosome or something wierd like that which indexes to the DNA. I can only guess, since I'm not a geneticist or biologist.</p><p>Now my sister would know a heck of a lot more since she's in that field, but I'm not going to bother her on the subject just for a mere slashdot post. (But if she or one of her collegues shows up and corrects this or adds the details, that's fine by me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of some of it as being the code stashed in the library .
Obviously you 're not going to call on every function stored in there when the program runs , but it 's nice to have the functions there when you need them .
I 'm sure some of those functions are only " run once " during install ( embryonal growth stage ) and seem junky in that regard but other functions may be used quite often when things like proteins , enzymes , etc .
get made in regards to metabolic processes .
It seems to make sense that some parts of the library may even only be called up by different cell types .
So figuring out what it does would n't be obvious unless you were looking at its activity within a particular cell type .
( So the specific DNA snippet a liver cell uses will be different than the one used by a skin cell , etc .
) There 's probably something like a flag or register in the nucleolus or ribosome or something wierd like that which indexes to the DNA .
I can only guess , since I 'm not a geneticist or biologist.Now my sister would know a heck of a lot more since she 's in that field , but I 'm not going to bother her on the subject just for a mere slashdot post .
( But if she or one of her collegues shows up and corrects this or adds the details , that 's fine by me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of some of it as being the code stashed in the library.
Obviously you're not going to call on every function stored in there when the program runs, but it's nice to have the functions there when you need them.
I'm sure some of those functions are only "run once" during install (embryonal growth stage) and seem junky in that regard but other functions may be used quite often when things like proteins, enzymes, etc.
get made in regards to metabolic processes.
It seems to make sense that some parts of the library may even only be called up by different cell types.
So figuring out what it does wouldn't be obvious unless you were looking at its activity within a particular cell type.
(So the specific DNA snippet a liver cell uses will be different than the one used by a skin cell, etc.
) There's probably something like a flag or register in the nucleolus or ribosome or something wierd like that which indexes to the DNA.
I can only guess, since I'm not a geneticist or biologist.Now my sister would know a heck of a lot more since she's in that field, but I'm not going to bother her on the subject just for a mere slashdot post.
(But if she or one of her collegues shows up and corrects this or adds the details, that's fine by me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29789545</id>
	<title>Re:Hilbert Curve</title>
	<author>Shang Chi</author>
	<datestamp>1255883880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, life figured out a form of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert\_curve" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hilbert Curve</a> [wikipedia.org] for storing data? Cool!</p></div><p>Life figured out a form of Hilbert.  His entire purpose was to facilitate the development of the curve that bears his name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [ wikipedia.org ] for storing data ?
Cool ! Life figured out a form of Hilbert .
His entire purpose was to facilitate the development of the curve that bears his name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, life figured out a form of a Hilbert Curve [wikipedia.org] for storing data?
Cool!Life figured out a form of Hilbert.
His entire purpose was to facilitate the development of the curve that bears his name.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766865</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255690620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get yourself some real earphones then. They sound like crap anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get yourself some real earphones then .
They sound like crap anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get yourself some real earphones then.
They sound like crap anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765441</id>
	<title>I am very disappointed...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1255622760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that Benoit Mandelbrot's discovery of fractal math is at least as important as Buckminster Fuller's obsession with geodesics.  If Fuller got "Bucky Balls," I think fractal globules really ought to be called Benoit Balls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that Benoit Mandelbrot 's discovery of fractal math is at least as important as Buckminster Fuller 's obsession with geodesics .
If Fuller got " Bucky Balls , " I think fractal globules really ought to be called Benoit Balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that Benoit Mandelbrot's discovery of fractal math is at least as important as Buckminster Fuller's obsession with geodesics.
If Fuller got "Bucky Balls," I think fractal globules really ought to be called Benoit Balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29771007</id>
	<title>misleading</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1255719840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. </i></p><p>"Cache" suggests a rapidly accessible copy, but that's not what's happening.</p><p>It's simply that active genes are accessible while inactive genes are inaccessible.  That's not a new insight; that's been known for many years.</p><p>The paper does make valuable contributions, in that it describes the statistics of how genes relate to each other in 3D better than previously known.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept .
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept .
" Cache " suggests a rapidly accessible copy , but that 's not what 's happening.It 's simply that active genes are accessible while inactive genes are inaccessible .
That 's not a new insight ; that 's been known for many years.The paper does make valuable contributions , in that it describes the statistics of how genes relate to each other in 3D better than previously known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept.
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept.
"Cache" suggests a rapidly accessible copy, but that's not what's happening.It's simply that active genes are accessible while inactive genes are inaccessible.
That's not a new insight; that's been known for many years.The paper does make valuable contributions, in that it describes the statistics of how genes relate to each other in 3D better than previously known.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763361</id>
	<title>Yay</title>
	<author>TheCount22</author>
	<datestamp>1255605120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet I am the first to post.</p><p>Unfortunately I have nothing to say....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet I am the first to post.Unfortunately I have nothing to say... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet I am the first to post.Unfortunately I have nothing to say....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764031</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could all the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function? </p></div><p>That isn't "junk" DNA, that's God's comments inside the code you insensitive heretic!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could all the " junk " DNA that we supposedly do n't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function ?
That is n't " junk " DNA , that 's God 's comments inside the code you insensitive heretic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could all the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function?
That isn't "junk" DNA, that's God's comments inside the code you insensitive heretic!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766235</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255636140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any coder can tell you why there's 'junk' DNA.</p><p>If you're revising a functioning program, it's safer to leave in blocks of code you think 'might' be obsolete. If you remove them, and some other part of the program calls them, the program will crash out.</p><p>If you just leave them, and they never get called; no harm - no foul (except extra code)</p><p>Similarly, in evolution, there is no overriding guidance to remove unneeded code, so organisms that leave it only suffer from having to copy extra code. Likewise, if useful code/genes get deleted or corrupted you can wind up missing vital instructions, like: "Make insulin NOW!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any coder can tell you why there 's 'junk ' DNA.If you 're revising a functioning program , it 's safer to leave in blocks of code you think 'might ' be obsolete .
If you remove them , and some other part of the program calls them , the program will crash out.If you just leave them , and they never get called ; no harm - no foul ( except extra code ) Similarly , in evolution , there is no overriding guidance to remove unneeded code , so organisms that leave it only suffer from having to copy extra code .
Likewise , if useful code/genes get deleted or corrupted you can wind up missing vital instructions , like : " Make insulin NOW !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any coder can tell you why there's 'junk' DNA.If you're revising a functioning program, it's safer to leave in blocks of code you think 'might' be obsolete.
If you remove them, and some other part of the program calls them, the program will crash out.If you just leave them, and they never get called; no harm - no foul (except extra code)Similarly, in evolution, there is no overriding guidance to remove unneeded code, so organisms that leave it only suffer from having to copy extra code.
Likewise, if useful code/genes get deleted or corrupted you can wind up missing vital instructions, like: "Make insulin NOW!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765629</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else wish they could read the publicatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I subscribe to Science as a AAAS member, and you can always go to a library for this popular journal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I subscribe to Science as a AAAS member , and you can always go to a library for this popular journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I subscribe to Science as a AAAS member, and you can always go to a library for this popular journal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764237</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A wizard did it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A wizard did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wizard did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763875</id>
	<title>Boo, article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is cool and all, but we've known about the tiered system of DNA storage (the "first observation") for a while now.  Really, the journalist here could have done better.</p><p>And as for the second observation, which depended on their cool new mapping method (barely mentioned!), it's not an actual fractal.  It's instead a more tightly folded, vaguely fractal-esque glob of protein and DNA that keeps nearby sections of DNA close together in the glob, compared to the more tangled equilibrium glob model.</p><p>Article abstract:<br>We describe Hi-C, a method that probes the three-dimensional architecture of whole genomes by coupling proximity-based ligation with massively parallel sequencing. We constructed spatial proximity maps of the human genome with Hi-C at a resolution of 1 megabase. These maps confirm the presence of chromosome territories and the spatial proximity of small, gene-rich chromosomes. We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments. At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. The fractal globule is distinct from the more commonly used globular equilibrium model. Our results demonstrate the power of Hi-C to map the dynamic conformations of whole genomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is cool and all , but we 've known about the tiered system of DNA storage ( the " first observation " ) for a while now .
Really , the journalist here could have done better.And as for the second observation , which depended on their cool new mapping method ( barely mentioned !
) , it 's not an actual fractal .
It 's instead a more tightly folded , vaguely fractal-esque glob of protein and DNA that keeps nearby sections of DNA close together in the glob , compared to the more tangled equilibrium glob model.Article abstract : We describe Hi-C , a method that probes the three-dimensional architecture of whole genomes by coupling proximity-based ligation with massively parallel sequencing .
We constructed spatial proximity maps of the human genome with Hi-C at a resolution of 1 megabase .
These maps confirm the presence of chromosome territories and the spatial proximity of small , gene-rich chromosomes .
We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments .
At the megabase scale , the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule , a knot-free , polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus .
The fractal globule is distinct from the more commonly used globular equilibrium model .
Our results demonstrate the power of Hi-C to map the dynamic conformations of whole genomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is cool and all, but we've known about the tiered system of DNA storage (the "first observation") for a while now.
Really, the journalist here could have done better.And as for the second observation, which depended on their cool new mapping method (barely mentioned!
), it's not an actual fractal.
It's instead a more tightly folded, vaguely fractal-esque glob of protein and DNA that keeps nearby sections of DNA close together in the glob, compared to the more tangled equilibrium glob model.Article abstract:We describe Hi-C, a method that probes the three-dimensional architecture of whole genomes by coupling proximity-based ligation with massively parallel sequencing.
We constructed spatial proximity maps of the human genome with Hi-C at a resolution of 1 megabase.
These maps confirm the presence of chromosome territories and the spatial proximity of small, gene-rich chromosomes.
We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments.
At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus.
The fractal globule is distinct from the more commonly used globular equilibrium model.
Our results demonstrate the power of Hi-C to map the dynamic conformations of whole genomes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1255606380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could all the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function? It wouldn't actively code for any proteins but the coding structure itself might allow it to make these shapes and/or allow the globule to move without causing knots in the structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could all the " junk " DNA that we supposedly do n't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function ?
It would n't actively code for any proteins but the coding structure itself might allow it to make these shapes and/or allow the globule to move without causing knots in the structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could all the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use maybe have some sort of structural stabilization function?
It wouldn't actively code for any proteins but the coding structure itself might allow it to make these shapes and/or allow the globule to move without causing knots in the structure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763407</id>
	<title>tell me something a child couldn't figure out</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255605360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded.</i>
<br>
<br>
Well OBVIOUSLY.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations .
The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept .
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept .
The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules , which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded , even though they may be far apart when unfolded .
Well OBVIOUSLY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations.
The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept.
The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept.
The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded.
Well OBVIOUSLY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765697</id>
	<title>Obligatory Evolution README</title>
	<author>interactive\_civilian</author>
	<datestamp>1255626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone with an interest in evolution and what modern studies of evolution are all about really should read this:</p><p> <a href="http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gkp089" title="oxfordjournals.org">Darwinian Evolution in the light of Genomics</a> [oxfordjournals.org], EV Koonin, Nucleic Acids Research 2009 37(4):1011-1034; doi:10.1093/nar/gkp089 </p><p>Does it directly answer your question? No, it does not. However it will give you the framework necessary for understanding answers when they come along. And it is a good overview of where we are in the studies of evolution, what has been refuted in older theories, and what directions future studies will be taking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone with an interest in evolution and what modern studies of evolution are all about really should read this : Darwinian Evolution in the light of Genomics [ oxfordjournals.org ] , EV Koonin , Nucleic Acids Research 2009 37 ( 4 ) : 1011-1034 ; doi : 10.1093/nar/gkp089 Does it directly answer your question ?
No , it does not .
However it will give you the framework necessary for understanding answers when they come along .
And it is a good overview of where we are in the studies of evolution , what has been refuted in older theories , and what directions future studies will be taking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone with an interest in evolution and what modern studies of evolution are all about really should read this: Darwinian Evolution in the light of Genomics [oxfordjournals.org], EV Koonin, Nucleic Acids Research 2009 37(4):1011-1034; doi:10.1093/nar/gkp089 Does it directly answer your question?
No, it does not.
However it will give you the framework necessary for understanding answers when they come along.
And it is a good overview of where we are in the studies of evolution, what has been refuted in older theories, and what directions future studies will be taking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29771393</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1255721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how you'd demonstrate prior art for that in court...</p><p>Actually no, I don't want to imagine it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how you 'd demonstrate prior art for that in court...Actually no , I do n't want to imagine it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how you'd demonstrate prior art for that in court...Actually no, I don't want to imagine it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764287</id>
	<title>"Junk" = regulatory RNA</title>
	<author>mollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1255610820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably not - it's doing something far more important than that. <p>It's already been known for a few years now that the "junk" scales directly with complexity of the organism - unlike number of genes, which does not. It's becoming increasingly apparent that huge numbers of "junk" sections of DNA are actually transcribed to RNA, and play essential roles in regulating what gets made into protein. </p><p>The new hypothesis is that RNA is the computational engine of the cell, allowing it to rapidly process information and react appropriately, and the non-protein-coding "junk" sections are what it uses to do this. </p><p> There's a guy called <a href="http://imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=11681&amp;pid=11669" title="uq.edu.au" rel="nofollow">John Mattick </a> [uq.edu.au] from the University of Queensland who has done a lot of really exciting work in this area, and gives a fantastic talk on the subject - <a href="http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/19129" title="cam.ac.uk" rel="nofollow"> here's an abstract for a version of it. </a> [cam.ac.uk] Sample quote:
</p><p> <i>the extent of non-protein-coding DNA increases with increasing complexity, reaching 98.8\% in humans, suggesting that much of the information required to program development may reside in these sequences. Moreover it is now evident the majority of the mammalian genome is transcribed, mainly into non-protein-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), and that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of long and short RNAs in mammals that show specific expression patterns and subcellular locations. Our studies indicate that these RNAs form a massive hidden network of regulatory information that regulates epigenetic processes and directs the precise patterns of gene expression during growth and development.</i>
</p><p> Using the argument that cells are RNA machines, there is most likely no junk whatsoever in the human genome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not - it 's doing something far more important than that .
It 's already been known for a few years now that the " junk " scales directly with complexity of the organism - unlike number of genes , which does not .
It 's becoming increasingly apparent that huge numbers of " junk " sections of DNA are actually transcribed to RNA , and play essential roles in regulating what gets made into protein .
The new hypothesis is that RNA is the computational engine of the cell , allowing it to rapidly process information and react appropriately , and the non-protein-coding " junk " sections are what it uses to do this .
There 's a guy called John Mattick [ uq.edu.au ] from the University of Queensland who has done a lot of really exciting work in this area , and gives a fantastic talk on the subject - here 's an abstract for a version of it .
[ cam.ac.uk ] Sample quote : the extent of non-protein-coding DNA increases with increasing complexity , reaching 98.8 \ % in humans , suggesting that much of the information required to program development may reside in these sequences .
Moreover it is now evident the majority of the mammalian genome is transcribed , mainly into non-protein-coding RNAs ( ncRNAs ) , and that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of long and short RNAs in mammals that show specific expression patterns and subcellular locations .
Our studies indicate that these RNAs form a massive hidden network of regulatory information that regulates epigenetic processes and directs the precise patterns of gene expression during growth and development .
Using the argument that cells are RNA machines , there is most likely no junk whatsoever in the human genome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not - it's doing something far more important than that.
It's already been known for a few years now that the "junk" scales directly with complexity of the organism - unlike number of genes, which does not.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that huge numbers of "junk" sections of DNA are actually transcribed to RNA, and play essential roles in regulating what gets made into protein.
The new hypothesis is that RNA is the computational engine of the cell, allowing it to rapidly process information and react appropriately, and the non-protein-coding "junk" sections are what it uses to do this.
There's a guy called John Mattick  [uq.edu.au] from the University of Queensland who has done a lot of really exciting work in this area, and gives a fantastic talk on the subject -  here's an abstract for a version of it.
[cam.ac.uk] Sample quote:
 the extent of non-protein-coding DNA increases with increasing complexity, reaching 98.8\% in humans, suggesting that much of the information required to program development may reside in these sequences.
Moreover it is now evident the majority of the mammalian genome is transcribed, mainly into non-protein-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), and that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of long and short RNAs in mammals that show specific expression patterns and subcellular locations.
Our studies indicate that these RNAs form a massive hidden network of regulatory information that regulates epigenetic processes and directs the precise patterns of gene expression during growth and development.
Using the argument that cells are RNA machines, there is most likely no junk whatsoever in the human genome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766303</id>
	<title>Re:tell me something a child couldn't figure out</title>
	<author>Anghwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1255724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. </i></p> </div><p>This threw me off at first. It read like active genes have a backup stored somewhere in the inactive part. That is not the case =). We're not having and L1/2/3 cache in our genome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations .
This threw me off at first .
It read like active genes have a backup stored somewhere in the inactive part .
That is not the case = ) .
We 're not having and L1/2/3 cache in our genome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations.
This threw me off at first.
It read like active genes have a backup stored somewhere in the inactive part.
That is not the case =).
We're not having and L1/2/3 cache in our genome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy who came up with this storage system was pretty damn smart. RAM with a swap drive, parity. Quite intelligent. Not at all random, if I may say so myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who came up with this storage system was pretty damn smart .
RAM with a swap drive , parity .
Quite intelligent .
Not at all random , if I may say so myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who came up with this storage system was pretty damn smart.
RAM with a swap drive, parity.
Quite intelligent.
Not at all random, if I may say so myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for? Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless, if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over. Instead  junk DNA is compromised of a healthy dose of post-ad-hoc disabled vestigial genes and garbled ones. Since everything that affects your genome is in a sense part of your genotype it wouldn't be surprising if it is preserved but to suggest this DNA is not made of vestigial genes is, quite frankly, quite sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for ?
Junk DNA is junk because it 's content is useless , if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over .
Instead junk DNA is compromised of a healthy dose of post-ad-hoc disabled vestigial genes and garbled ones .
Since everything that affects your genome is in a sense part of your genotype it would n't be surprising if it is preserved but to suggest this DNA is not made of vestigial genes is , quite frankly , quite sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for?
Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless, if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over.
Instead  junk DNA is compromised of a healthy dose of post-ad-hoc disabled vestigial genes and garbled ones.
Since everything that affects your genome is in a sense part of your genotype it wouldn't be surprising if it is preserved but to suggest this DNA is not made of vestigial genes is, quite frankly, quite sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764325</id>
	<title>Re:Hilbert Curve</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1255611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And to top it off, it was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Clever!!!
</p><p>
FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Cells cleverly separate the most active genes into their own special neighborhood, to make it easier for proteins and other regulators to reach them," says Job Dekker, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMass Medical School and a senior author of the Science paper.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And to top it off , it was .. .
Clever ! ! ! FTA : " Cells cleverly separate the most active genes into their own special neighborhood , to make it easier for proteins and other regulators to reach them , " says Job Dekker , associate professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMass Medical School and a senior author of the Science paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And to top it off, it was ...
Clever!!!

FTA:"Cells cleverly separate the most active genes into their own special neighborhood, to make it easier for proteins and other regulators to reach them," says Job Dekker, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMass Medical School and a senior author of the Science paper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763749</id>
	<title>Far more important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares? Whats far more important is when Meatloaf's new scheduler is going to make it into the Linux kernel. I for one am really excited about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
Whats far more important is when Meatloaf 's new scheduler is going to make it into the Linux kernel .
I for one am really excited about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
Whats far more important is when Meatloaf's new scheduler is going to make it into the Linux kernel.
I for one am really excited about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767735</id>
	<title>Re:"Junk" = regulatory RNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pufferfish has little "junk" DNA for whatever reason yet it seems to work quite well notwithstanding. That it has a function doesn't mean that it isn't junk. We are bloated, face it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pufferfish has little " junk " DNA for whatever reason yet it seems to work quite well notwithstanding .
That it has a function does n't mean that it is n't junk .
We are bloated , face it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pufferfish has little "junk" DNA for whatever reason yet it seems to work quite well notwithstanding.
That it has a function doesn't mean that it isn't junk.
We are bloated, face it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29779997</id>
	<title>Richard Dawkins Weighs In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255774980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is yet another triumph of Neo-Darwinian evolution!  Keep in mind that while it appears designed, you must keep telling yourself that it evolved, guided only by natural selection.  Its no different really when you go to Best Buy to select a new computer.  Imagine that you are "Mother Nature" doing the selection of the most fit, and you come across a computer with a cache, and a computer without a cache.  Naturally, you are going to pick the one with the cache because its going to give you much better video.  Well, that's exactly how this came about.  Isn't it obvious?  I mean, if you can't see it, then you are obviously ignorant.  And don't start asking questions about where the cache came from in the first place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet another triumph of Neo-Darwinian evolution !
Keep in mind that while it appears designed , you must keep telling yourself that it evolved , guided only by natural selection .
Its no different really when you go to Best Buy to select a new computer .
Imagine that you are " Mother Nature " doing the selection of the most fit , and you come across a computer with a cache , and a computer without a cache .
Naturally , you are going to pick the one with the cache because its going to give you much better video .
Well , that 's exactly how this came about .
Is n't it obvious ?
I mean , if you ca n't see it , then you are obviously ignorant .
And do n't start asking questions about where the cache came from in the first place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet another triumph of Neo-Darwinian evolution!
Keep in mind that while it appears designed, you must keep telling yourself that it evolved, guided only by natural selection.
Its no different really when you go to Best Buy to select a new computer.
Imagine that you are "Mother Nature" doing the selection of the most fit, and you come across a computer with a cache, and a computer without a cache.
Naturally, you are going to pick the one with the cache because its going to give you much better video.
Well, that's exactly how this came about.
Isn't it obvious?
I mean, if you can't see it, then you are obviously ignorant.
And don't start asking questions about where the cache came from in the first place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763701</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Slicebo</author>
	<datestamp>1255607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766597</id>
	<title>Folding @ home?</title>
	<author>Christoffer777</author>
	<datestamp>1255686180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all these mentions of folding, has this research taken advantage of the Folding@home project?

I'm just curious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all these mentions of folding , has this research taken advantage of the Folding @ home project ?
I 'm just curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all these mentions of folding, has this research taken advantage of the Folding@home project?
I'm just curious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763873</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1255608180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't use</i></p><p>This idea seems to have become embedded in the pop-sci mythos nearly as firmly as the "we only use 10\% of our brains" thing, and it's equally false.  Absolutely everyone working in genetics these days understands that non-coding DNA has multiple biological functions.</p><p>In answer to your question:  yes, it's entirely possible.  I just really felt the need to get the above out of the way first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the " junk " DNA that we supposedly do n't useThis idea seems to have become embedded in the pop-sci mythos nearly as firmly as the " we only use 10 \ % of our brains " thing , and it 's equally false .
Absolutely everyone working in genetics these days understands that non-coding DNA has multiple biological functions.In answer to your question : yes , it 's entirely possible .
I just really felt the need to get the above out of the way first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "junk" DNA that we supposedly don't useThis idea seems to have become embedded in the pop-sci mythos nearly as firmly as the "we only use 10\% of our brains" thing, and it's equally false.
Absolutely everyone working in genetics these days understands that non-coding DNA has multiple biological functions.In answer to your question:  yes, it's entirely possible.
I just really felt the need to get the above out of the way first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764113</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is truly "junk" DNA in our genomes.  This study http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html showed how removing 2.4 million base pairs from a mouse's genome still maintained the critter's viability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is truly " junk " DNA in our genomes .
This study http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html showed how removing 2.4 million base pairs from a mouse 's genome still maintained the critter 's viability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is truly "junk" DNA in our genomes.
This study http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html showed how removing 2.4 million base pairs from a mouse's genome still maintained the critter's viability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765327</id>
	<title>Re:What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about what happens to the DNA when it's NOT in the Chromatin metaphase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about what happens to the DNA when it 's NOT in the Chromatin metaphase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about what happens to the DNA when it's NOT in the Chromatin metaphase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764043</id>
	<title>Re:Origami?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been done: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5941/725 , but with real DNA folded into shapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been done : http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5941/725 , but with real DNA folded into shapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been done: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5941/725 , but with real DNA folded into shapes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763431</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your base-pair are belong to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your base-pair are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your base-pair are belong to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764543</id>
	<title>Anyone else wish they could read the publication?</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1255613040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else wish they could read the actual publication?  It's sad considering this is partly taxpayer funded and given the NIH's and Harvard's push toward open access that the authors didn't choose a more accessible journal for such a groundbreaking piece of work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else wish they could read the actual publication ?
It 's sad considering this is partly taxpayer funded and given the NIH 's and Harvard 's push toward open access that the authors did n't choose a more accessible journal for such a groundbreaking piece of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else wish they could read the actual publication?
It's sad considering this is partly taxpayer funded and given the NIH's and Harvard's push toward open access that the authors didn't choose a more accessible journal for such a groundbreaking piece of work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764005</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1255608840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'll bite.  I'll start by positing that this kind of structure is more efficient or accurate but not 100\% necissary to life.  An assumption, granted but with a bit of research it should be possible to confirm or deny that hypothesis.</p><p>Given that it isn't necissary and is quite complex primitive life probably didn't have it, but due to the fact that is is more efficient or accurate it became more and more common in the gene pool.  You know, the exact same way that any feature evolves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll bite .
I 'll start by positing that this kind of structure is more efficient or accurate but not 100 \ % necissary to life .
An assumption , granted but with a bit of research it should be possible to confirm or deny that hypothesis.Given that it is n't necissary and is quite complex primitive life probably did n't have it , but due to the fact that is is more efficient or accurate it became more and more common in the gene pool .
You know , the exact same way that any feature evolves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll bite.
I'll start by positing that this kind of structure is more efficient or accurate but not 100\% necissary to life.
An assumption, granted but with a bit of research it should be possible to confirm or deny that hypothesis.Given that it isn't necissary and is quite complex primitive life probably didn't have it, but due to the fact that is is more efficient or accurate it became more and more common in the gene pool.
You know, the exact same way that any feature evolves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764955</id>
	<title>Re:Great</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1255617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate it when my schwartz gets tangled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate it when my schwartz gets tangled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate it when my schwartz gets tangled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765527</id>
	<title>This is not news.</title>
	<author>clayski</author>
	<datestamp>1255623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This concept has been the subject of several review articles in the scientific journal Nature  - as early as 2007to my knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This concept has been the subject of several review articles in the scientific journal Nature - as early as 2007to my knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This concept has been the subject of several review articles in the scientific journal Nature  - as early as 2007to my knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764313</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>mollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1255611000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because a section of DNA doesn't encode a protein doesn't make it useless. A lot of that stuff is transcribed, and I'm pretty sure cells don't transcribe garbled gibberish just for the hell of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a section of DNA does n't encode a protein does n't make it useless .
A lot of that stuff is transcribed , and I 'm pretty sure cells do n't transcribe garbled gibberish just for the hell of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a section of DNA doesn't encode a protein doesn't make it useless.
A lot of that stuff is transcribed, and I'm pretty sure cells don't transcribe garbled gibberish just for the hell of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766581</id>
	<title>is it just me or</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1255685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>does the wording of the post sound like a computer geek trying to explain science. So you have this dense storage medium and the bus that runs through it to compile components that ultimately get displayed as proteins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>does the wording of the post sound like a computer geek trying to explain science .
So you have this dense storage medium and the bus that runs through it to compile components that ultimately get displayed as proteins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does the wording of the post sound like a computer geek trying to explain science.
So you have this dense storage medium and the bus that runs through it to compile components that ultimately get displayed as proteins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764257</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255610640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over</p></div><p>Dear sir, you are an idiot and a cretin for making such a bold assertion without supporting it. If the junk DNA served structural purposes and nothing else, then what difference does it make whether it consists of the same base pair, or base pairs from old genes, pray tell?</p><p>You appear to be an ignorant, arrogant and stupid biology major with self esteem issues. Please fuck off and die quietly, you sack of rancid human shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and overDear sir , you are an idiot and a cretin for making such a bold assertion without supporting it .
If the junk DNA served structural purposes and nothing else , then what difference does it make whether it consists of the same base pair , or base pairs from old genes , pray tell ? You appear to be an ignorant , arrogant and stupid biology major with self esteem issues .
Please fuck off and die quietly , you sack of rancid human shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and overDear sir, you are an idiot and a cretin for making such a bold assertion without supporting it.
If the junk DNA served structural purposes and nothing else, then what difference does it make whether it consists of the same base pair, or base pairs from old genes, pray tell?You appear to be an ignorant, arrogant and stupid biology major with self esteem issues.
Please fuck off and die quietly, you sack of rancid human shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764435</id>
	<title>Better picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/10/what\_is\_the\_difference\_between\_the\_human\_genome\_and\_a\_pair\_of.php" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [scienceblogs.com] has a picture that shows the location of the fractal globule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article [ scienceblogs.com ] has a picture that shows the location of the fractal globule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article [scienceblogs.com] has a picture that shows the location of the fractal globule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</id>
	<title>An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255606500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how exactly did the DNA get folded in this manner?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how exactly did the DNA get folded in this manner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how exactly did the DNA get folded in this manner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765167</id>
	<title>Re:What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it is more complete.</p><p>This describes genome order at scale larger than the nucleosome.  Even the wikipedia article gets a bit vague as you go from the 10nm structures up to the 30nm structures.  Notice the change in tone as the section changes from the nucleosome, which is very well described to the "here are a bunch of proposed models" in the next few paragraphs.  There really isn't much to tell you where any two genes (separated along the length of a chromosome) should be relative to one-another in space.</p><p>This study shows that DNA is packed into the nucleus in an ordered fashion, by direct observation of all the spatially close bits.  These end up not being random at all.  Instead they are consistent with a fractal globule.  I'd never heard of these before, but they have some interesting properties with regard to tangling.  Which is probably the best thing about this for me, polymers of this length should tend to get horribly tangled, which would be bad, given that the cell has to split them up every time it divides.</p><p>Overall, very neat, really hard work.</p><p>-sk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is more complete.This describes genome order at scale larger than the nucleosome .
Even the wikipedia article gets a bit vague as you go from the 10nm structures up to the 30nm structures .
Notice the change in tone as the section changes from the nucleosome , which is very well described to the " here are a bunch of proposed models " in the next few paragraphs .
There really is n't much to tell you where any two genes ( separated along the length of a chromosome ) should be relative to one-another in space.This study shows that DNA is packed into the nucleus in an ordered fashion , by direct observation of all the spatially close bits .
These end up not being random at all .
Instead they are consistent with a fractal globule .
I 'd never heard of these before , but they have some interesting properties with regard to tangling .
Which is probably the best thing about this for me , polymers of this length should tend to get horribly tangled , which would be bad , given that the cell has to split them up every time it divides.Overall , very neat , really hard work.-sk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it is more complete.This describes genome order at scale larger than the nucleosome.
Even the wikipedia article gets a bit vague as you go from the 10nm structures up to the 30nm structures.
Notice the change in tone as the section changes from the nucleosome, which is very well described to the "here are a bunch of proposed models" in the next few paragraphs.
There really isn't much to tell you where any two genes (separated along the length of a chromosome) should be relative to one-another in space.This study shows that DNA is packed into the nucleus in an ordered fashion, by direct observation of all the spatially close bits.
These end up not being random at all.
Instead they are consistent with a fractal globule.
I'd never heard of these before, but they have some interesting properties with regard to tangling.
Which is probably the best thing about this for me, polymers of this length should tend to get horribly tangled, which would be bad, given that the cell has to split them up every time it divides.Overall, very neat, really hard work.-sk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764425</id>
	<title>Not a coincidence</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1255612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hilbert3d-step3.png" title="wikipedia.org">Hilbert space filling curve</a> [wikipedia.org] to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like a Hilbert space filling curve [ wikipedia.org ] to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like a Hilbert space filling curve [wikipedia.org] to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764575</id>
	<title>How humans would have designed it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If humans had a task to engineer a solution for this task, how would we do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If humans had a task to engineer a solution for this task , how would we do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If humans had a task to engineer a solution for this task, how would we do it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765979</id>
	<title>More information</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1255630860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's not mentioned in the submitted article, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ohGRoA1658" title="youtube.com">I found this explanatory video helpful</a> [youtube.com] in understanding the folding concepts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's not mentioned in the submitted article , I found this explanatory video helpful [ youtube.com ] in understanding the folding concepts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's not mentioned in the submitted article, I found this explanatory video helpful [youtube.com] in understanding the folding concepts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763965</id>
	<title>mod d03n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">about 700 user5 that sorded, plainly states that goals. It's when</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>about 700 user5 that sorded , plainly states that goals .
It 's when [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about 700 user5 that sorded, plainly states that goals.
It's when [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763777</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"All your base-pair are belong to us"
True in some cases, unfortunately, thanks to the USPTO allowing patents on naturally-occurring structures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All your base-pair are belong to us " True in some cases , unfortunately , thanks to the USPTO allowing patents on naturally-occurring structures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All your base-pair are belong to us"
True in some cases, unfortunately, thanks to the USPTO allowing patents on naturally-occurring structures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763721</id>
	<title>worlds smallest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>origami. I hope they can fold my DNA into crane... or a box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>origami .
I hope they can fold my DNA into crane... or a box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>origami.
I hope they can fold my DNA into crane... or a box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764443</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1255612140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>considering how things interact with DNA, and how subtle changes in one place can cause unimaginably large changes in other unexpected places ("butterfly effect" of sorts) I believe <b>very</b> little of "junk" DNA is actually "junk", by the conceptual definition.  Running over a pebble on the highway may seem irrelevant until you 're not allowed to move the steering wheel.  Then see what a different outcome you get ten miles down the road when someone removes the pebble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>considering how things interact with DNA , and how subtle changes in one place can cause unimaginably large changes in other unexpected places ( " butterfly effect " of sorts ) I believe very little of " junk " DNA is actually " junk " , by the conceptual definition .
Running over a pebble on the highway may seem irrelevant until you 're not allowed to move the steering wheel .
Then see what a different outcome you get ten miles down the road when someone removes the pebble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering how things interact with DNA, and how subtle changes in one place can cause unimaginably large changes in other unexpected places ("butterfly effect" of sorts) I believe very little of "junk" DNA is actually "junk", by the conceptual definition.
Running over a pebble on the highway may seem irrelevant until you 're not allowed to move the steering wheel.
Then see what a different outcome you get ten miles down the road when someone removes the pebble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765501</id>
	<title>Re:An obvious question arises...</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1255623540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same way proteins fold...We don't know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way proteins fold...We do n't know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way proteins fold...We don't know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766191</id>
	<title>Re:What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chromatin and histones form chromosomes during cell division. The chromosomes form for mitosis and meiosis, but during this time, the genes are not very exposed for transcription and normal function. In the normal operating phase of a cell, all of this DNA is unwound into what, under a simple light microscope, looks like a big tangled mess.</p><p>This scientific work has to do with understanding the structures that DNA forms when it is in the loose, unwound form duing interphase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromatin and histones form chromosomes during cell division .
The chromosomes form for mitosis and meiosis , but during this time , the genes are not very exposed for transcription and normal function .
In the normal operating phase of a cell , all of this DNA is unwound into what , under a simple light microscope , looks like a big tangled mess.This scientific work has to do with understanding the structures that DNA forms when it is in the loose , unwound form duing interphase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromatin and histones form chromosomes during cell division.
The chromosomes form for mitosis and meiosis, but during this time, the genes are not very exposed for transcription and normal function.
In the normal operating phase of a cell, all of this DNA is unwound into what, under a simple light microscope, looks like a big tangled mess.This scientific work has to do with understanding the structures that DNA forms when it is in the loose, unwound form duing interphase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765151</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for? Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless,</i></p><p>You have no idea "What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/THE FUCK/" you're talking about.  Please stop spreading misinformation that even in the 70's, when the term "junk DNA" was coined, people had a vague idea probably wasn't right, and which we've known with certainty for 20+ years isn't true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for ?
Junk DNA is junk because it 's content is useless,You have no idea " What /THE FUCK/ " you 're talking about .
Please stop spreading misinformation that even in the 70 's , when the term " junk DNA " was coined , people had a vague idea probably was n't right , and which we 've known with certainty for 20 + years is n't true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for?
Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless,You have no idea "What /THE FUCK/" you're talking about.
Please stop spreading misinformation that even in the 70's, when the term "junk DNA" was coined, people had a vague idea probably wasn't right, and which we've known with certainty for 20+ years isn't true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766845</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255690140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of "junk DNA" is waaayyy outdated. At least by a decade! It was the old error of arrogance, that led some scientists to believe, that when they could not find a use for it, it <em>must</em> be "junk". Until someone found it to be in heavy use, defining the details of what you become. (There was a very interesting article in the German version of the Scientific American [called "Spektrum der Wissenschaft"] about it, some years ago.)</p><p>It's what also caused people to believe that the spleen (the standing army headquarters of the immune system, among other things) or the tonsils (many functions, also much of the immune system) would not be needed, despite them otherwise being long be gone, and not using resources anymore.</p><p>Just as, if your doctor has never seen what you have, has no idea how to heal or just treat it, etc, he will never admit that, but instead say, that there is no cure and there never will be, or even that you aren't sick at all. Even if you go and <em>prove</em> him wrong. Him being wrong is not in his vocabulary of things he can even think about.</p><p>And just as, right now, "scientists" state, that because they are unable to get their calculations to match real measured values, that <em>the universe</em> must be wrong. (Nooo, <em>never</em> them!) And that it hides things from us in the form of "teh ebil dark matterzorz n dark enegiez"! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of " junk DNA " is waaayyy outdated .
At least by a decade !
It was the old error of arrogance , that led some scientists to believe , that when they could not find a use for it , it must be " junk " .
Until someone found it to be in heavy use , defining the details of what you become .
( There was a very interesting article in the German version of the Scientific American [ called " Spektrum der Wissenschaft " ] about it , some years ago .
) It 's what also caused people to believe that the spleen ( the standing army headquarters of the immune system , among other things ) or the tonsils ( many functions , also much of the immune system ) would not be needed , despite them otherwise being long be gone , and not using resources anymore.Just as , if your doctor has never seen what you have , has no idea how to heal or just treat it , etc , he will never admit that , but instead say , that there is no cure and there never will be , or even that you are n't sick at all .
Even if you go and prove him wrong .
Him being wrong is not in his vocabulary of things he can even think about.And just as , right now , " scientists " state , that because they are unable to get their calculations to match real measured values , that the universe must be wrong .
( Nooo , never them !
) And that it hides things from us in the form of " teh ebil dark matterzorz n dark enegiez " !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of "junk DNA" is waaayyy outdated.
At least by a decade!
It was the old error of arrogance, that led some scientists to believe, that when they could not find a use for it, it must be "junk".
Until someone found it to be in heavy use, defining the details of what you become.
(There was a very interesting article in the German version of the Scientific American [called "Spektrum der Wissenschaft"] about it, some years ago.
)It's what also caused people to believe that the spleen (the standing army headquarters of the immune system, among other things) or the tonsils (many functions, also much of the immune system) would not be needed, despite them otherwise being long be gone, and not using resources anymore.Just as, if your doctor has never seen what you have, has no idea how to heal or just treat it, etc, he will never admit that, but instead say, that there is no cure and there never will be, or even that you aren't sick at all.
Even if you go and prove him wrong.
Him being wrong is not in his vocabulary of things he can even think about.And just as, right now, "scientists" state, that because they are unable to get their calculations to match real measured values, that the universe must be wrong.
(Nooo, never them!
) And that it hides things from us in the form of "teh ebil dark matterzorz n dark enegiez"!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766677</id>
	<title>nature is a computer?</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1255687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>machina ex Deus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>machina ex Deus : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>machina ex Deus :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</id>
	<title>What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255611420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused, here.  I'm certainly no biology expert, but I have taken a few courses, one of which the prof seemed to describe exactly how DNA folds.  Indeed, it's spelled out in detail on this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatin#Change\_in\_structure" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia page on chromatin</a> [wikipedia.org]. </p><p> Is this information now obsolete?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused , here .
I 'm certainly no biology expert , but I have taken a few courses , one of which the prof seemed to describe exactly how DNA folds .
Indeed , it 's spelled out in detail on this Wikipedia page on chromatin [ wikipedia.org ] .
Is this information now obsolete ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused, here.
I'm certainly no biology expert, but I have taken a few courses, one of which the prof seemed to describe exactly how DNA folds.
Indeed, it's spelled out in detail on this Wikipedia page on chromatin [wikipedia.org].
Is this information now obsolete?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765089</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Machupo</author>
	<datestamp>1255618140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the surface, it is very easy to attribute the complexity produced by natural selection as a non-random or directed process.  Unfortunately, if you look at the number of failures which were required to come up with this arrangement (and the subsequent spread of the most fit type), it's still just as random as any other natural mutation process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface , it is very easy to attribute the complexity produced by natural selection as a non-random or directed process .
Unfortunately , if you look at the number of failures which were required to come up with this arrangement ( and the subsequent spread of the most fit type ) , it 's still just as random as any other natural mutation process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface, it is very easy to attribute the complexity produced by natural selection as a non-random or directed process.
Unfortunately, if you look at the number of failures which were required to come up with this arrangement (and the subsequent spread of the most fit type), it's still just as random as any other natural mutation process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763743</id>
	<title>Globules</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1255607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My take-away:</p><p>DNA looks like a rubik's cube made out of colored spaghetti.</p><p>Under the old theory, the rubik's spaghetti-sphere looks like it hasn't been solved yet.<br>But under the new theory, the puzzle is solved and all the blue shit is next to all the other blue shit, and so on.</p><p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html" title="mit.edu">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html</a> [mit.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My take-away : DNA looks like a rubik 's cube made out of colored spaghetti.Under the old theory , the rubik 's spaghetti-sphere looks like it has n't been solved yet.But under the new theory , the puzzle is solved and all the blue shit is next to all the other blue shit , and so on.http : //web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html [ mit.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My take-away:DNA looks like a rubik's cube made out of colored spaghetti.Under the old theory, the rubik's spaghetti-sphere looks like it hasn't been solved yet.But under the new theory, the puzzle is solved and all the blue shit is next to all the other blue shit, and so on.http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/3d-genome.html [mit.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765201</id>
	<title>Unfortunately</title>
	<author>Peaker</author>
	<datestamp>1255619820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are ignorant about evolution.  Anyone who says evolution is "random" doesn't know the first thing about evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are ignorant about evolution .
Anyone who says evolution is " random " does n't know the first thing about evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are ignorant about evolution.
Anyone who says evolution is "random" doesn't know the first thing about evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764059</id>
	<title>good job</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1255609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice to see 2 familiar names in one article (Grosberg/Mirny)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see 2 familiar names in one article ( Grosberg/Mirny ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see 2 familiar names in one article (Grosberg/Mirny)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763819</id>
	<title>Folding @ Home</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, was this project a huge success?</p><p>Cake for everyone.  It's not a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , was this project a huge success ? Cake for everyone .
It 's not a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, was this project a huge success?Cake for everyone.
It's not a lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764419</id>
	<title>oh, \_sure\_</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1255611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Down the road:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but, interestingly, this excision had a catastrophic effect on its progeny's ability to evolve<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>... or some other "oh, you didn't expect that" scenario, a l&#224; "Jurassic Park", a l&#224; "Frankenstein", a l&#224; "chaos", a l&#224; the incessantly repeating mythologem of man's hubris wherein <em>some knowledge</em> is mistaken for a holistic grasp or short-sightedness fails to promote a wariness about tangential effects, folks tread (or fly) incautiously, and then the shit hits the fan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Down the road : ... but , interestingly , this excision had a catastrophic effect on its progeny 's ability to evolve ...... or some other " oh , you did n't expect that " scenario , a l   " Jurassic Park " , a l   " Frankenstein " , a l   " chaos " , a l   the incessantly repeating mythologem of man 's hubris wherein some knowledge is mistaken for a holistic grasp or short-sightedness fails to promote a wariness about tangential effects , folks tread ( or fly ) incautiously , and then the shit hits the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Down the road: ... but, interestingly, this excision had a catastrophic effect on its progeny's ability to evolve ...... or some other "oh, you didn't expect that" scenario, a là "Jurassic Park", a là "Frankenstein", a là "chaos", a là the incessantly repeating mythologem of man's hubris wherein some knowledge is mistaken for a holistic grasp or short-sightedness fails to promote a wariness about tangential effects, folks tread (or fly) incautiously, and then the shit hits the fan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765879</id>
	<title>Re:What about beads on a string?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "beads on a string" description is still accurate, at one level of DNA folding.</p><p>This research is dealing with DNA in the nucleus of a cell that isn't undergoing mitosis, and as such, is not condensed into chromosomes. It's also examining an entire genome, versus the much tighter view that you're thinking of.</p><p>The beads on a string are still there, but this is zoomed out, I guess you could say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " beads on a string " description is still accurate , at one level of DNA folding.This research is dealing with DNA in the nucleus of a cell that is n't undergoing mitosis , and as such , is not condensed into chromosomes .
It 's also examining an entire genome , versus the much tighter view that you 're thinking of.The beads on a string are still there , but this is zoomed out , I guess you could say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "beads on a string" description is still accurate, at one level of DNA folding.This research is dealing with DNA in the nucleus of a cell that isn't undergoing mitosis, and as such, is not condensed into chromosomes.
It's also examining an entire genome, versus the much tighter view that you're thinking of.The beads on a string are still there, but this is zoomed out, I guess you could say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29789545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29771393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_2158209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29771007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29771393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29789545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29774137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29765151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29764313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29766581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29767673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_2158209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_2158209.29763721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
