Recommend me books on genetics

[Juustin]

I'm looking to do some reading about genetics. I don't have any sort of science degree or anything, I've just found it interesting lately.

Can anyone recommend a good book to start with, that lays out the basics in a way that a layman can understand? I don't want to jump into anything too complicated before I understand the basics.

Thanks!

 

[JJM]

Larry Gonick (and somebody Wheeler) "A Cartoon Guide to Genetics" 2nd edition. It is about fifteen years old; but it will give you a strong foundation. I have seen it recently at Barnes & Noble; otherwise, I am sure there are used copies to be found.

When I was a post-doc in a biochem, we all had copies and agreed it should be required reading on the topic.

 

[Ocelot]

I'm looking to do some reading about genetics. I don't have any sort of science degree or anything, I've just found it interesting lately.

Can anyone recommend a good book to start with, that lays out the basics in a way that a layman can understand? I don't want to jump into anything too complicated before I understand the basics.

Thanks!

I can't recomend the Selfish Gene highly enough. It's a book about evolution but it covers the basics of genetics very well in laymans terms. I feel excused in recomending it at this, the thinnest of opportunities simply because it's such a good read. Beyond that you won't find a simple book that fully covers all of such a wide field. Is it a primer you would like or is there a specific field or application of genetics that piques your interest?

 

[Juustin]

Thanks for the recommendations so far. I just have a general interest in it. I actually had The Selfish Gene on my "to read soon" list already, I liked The Ancestor's Tale a lot. I wasn't sure if having a better understanding of genetics would help me get more out of The Selfish Gene or not.

 

[Big Al]

I'd recommend any of Dawkin's books. The Selfish Gene would probably be my Number One choice, but The Blind Watchmaker and River Out of Eden are also good.

However, if you're up for something a little drier and technical, "The Extended Phenotype" is also worth a read.

 

[kmortis]

If you're into podcasting, Evolution 101 has a good basic primer on molecular biology as part of it. I forget what episode.

 

[scotth]

How is "Origin of Species" not mentioned yet?

Don't overlook the original. It was written for everyone and is quite readable. It is especially spectacular to read through the lens of current discovers about DNA and genetics in general.

 

[JJM]

How is "Origin of Species" not mentioned yet?
...

I was thoroughly impressed when I read OoS, 30-odd years ago. However, it is not about genetics. If I am correct, Darwin died with an unopened copy of Mendel's article in his library. (In those days, one received a pamphlet that had to be sliced open to be read.)

Nonetheless, I find your suggestion admirable.

 

[Big Al]

OtOoS (it's On the Origin of Species) concerns natural selection and heredity. However, Darwin knew next to nothing about the mechanisms involved - he assumed heredity involved an analogue blending of characteristics, not the digital system of DNA.

Genetics couldn't even get a head start until Gregor Mendel's work reached a wider audience. (The fact that the theory of natural selection wasn't even dented by this new knowledge makes it appear even more impressive to me.)

The next major step was Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA, which explained Mendel's findings and pretty much founded the discipline of molecular biology.

 

[JJM]

{snip} Genetics couldn't even get a head start until Gregor Mendel's work reached a wider audience. (The fact that the theory of natural selection wasn't even dented by this new knowledge makes it appear even more impressive to me.)

The next major step was Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA, which explained Mendel's findings and pretty much founded the discipline of molecular biology.

First, somebody had to make the key observation that chromosomes carried genes. Then someone had to notice the central chemical was DNA. Those major steps prececeded W&C.

 

[Big Al]

First, somebody had to make the key observation that chromosomes carried genes. Then someone had to notice the central chemical was DNA. Those major steps prececeded W&C.

Sorry, JJM. Originally, it was assumed that heredity had to be controlled by something chemically and structurally complex, such as a protein. It was fairly soon found that DNA was the magic ingredient, although that took a lot of getting used to, because it is chemically and structurally simple.

Just knowing that DNA was the agent of heredity did NOT start a revolution in genetics, simply because nobody knew how it worked. W&C's discovery of the hydrogen-bonded double helix at a stroke showed how heredity actually does work.

Each helix acts as a template for free nucleotides to build up the complementary helix. Where one had a single DNA strand, one now has two pretty much identical ones. It really was a huge revelation, and both Watson and (particularly) Crick went on to make other great strides in the fledgling science of molecular biology.

For all the pleaders who stress the importance of Rosie Franklin's X-Ray diffraction pictures, that's true, but she didn't realise the importance of her own work. You don't get a Nobel Prize for taking pretty pictures and then doing nothing with them.

 

[JJM]

Sorry, JJM. Originally, it was assumed that heredity had to be controlled by something chemically and structurally complex, such as a protein. It was fairly soon found that DNA was the magic ingredient, although that took a lot of getting used to, because it is chemically and structurally simple.

Just knowing that DNA was the agent of heredity did NOT start a revolution in genetics, simply because nobody knew how it worked. W&C's discovery of the hydrogen-bonded double helix at a stroke showed how heredity actually does work.

Each helix acts as a template for free nucleotides to build up the complementary helix. Where one had a single DNA strand, one now has two pretty much identical ones. It really was a huge revelation, and both Watson and (particularly) Crick went on to make other great strides in the fledgling science of molecular biology.

Apparently, Big Guy, you don’t appreciate the milestones in molecular biology. I don’t know what you consider “fairly soon;” but the identification of chromosomes as the genetic material took place ca. 1920. Chromosomes contain protein and DNA; the identification of DNA as the genetic molecule occurred in the early 1940s (as I recall). These were major discoveries.

I don’t know where you got the idea that DNA is “simple.”

The new DNA produced from a DNA template not by any means “identical” to the template- it is "complementary." The amount of base A in the template equals the amount of base T in the copy, and vice versa. But, please, take it easy on me. I am out of date on molecular biology- I have had little contact with it since reading the new edition of “The Molecular Biology of the Gene” when it came out in 1970.

For all the pleaders who stress the importance of Rosie Franklin's X-Ray diffraction pictures, that's true, but she didn't realise the importance of her own work. You don't get a Nobel Prize for taking pretty pictures and then doing nothing with them.

Rosie Franklin; were you such good friends? She certainly did realize the importance of her work; that is why she was upset that Wilkins gave it away. Where do you get your information? It just happened that Watson knew something about diffraction patterns that she did not, it happens all the time in research that someone else has the solution to your problem. When W&C first thought they had solved the problem, they asked Franklin and Wilkins to their lab to critique it. “Rosie” immediately saw they were wrong. As I recall, she could not be considered for the Nobel because she died before it was awarded. Also, Wilkins was her senior, and science was male-dominated at the time.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm a layman and the Selfish Gene taught me things lots. It corrected my thinking on how stuff works and is accessible.

 

[Big Al]

Apparently, Big Guy, you don’t appreciate the milestones in molecular biology. I don’t know what you consider “fairly soon;” but the identification of chromosomes as the genetic material took place ca. 1920. Chromosomes contain protein and DNA; the identification of DNA as the genetic molecule occurred in the early 1940s (as I recall). These were major discoveries.

I couldn't agree more. However, nobody knew how they worked, and they therefore couldn't explain heredity in any detail. The structure of DNA allows you to start work on that side of things.

I don’t know where you got the idea that DNA is “simple.”

Compared to a protein, it is EXTREMELY simple. Two types of pyrimidine base. Two types of purine base. Sugar-phosphate. Regular helical form.

The new DNA produced from a DNA template not by any means “identical” to the template- it is "complementary." The amount of base A in the template equals the amount of base T in the copy, and vice versa. But, please, take it easy on me. I am out of date on molecular biology- I have had little contact with it since reading the new edition of “The Molecular Biology of the Gene” when it came out in 1970.

Your dry humour escapes me. I understand complementarity reasonably well, thank you very much. I said that where you once had one length of DNA, you now have two identical ones. I specifically mentioned that each separated helix built up a complementary mate. You are trying to put words into my mouth (or fingers).

Rosie Franklin; were you such good friends?

Pardon me: I thought the fact she's been dead for many years made accusations of over-familiarity a moot point.

She certainly did realize the importance of her work; that is why she was upset that Wilkins gave it away. Where do you get your information? It just happened that Watson knew something about diffraction patterns that she did not, it happens all the time in research that someone else has the solution to your problem. When W&C first thought they had solved the problem, they asked Franklin and Wilkins to their lab to critique it. “Rosie” immediately saw they were wrong. As I recall, she could not be considered for the Nobel because she died before it was awarded. Also, Wilkins was her senior, and science was male-dominated at the time.

The fact is that Watson and Crick were 9/10 there. They already knew hydrogen bonding was the key. They just needed the lattice angles, and they got that from Dr. Franklin's X-ray diffraction photos. Maurice Wilkins acted in an underhand manner, as did Watson and Crick. But Dr. Franklin still had it before they did and she still didn't crack it. For the record, I don't think Wilkins deserved a share of the Nobel, and I think Dr. Franklin had an equal claim to it as him.

There we are. I have now said Dr. Franklin more often than I uttered the "R-word". May I be excused now?

I still believe that the modern science of genetics only really got underway with a combination of Mendel's work and the physical structure of DNA. You haven't said anything to dissuade me from that view, JJM.

 

[JJM]

{snip} I understand complementarity reasonably well, thank you very much. I said that where you once had one length of DNA, you now have two identical ones. I specifically mentioned that each separated helix built up a complementary mate. You are trying to put words into my mouth (or fingers).

No, you said

Each helix acts as a template for free nucleotides to build up the complementary helix. Where one had a single DNA strand, one now has two pretty much identical ones. [emphasis added]

See, the word "separated" is missing. A "single DNA strand" is interpreted as meaning "not" a double helix. That's a convention. A single strand of DNA does not give rise to two identical ones. So, okay, your wording was imprecise. No harm.

I still believe that the modern science of genetics only really got underway with a combination of Mendel's work and the physical structure of DNA. You haven't said anything to dissuade me from that view, JJM.

I suppose you could equally argue that it is critically dependent on Antoine Lavoisier establishing the modern science of chemistry, in the 18th century. I don't care.

 

[Big Al]

No, you saidSee, the word "separated" is missing. A "single DNA strand" is interpreted as meaning "not" a double helix. That's a convention. A single strand of DNA does not give rise to two identical ones. So, okay, your wording was imprecise. No harm.

My bad. Still, having talked about the complementary helix, I would have thought my meaning was clear enough.

I suppose you could equally argue that it is critically dependent on Antoine Lavoisier establishing the modern science of chemistry, in the 18th century. I don't care.

Or the evolution of speech, or emerging from the oceans, or the Big Bang... the discovery of the double helix wasn't just another little incremental step. Scientists had known DNA was the stuff of heredity for a long time, and they knew A=T and G=C, but they were making no headway on genetics, protein synthesis, etc.

Watson and Crick kickstarted molecular biology, and Crick particularly was at the forefront of it for decades.

This site, the first I clicked on after Googling discovery double helix, agrees, and it says

The discovery in 1953 of the double helix, the twisted-ladder structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), by James Watson and Francis Crick marked a milestone in the history of science and gave rise to modern molecular biology

That's from the American National Library of Medicine, of which I hadn't even heard until I clicked the link.

 

[Loon]

A great start for genetics? The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, is good and will offer you some insight, though it's about the evolution of sex and has little to do with the molecular basis of things.

I'll ask around and see if anyone around here has any recommendations.

Watson and Crick kickstarted molecular biology, and Crick particularly was at the forefront of it for decades.

Fun fact: I've heard several PhDs talk about the discovery of DNA and there was a common thread that "Jim Watson didn't impress me very much."

Another fun fact: The bases that make up DNA are more complicated than the amino acids that make up a protein, but there are more potential available varieties of amino acids than there are bases, so proteins have much more variable secondary structures. In short, DNA has more complex monomers but protein has more complex polymers.

Yet another fun fact: The first solid data (Avery, et al) to show that DNA is the genetic material didn't convince too many people, even though the data was extremely solid. The next one, (Hershey and Chase) had much uglier data, but the passage of a few years made the idea far more palatable to people.

 

[Big Al]

Fun fact: I've heard several PhDs talk about the discovery of DNA and there was a common thread that "Jim Watson didn't impress me very much."

Yes, he talks himself up a lot, but Crick's work since the discovery of the double helix is remarkable, and he actually graduated as a physicist, not a biochemist - I think that shows who was the top brain on the team. Why on EARTH he never got a knighthood is utterly, utterly beyond me, when people like Elton John get them for living a life of luxury and doing something they love.

Another fun fact: The bases that make up DNA are more complicated than the amino acids that make up a protein, but there are more potential available varieties of amino acids than there are bases, so proteins have much more variable secondary structures. In short, DNA has more complex monomers but protein has more complex polymers.

And one amino acid is coded for by three bases, which makes the imbalance even greater.

Yet another fun fact: The first solid data (Avery, et al) to show that DNA is the genetic material didn't convince too many people, even though the data was extremely solid. The next one, (Hershey and Chase) had much uglier data, but the passage of a few years made the idea far more palatable to people.

People just looked at the chemical makeup of DNA and believed it was far too simple to code for something as complex as a living body. They just "knew" it had to be a protein. Bit of a laugh really, when that "simple molecule's" "job"is to "design" proteins.

If there were any system to make me even consider creationism, it'd have to be more impressive than RNA synthesis of proteins. That's pretty impressive.

 

[Juustin]

I have read On the Origin of Species. I enjoy reading about evolution, I just also want to have a better grasp on the genetics end of things.

I'm looking to get a view of genetics without as much of the evolution mixed in. I realize they're heavily connected, so obviously you can't read about one without the other. I guess I just mean more of a focus on the genetic end. I'll check out the books everyone recommended. I still have some bookstore giftcards burning a hole in my pocket.

 

[Big Al]

I have read On the Origin of Species.

I'm so glad you used the right title, Juustin. So many people call it "Origin of the Species", and the nitpicker inside me always kicks up a fuss.

A great, ground-breaking book, especially considering Darwin didn't - couldn't - have a clue about genetics. Who knows how he could have elaborated on it if he'd lived a bit longer and read Mendel's work, which would have done away with his analogue "blending" concept.