The book, Introduction to Bioinformatics, by Arthur M. Lesk, 3rd edition; Oxford; low-price-edition; in its chapter-1 (introduction), page-no. 6 ; provided a paragraph, entitled "Dogmas: Central and Peripheral".

As-if; there exist a contrasting term for central dogma.

But while thoroughly going through that paragraph (and other chapters linked(mentioned) in that-paragraph; I couldn't found the mention of the term "peripheral dogma" or such.

From the paragraph; it looks like the term "peripheral" has been used to indicate all information-flows other-than genetic codes, and including Junk-DNA and protein-folding-variations. No mention of epigenetic codes found.

In Web too; I could found only 1 website used the term "peripheral dogma" in context with biology. which, too, does-not mention the definition clearly.

So, What is peripheral dogma?

P.S. this is purely a terminology question; which is looking for authoritative reference about usage of a term.

  • $\begingroup$ @Kiritee (user:25705) you made an answer which probably has been deleted; because that was just like a comment and as well id did not cited any reference. But if you know something about that; then you could of-course write that as comment. Whatever is your source (from-where you came to know about that... a class-lecture? a seminar? a magazine? whatever); you could mention as comment. Btw plz dont take any criticism by this website from heart. Strong criticism is a nature of this website and it does not criticize you personally. It only criticizes your statements and ideas. $\endgroup$ – Always Confused Nov 22 '16 at 17:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No issues man. I am also sincerely waiting for someone to put some reference for this term. :) $\endgroup$ – Kiritee Gak Nov 23 '16 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Kiritee since you once wrote an answer; I think you have gone through the term at some-or-some source and not via magic. What was that source? a book? a cheap competitive success magazine? a class-lecture? what book or what magazine? any photograph or screenshot of that source? could you improve details please? $\endgroup$ – Always Confused Nov 23 '16 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was only able to see only one reference for this here other than the book you had mentioned in the question. $\endgroup$ – Kiritee Gak Nov 23 '16 at 13:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Exactly and honestly I had thought someone was questioning what this second dogma was all about. $\endgroup$ – Kiritee Gak Nov 23 '16 at 13:18

I think the author was just trying to make a point that while the "central dogma" is indeed key, there is more to it than that and that understanding of molecular biology has advanced beyond being simplified to that one tenet. Without having the passage in front of me, the ideas you gleaned from the paragraph make sense, though others such as epigenetics seem like they would fit as well.

As you've noticed, this term is difficult to find anywhere else, it isn't a standard term and therefore doesn't really have any meaning unless it is defined in the source. I wouldn't recommend using it yourself unless you plan to define it. The Wikipedia page for central dogma that you linked has a whole section on information transfer not included in the "central dogma" - I think you can safely assume the author was referring broadly to these items.

This all may be a bit of a joke, as well, given the definition of "dogma" and it's somewhat inappropriate use in the context of the central dogma of molecular biology - again, the Wikipedia article you linked talks about the problematic use of the word "dogma" in this scientific context.

  • $\begingroup$ Might be. But I suspect a bit; because one other source (and only one) quite boldly used that term ("peripheral dogma"). Seemingly, possibly I heard this term in seminars etc. (though very little part of these seminars I understand). May be all them doing the same mistake as me. I would wait, since 1 have 1 week bounty period; and on my experience at SE; drastically different answers may come from users. Thank you for response. $\endgroup$ – Always Confused Nov 22 '16 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That second source seems to be using the term in a completely different way from the first you mentioned. In the first source, you referred to 'information flow' that is not contained in the genetic code. In the second source, they are talking only about protein folding and specifically mention that the folding is mostly due to the amino acid sequence: that fully fits under the "central dogma" because the information specifying amino acid sequence is the genetic code which is therefore also determining tertiary structure. Seems like evidence that the meaning of the term is not established. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Nov 22 '16 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (continued) In one source, "peripheral dogma" means other, secondary means of information flow that bypass "central dogma" - in the second source, "peripheral dogma" means the secondary consequences of the "central dogma." $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Nov 22 '16 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, but you also mentioned information flows that are not genetic codes - protein folding seems to be part of the genetic code (in most cases, at least; you can certainly have environmental influences on protein folding, or protein-protein interactions like prions). Without having the first source to consider, which is it? $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Nov 22 '16 at 15:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for the lack of clarity - I meant to ask: Is the first source talking about information flow that occurs outside the genetic code, or is it talking about information flow that happens as a consequence of the information in the genetic code? $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Nov 22 '16 at 16:37

Your Answer

