Hey Lothy,

right the central Dogma of molecular biology states (that was the state of knowledge for a long time):

DNA -> RNA -> Protein -> Function (DNA is transcribed into mRNA which codes for a protein which therefore serves a certain molecular function).

Especially after the publication of the Human Genome project (2001), researchers where surprised that the human genome codes only for a relative few amount of genes (23,000 genes), which does not explain why humans are such complex organisms. In addition, they found a lot of "Junk" RNA. Nowadays we see that RNAs have even more impact on the gene expression in different cell types. For instance the appearance of microRNA (starting from 2001 as well) and nowadays with the appearance of long non-coding RNAs seem to be extremly relevant for cellular phenotypes and development of organisms.

So in addition to the report of Jitendra, the central dogma is from today's perspective outdated. I would sum it up like that:

DNARNA(->Protein)->Function

In words: DNA codes for RNAs (which can be retrotranscribed) those RNAs may serve directly for a function or be translated in proteins which then have a particular function.

This would be my summary to today's perspective of the central dogma. I hope this gave you a better view on things to make a clear-cut.

The central dogma as the name suggest was based on the belief and not facts. It  was the belief  (DOGMA) in making a statement that DNA codes for protein using intermediate RNA structure. However, there have been exceptions in Prion protein which defies central dogma; similarly reverse transcriptase enzyme converts RNA to DNA, which also defies central dogma. 

To summarize central dogma says DNA-RNA-Protein but there are exceptions which says that its not always true so ther can be  PROTEIN-RNA -DNA (or atleast one conversion among them holds true).

I hope this helped your purpose

regards

Jitendra

Hey Lothy,

right the central Dogma of molecular biology states (that was the state of knowledge for a long time):

DNA -> RNA -> Protein -> Function (DNA is transcribed into mRNA which codes for a protein which therefore serves a certain molecular function).

Especially after the publication of the Human Genome project (2001), researchers where surprised that the human genome codes only for a relative few amount of genes (23,000 genes), which does not explain why humans are such complex organisms. In addition, they found a lot of "Junk" RNA. Nowadays we see that RNAs have even more impact on the gene expression in different cell types. For instance the appearance of microRNA (starting from 2001 as well) and nowadays with the appearance of long non-coding RNAs seem to be extremly relevant for cellular phenotypes and development of organisms.

So in addition to the report of Jitendra, the central dogma is from today's perspective outdated. I would sum it up like that:

DNARNA(->Protein)->Function

In words: DNA codes for RNAs (which can be retrotranscribed) those RNAs may serve directly for a function or be translated in proteins which then have a particular function.

This would be my summary to today's perspective of the central dogma. I hope this gave you a better view on things to make a clear-cut.

Very right @Felix Clemens Richter

But I want to add one thing more in above view that ,evolution of "alternative splicing" mechanism may answer for complexity of genome as we share 60% similarity with lion 80% similarity with mice and 98-99 % with monkey gibbon etc...so alternative splicing may be responsible for such alternative genome or various phenotype. for more details please  go through.......

Scientific American 292, 58 - 65 (2005)

doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0405-58

The Alternative Genome

Gil Ast

I might add epigenetics...

Yes @Robert H Eibl now I think 

Lothy!!! love yah! haha I'm gonna ask this question too, via research gate. but you already did. thanks!

Dear all,

the question has sub-questions that require us to elaborate on the following (i.e. design an experiment for the gap that needs further investigations): 

a. define the problem you want to solve and formulate your hypothesis.

b. outline the experimental procedure you will perform to validate the hypothesis and explain the principle(s) behind each step.

c. Discuss how you will collect, analyze, and interpret your data.

d. Identify the criteria you will use in validating your hypothesis (or in drawing your conclusions)

In the issue of Science magazine of Sep 12, 2014, on page 1240, you may also find a brief description and a cartoon of several roles for RNA in the cell, other than protein-coding. In addition, there are other roles for RNA in the spliceosome, ribosome (including scheduled -1 frameshift), telomerase, etc. that make the idea of the central dogma obsolete.

As every Senior people above described Central Dogma of molecular biology,

DNA-RNA-Protein-Function-Controlling gene-Controlling DNA expression-etc.,\

There are still more question without answers.

Like how a protein controls DNA, where that protein also produced by another DNA, which is controlled by what???

Like wise, RNA itself function as protein and enzyme activity where, non-coding RNA plays vital role.

So the Knowledge of what we have on Central Dogma is only 35% 

We need to explore more things which is not been explored by the science.

Regards

Murugan N

I agree with the assessment of Nandagopal Murugan. The dark-clouds of Central Dogma still cover the vital areas of cell-function. For instance, the Central Dogma that the outer membrane located ion-pumps (Na, K-pump, Ca, H-pump and H, K-pump) of cells, essential for homeostasis, were believed to have a cytosol-facing, single-sided orientation for the two-way transport of ions. This 50-year-old central  dogma, unfit to explain the emerging structure-function aspects of bio-membranes is about to be abolished.  Please go to my RG site dealing with this burning issue where I displayed several questions and answers (publications).