For a long time, scientists had viewed the RNA as nothing more than a means through which information stored in the DNA was translated into protein. RNA was more like a post man. The guy who had to get classified information from the nucleus, making sure not to read it, and take it to the ribosome which interprets this information and acts as told to by the DNA. The DNA was and is still viewed as the centre of molecular biology. But is it rightly so or is it nothing more than just an information repository ? Many will argue that the ability of DNA to store and pass on information would make its place as the centre of molecular biology well deserved but the RNA world hypothesis chooses to argue against that.

It is quite common that the most celebrated and most recognized people are not always the most talented or most gifted people. I cannot categorically state why that occurs but it is, however, a common occurrence. A CEO of a company is not usually the most talented, most intelligent or the most productive person. He just happens to be the CEO. Maybe it could be due to his dedication, hard work and consistency or because he just has amazing hair. Just like the most successful people are not usually the smartest or the most brilliant people. What am I driving at ? Well, stay with me. DNA is quite some celebrity in the world of molecular biology. The RNA is just a regular guy. Does it mean the DNA is the smartest or most talented guy and RNA is just some guy ? Well, I beg to differ.

While I cannot specifically downplay the cool-ass ability of DNA to act as information repository, I will like to say it cannot do anything more than just that. Is this somehow wrong ? No. But why is this dude taking all the spotlight when we have someone who can do what he does and even more stuff that he could not even possibly dream of. Maybe we should blame the scientists or maybe we should just see it as a case where DNA sold itself quite earlier and better than RNA did but that does not matter now. I am here to shit on DNA by giving RNA some spotlight. So let us shift this conversation to a different angle.

Maybe this is where the RNA shits on the DNA. Actually it really is where the RNA shits on the DNA. The RNA shows versatility the DNA can only be envious of. I mean such awesomeness is worthy of envy. I will explicitly bring out this versatile nature of the RNA since I am making a case against the DNA, a case I have no other option than winning. It will be boring to begin with the fact that the RNA can also act as an information repository as postulated in the prebiotic world (a world the DNA could not even dream of surviving). I will begin on a more different note. Maybe as an introduction to my major point which comes afterwards ? The RNA demonstrates flexibility worthy of appeal, even by the DNA of course, with its ability to fold assuming several conformations. It is therefore of little or no surprise that;

Ah yes. The RNA can act as a catalyst; an enzyme if I so choose to call it or to drive home my point, as a protein. The DNA could not possibly act as one. This is one of the reasons why the RNA have been thought to come before the protein in the prebiotic world. I mean with the availability of a molecule which could act as an information repository and also orchestrate catalysis (both self and others) and stay stable in the conditions of the prebiotic earth, why would we one need the DNA or the protein ? No reason to call on those suckers I will say. Interestingly, the RNA folds forming sort of a caveat where molecules can interact and be catalyzed. There have been concerns of the RNA not being able to form proper active sites since they do not leave out molecules capable of interaction like proteins do but this not really been a concern of recent all due to protein-assisted RNA catalysis where proteins keep the active sites of RNA stable without participating in catalysis. The icing on the cake is the ability of RNA to employ virtually all mechanisms employed by enzymes in catalysis making it quite an efficient catalyst. When it comes to the catalytic nature of RNA, you may think I am making a case where there really is none but let me introduce you to a
case quite so ironic.

Protein synthesis is quite a complex process which involves quite a lot of molecules. When I talk about the synthesis or formation of protein, a perceptive reader should imagine it as just the alignment of amino acids, which is actually the case, but quite much more complicated in reality. I mean the whole complexity of protein synthesis is towards the alignment of amino acids to form proteins. This alignment of amino acids to form proteins is an enzyme catalyzed process. Guess what catalyzes this ? Ah, it gives me joy to say this. It is an RNA; The Ribozyme. You should have in mind that this protein could be an enzyme (after it undergoes post translational modification of course). So technically, an
RNA catalyzes the formation of a protein enzyme. How much more ironic could this get ?

RNAs have a unique ability known as sequence-specific targeting where an RNA can target specific sequences on other RNAs and elicit actions as necessary. It could do so in order to direct post-transcriptional modification such as RNA splicing leading to the production of a more functional RNA. I mean the RNA can fine tune its counterparts, the DNA can only dream of doing this. RNA binds specific sequences sometimes making it more recognizable by specific enzymes. Reverse Transcriptase exploits this anyway so it sucks (like the german team always has) sometimes. The RNA has been implicated in the process of X-inactivation where it has been hypothesized to form a scaffold on which proteins bind and consequently lead to X-inactivation. All just a hypothesis anyway but an interesting one I must say. The concept of sequence-specific targeting has given rise to RNA-based therapeutics which is where I proceed to now.

RNA, all thanks to its versatility, has offered an extra and very vital option for clinicians to use in the tackling of diseases. The existence of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), antisense RNAs, micro RNAs (miRNAs), RNA aptamers, CRISPR guide RNAs (gRNAs) and what not has made the use of RNA in therapy a possibility and in subjective terms, a reality.
mRNAs has been shown to be used to induce immune response as a means of vaccination. Here, an attenuated virus is not delivered into an individual but immature dendritic cells (which are cells that present antigens to the immune system a.k.a antigen-presenting cells) are transfected ex vivo with an mRNA that codes for an antigen, say a tumor antigen, which is then delivered into an individual. An immune response is elicited when the mRNA is translated into a tumor antigen (a protein) and this response is saved by the memory cells. Basically, a lot like vaccination but much more sleek. In most cases, this is done to trigger more immune response in an attempt to eliminate an already existing threat. It is more like calling the boys to come join in the fight so you stand a good chance of winning. This is generally referred to as mRNA-Based Immunotherapy.

Another therapeutic application of RNA is seen where non-coding RNA is used to inhibit the translation of another mRNA. A good knowledge of advanced biology lets you know that no translation = no protein. Why would we want to stop the production of proteins ? Maybe during conditions where a particular protein misfolds and cessation of its further synthesis seems to be the way out. That would be quite a kick ass way to curtail diseases like Prion Disease, Alzhemier’s and Parkinson’s which are conditions that seem to arise due to protein misfolding. siRNAs and miRNAs are
hugely used here and this process is generally referred to as RNA interference.

How about the protein antagonizing RNAs generally known as aptamers that kind of bind certain proteins and prevent them from functioning ? I like to see it as a way of silencing proteins. A kick ass application is seen during intervening procedures carried out on patients with coronary syndrome where a catheter must make its way to the heart in order to deliver agents that can indicate sites with blockages. The blood has to stay unclotted so an anticoagulant aptamer must be administered to target proteins that cause blood clotting. Cool stuff I must say. The side effect is blood flows continuously and bleeding may result but we worry not as an antidote can be administered and the aptamer ceases to act so regular blood hemostasis can be maintained.

The coolest therapeutic application of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) has to be using it to edit genes. Not literally though. The ncRNA acts more like a guide for restriction endonucleases to act and alter certain portions on a gene. Genes can literally be reprogrammed and made to produce proteins of interest. This process is generally known as ncRNA-
mediated genetic reprogramming. ^{cool ass stuff}.

The RNA has shown versatility that cannot be matched by DNA. From its ability to act as a catalyst, to its ability to act as an information repository as well as its unique ability to be involved in sequence specific targeting. I will say the place of DNA as the center of molecular biology is more of a bluff than what it should really be. The RNA has presented its case. What does the DNA have to say ? Nothing I bet. The RNA remains unmatched and yet, still just a regular guy. The DNA
reminds me of Dele Alli (Overrated and overtly celebrated).