My problem with current fights in canada, where school shooters exist but are rare, is they seem largely gang related (read business related) which doesnt have a chance of providing the right lesson because the lesson from a business fight is the same lesson from bullying fights: come back with a bigger weapon to right this injustice. The lesson we are looking for requires the kid know the social norms roughly and be in a testing situation that crosses the line, is corrected with a mild amount of violence from the other kid but leaves the situation such that they could repair the friendship in the future with the right words and realizations. This happened at least five times in my youth and atleast two escalated to a bit of violence and it was informative. I dont see it happening at all in my kids or my neices and nephews youths and that c(ncerns me a bit.
I'm 60+, Australian, and (eventually) went to a high school with a lot of physicality, mixed groups, and seething undercurrents - a mining town with global migrant workers on traditional indigenous land.
We had fights, they could be brutal, the social mechanics allowed a needle to be threaded which myself and a number of others largely managed to do; stand your ground, don't engage physically, don't run .. if someone calls you out and starts smack talking, don't rise, just reply and confound. If they take a swing dodge it and don't respond, if it lands, suck it up and don't respond - in the rung climbing of high school and elsewhere this makes the other look a fool.
There were lessons learned from that and I can still my grandchildren benefitting from phyical encounters (not just fights, engagement with big waves, steep hills, solid animals, bicycles and motorbikes) that can hurt but largely don't kill them.
I'm not sure how you're getting the 4 genes away thing, I'm seeing like 20-30 genes and more than 2 megabases of distance in between RLN and ACHE. I'd be surprised if they were even in the same topologically associated domain.
Is there some place on the internet that shows this "4 genes away" evidence? I'm imagining that there is some tool that those involved in this work are aware of that I am not.
"Reelin is transcribed 4 genes away from $ENZYME" sounds like it is of the same general category as "Humans share 98% of their DNA with a chimpanzee and 97% of it with a banana" or whatever. Is that me just not understanding it? I would think 4 genes could have huge impact on functionality.
I believe they're using "4 genes away" as a proxy of basepair distance, not similarity. It's all very messy business but it's not unreasonable that transcription promoters for those other genes also promote reelin transcription.
Is this (genes physically close together, but not contiguous, being affected by the same/related promoters) something commonly seen? I'd love to learn more about it if so!
There is evidence even from the early days of genomics that recombination and thus evolution worked in (approximate) units at a time. This means that when a new mechanism for regulation appeared, it often regulated many pathways coded in idiosyncratic ways. That leads to the observed local commonality of mechanism.
The place that I saw this in my own work was in the way that ends of intervening sequence (introns) was coded for excision during expression of proteins. The different ends of different introns behaved differently and introns in different parts of genomes had slightly different dialects.
The relationship of similarity and locality in regulators is different from this, but is another case of proximity being a proxy for similarity.
