QUOTE (the_dunner @ Jun 16 2008, 03:55 PM)
Keep in mind that if it hasn't appeared in a sanctioned publication it's not true. Also keep in mind that SR books are not meant to be medical texts, so in the interests of word count and approachability, they're not written like them.
There are two divergent theories associated with the DNA structures involved in metagenetics and magigenetics.
The first theory is that there is a third strand of the DNA helix which is entirely astral. That strand is what actually dictates metatype, magical ability, et al. In the presence of an adequate mana background count, this strand can be expressed. In its absence, it cannot. This theory obviously requires the presence of additional "proteins" and nuclear structures that exist only on the astral plane.
The second theory is that there are implicit features in an organism's aura that dictate the conformation of DNA tertiary structures allowing for expression of metagenes. In the presence of an adequate mana background count, these conformations are assumed. If the resultant tertiary structure allows for the expression of a gene, then it's expressed. In the absence of both the requisite mana background count and the resultant coding gene, they are not expressed.
It's possible that both of these theories are true, just that different metagenes are expressed through the two contrasting mechanisms. In the game world, there is ample evidence to support both of these. Of the identified metagenes, some were identified by techniques associated with each of these two theories.
The first answer you gave was not one I had considered, I had always assumed the second, but this is some very informative technobabble. Hadn't really considered astral DNA or proteins. Has always assumed that the 'indistinct' shadows of the mundane world would have prevented any sort of interaction at this level of precision. But it is an intersting possibility. I have to admit, I am biased in my preference towards option two as it makes more sense to me, but hey, I'd buy both of them, once cause I can understand, and one because I can't argue against it.