No, it isn't.
And the paper that's cited in this press release (because that's what this is: the "article" is literally written by a PR flack at UCLA who wanted to get lots of attention) doesn't cast any doubt on it.
The central dogma was, and is, a highly simplified representation of complete biological activity. It was even given a joke name intentionally- it's not a dogma, it's more of a guideline on how to think about biological processes.
The paper itself studied a small population of a cell type and concluded that expression levels weren't proportional to RNA transcript levels, but that's nothing new.
The central dogma was, and is, a highly simplified representation of complete biological activity. It was even given a joke name intentionally- it's not a dogma, it's more of a guideline on how to think about biological processes.
The paper itself studied a small population of a cell type and concluded that expression levels weren't proportional to RNA transcript levels, but that's nothing new.