Rethinking junk DNA

I wouldn't go so far as to call that a quotemine, but it certain comes a little close.
That is good. Read the whole article though, you linked it after all.

Oh do you know many programmers who used to work for Delrina?
Can't say that I do, do you?

Lest we forget:

How many DNA related articles have appeared since 1972?

How many DNA related articles appeared between 1972 & 1987?

What percentage of the human genome is believed to be functional? Is it now more than 5%, more than 20%?
I sincerely hope you don't think you are being smart by asking these questions over and over. That would be an insult to MyBB members. The disclaimer is also a bit empty, you forgot to show people how to measure "fitness of post". Like I said though (in case you are indeed trying to be smart):
You will really have to do the legwork if you want an exact number. Use pubmed. It is more than a few million, that I can tell you (for Q1) and obviously a little less than Q1 (for Q2), and research is ongoing for Q3.

Anyway.... moving along.
 
Last edited:
That is good. Read the whole article though, you linked it after all.

I did, it seemed apparent that you hadn't.



Can't say that I do, do you?

Yes, a couple.

I sincerely hope you don't think you are being smart by asking these questions over and over. That would be an insult to MyBB members. The disclaimer is also a bit empty, you forgot to show people how to measure "fitness of post". Like I said though (in case you are indeed trying to be smart):
You will really have to do the legwork if you want an exact number. Use pubmed. It is more than a few million, that I can tell you (for Q1) and obviously a little less than Q1 (for Q2), and research is ongoing for Q3.

Anyway.... moving along.



Questions, even unanswered questions can relay information.

Lest we forget:

How many DNA related articles have appeared since 1972?

How many DNA related articles appeared between 1972 & 1987?

What percentage of the human genome is believed to be functional? Is it now more than 5%, more than 20%?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How times have changed.

1) Dr. Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" in 1972 in his article "So Much ‘Junk DNA' in our Genome".
2) In 1976, Dawkins published his "selfish gene" idea in his book, The Selfish Gene.
The idea: Genomic DNA can be accounted for by two ways:
A) Specific functions of sequences contribute to phenotypic fitness and was thus selected
B) DNA sequences that do not contribute to fitness are parasitic elements that replicate themselves without any evolutionary function. Selfish elements. These selfish elements were described as non-coding and non-specific sequences, including repetitive sequences, transposons and other degenerate elements.

3) In 1980, the following article appeared:
Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution.
Natural selection operating within genomes will inevitably result in the appearance of DNAs with no phenotypic expression whose only 'function' is survival within genomes. Prokaryotic transposable elements and eukaryotic middle-repetitive sequences can be seen as such DNA's and thus no phenotypic or evolutionary function need be assigned to them.

4) Dawkins in this article had the following to say about junk DNA:
Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn’t even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself.

5) At talk origins, there is this article from 2003:
Fascinating to read the thoughts on junk DNA. For example:
5.4 Important roles have been found for DNA regions previously thought to be functionless

At a recent debate with me Dr. Gish cited a review in Science entitled "Mining treasures from 'junk' DNA" (263:608, 1994), seeming to imply that this review suggests functions for pseudogenes and retroposons that would be consistent with the creationist view that they were designed to function similarly in similar species. In fact, this review discusses evidence for possible functions of centromeric and telomeric repetitive sequences, minisatellites, introns and 3' untranslated regions. It mentions pseudogenes and retroposons but makes no suggestion that these particular elements have function, so this review offers no argument against the points made in this essay. Nevertheless, since there have been other speculations about possible functions for DNA outside gene coding sequences, it is worth considering why scientists generally accept the notion that most of this DNA is junk.

First, we know several mechanisms by which DNA length can be increased through genetic accidents such as DNA duplications and insertion of retroposons, which have been observed in the lab or occurring in humans without apparent effects; so it is reasonable to suppose that these mechanisms operated in the past to increase genome size without affecting function. There appears to be little or no selective pressure to reduce the size of vertebrate nuclear genomes; and there is no apparent mechanism to selectively eliminate useless DNA. Large deletions that eliminate functional DNA are selected against. These observations would predict the accumulation of useless DNA as the result of random genetic accidents, so when we see DNA that seems non-functional, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it has function that we don't understand.

Second, when DNA sequence is compared between species like human versus mouse, sequences that are known to have function -- coding sequences of genes in particular -- are found to be highly similar, consistent with selective pressure that weeds out individuals that have deleterious mutations in these functional regions. Conversely, DNA regions with no known function -- e.g. non-coding sequences between genes -- generally behave as if they are under no selective pressure, that is they apparently accumulate mutations at a much higher rate so there is little sequence conservation between distantly related species. As an exception that probes the rule, comparisons of non-coding sequence across species occasionally detect "islands" of short conserved sequence in non-coding regions. Some of these have turned out to correspond to regulatory regions like promoter or enhancer elements that control when a nearby gene is expressed. An example of such an "island" conserved between rabbit, mouse and human was discovered in my own lab [Emorine et al., Nature 304:447, 1983]; it turned out to represent an important enhancer. These kinds of regulatory regions generally take up much less DNA than the coding sequences of the genes they regulate, so they cannot represent a likely function for most non-coding DNA. The good correlation between function and sequence conservation lends support to the idea that most poorly conserved sequences do not have function. However, it should be noted that for most of the "islands" of conserved sequence in DNA between genes (Shabalina et al., Trends Genet 17:373, 2001), no function has yet been discovered. Some may include RNA species that function without being translated into protein.

A third but related argument derives from the observation that the insertion of a retroposon into a functional sequence is a potent way to destroy that function. Examples of naturally occurring insertions were discussed in section 5.2 above; and intentional retroposon insertion is being widely used as a laboratory tool to create panels of mouse, drosophila or yeast strains with different gene functions destroyed. However, most examples of retroposon insertions between genes do not have any apparent affect on individuals harboring them; for example the Alu sequences that are polymorphic in human DNA appear to be harmless when present. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that these insertions did not interrupt any functional sequence. (Of course it is impossible to rule out the formal possibility that some hypothetical functional sequences outside genes can still function despite the presence of a retroposon insertion.)

Finally, several examples are known of pairs of species that have similar apparent complexity but widely different genome size (C-value paradox). The pufferfish Fugu has about one fourth the genome size of other fish species but about the same number of genes. The main difference is a smaller amount of DNA between genes in Fugu DNA (e.g. see Elgar et al. Genome Res 9:960, 1999). Although questions remain about the interpretation of this difference, it would seem that much of the DNA between genes in most fish genomes (and probably in ours also) is dispensable. (Conversely, the small regions of non-coding sequence that are conserved between Fugu and Homo frequently correspond to functional regulatory sequences.)

It is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA. Moreover, it is likely that some function may be found for a few additional short regions of non-coding DNA that are not currently recognized to have function. Nevertheless, as indicated above, scientists draw tentative conclusions based on data currently at hand rather than on hypothetical possibilities of future data; and the arguments I just presented based on presently available evidence suggest that most DNA sequences that appear to be functionless are just that.
"it is worth considering why scientists generally accept the notion that most of this DNA is junk",
looks like there was a bit of a consensus....

"we shouldn't necessarily assume that it has function that we don't understand."
That turned out to be an unscientific thing to do...

"Nevertheless, as indicated above, scientists draw tentative conclusions based on data currently at hand rather than on hypothetical possibilities of future data; and the arguments I just presented based on presently available evidence suggest that most DNA sequences that appear to be functionless are just that."
Yes, appearances were a bit deceiving it seems.

Back in 2009:
1.5-2% of our genomes code for proteins, leaving 98.5-98% of the genome to be assigned as non-coding.

About >90% of our genomes are in fact transcribed into RNA (non-coding).

From:
The discovery of eukaryotic genome design and its forgotten corollary—the postulate of gene regulation by nuclear RNA
We now know that much of the genome of creatures like us is copied into RNA. Earlier methods missed this, in part because only the RNA coming from so-called single-copy DNA elements was scored and also because today’s methods are 100–10,000 times more sensitive. The modern tally says that >90% of the genome is copied into RNA (although the current methods do not always define whether these arise from bona fide transcription start sites as opposed to random RNA polymerase binding to DNA).

And science has discovered that:

No Such Thing As 'Junk RNA,' Say Researchers


The selfish gene/parasitic DNA idea is a bit stranded at the moment it seems. Any more arguments from ignorance?
 
Its function is the key code to the so called junk DNA is a database of stored information, one could assume its like a zip file that can be unzipped allowing possible modifications or improvements to the existing design and programming code of an organism.

A way to prove this is to compare it from same organism to another of the same species, then compare two different organisms of different species to the same family, then phylum and so on to see what's taken out and what's put into the database.

And so on until; you compare carbon based life with silicon based life which exists under the ocean, and future discoveries of small traces of organisms on other planets within the solar system, and then so on.

Then you will possibly have decoded it.

Lotsa Love and have a beautiful day <3
 
More functions of junk DNA...
Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered
ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2009) — Cornell researchers have discovered a genetic mechanism in fruit flies that prevents two closely related species from reproducing, a finding that offers clues to how species evolve.
091026220018-large.jpg

When two populations of a species become geographically isolated from each other, their genes diverge from one another over time. Eventually, when a male from one group mates with a female from the other group, the offspring will die or be born sterile, as a cross between a horse (left) and a donkey (right) produce a sterile mule. At this point, they have become two distinct species. (Credit: iStockphoto)
When two populations of a species become geographically isolated from each other, their genes diverge from one another over time.

Eventually, when a male from one group mates with a female from the other group, the offspring will die or be born sterile, as crosses between horses and donkeys produce sterile mules. At this point, they have become two distinct species.

Now, Cornell researchers report in the October issue of Public Library of Science Biology (Vol. 7, No. 10) that rapidly evolving "junk" DNA may create incompatibilities between two related species, preventing them from reproducing. In this case, the researchers studied crosses between closely related fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Nearly 100 years ago, scientists discovered that when male D. melanogasters mate with female D. simulans, normal males survive, but the female embryos die.

"It has remained an unsolved problem," said Patrick Ferree, the paper's lead author and a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of co-author Daniel Barbash, an assistant professor of molecular biology and genetics. "The question is, what are the elements that are killing these female hybrids and how are they doing that?"

The researchers found that the female hybrid embryos died very early in development. In most species, when the male's sperm (carrying either an X or Y chromosome) fertilizes the female's egg (containing an X chromosome), a new cell forms with a single nucleus containing a sex chromosome from each parent. If the offspring inherits its father's X chromosome, it becomes female; if it inherits a Y chromosome, it becomes male. Ferree and Barbash found that a unique segment of DNA in the father's X chromosome leads to embryo death of hybrid females.

The segment of DNA was found in the chromosome's heterochromatin, a densely packed region of highly repetitive sequences of junk DNA near the chromosome's center.

During the embryo's initial divisions, the researchers found, a specific segment of heterochromatin gets "sticky" and halts the process, preventing the entire X chromosome from separating properly; the result is that the early embryo dies.

Researchers have known that DNA in heterochromatin evolves faster than in other parts of the genome. Also, during early development, the proteins required for cell division come from the mother. The researchers speculate that the heterochromatin of the male D. melanogaster's X chromosome has rapidly evolved, such that after mating, the machinery involved in DNA packaging from a D. simulans mother no longer recognizes the D. melanogaster father's "junk" DNA, Ferree said.

The problematic region of D. melanogaster's X chromosome contains about 5 million base pairs of DNA, while the same region of D. simulans' X chromosome contains only about 100,000 base pairs, a 50-fold difference, said Ferree.

"It points to a species-specific difference in heterochromatin between these two species," he added. "This could explain other instances when you have female hybrid lethality," Ferree said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Prevents/inhibits/buffers against reproduction of closely related species. Thanks to "junk DNA" and a few other mechanisms, you can't have children with sheep (poor aussies :p) or chimps...
 
Last edited:
You lol'ed at the silicon based life which can be found under the sea though? I know I did.
 
More about retrotransposons: Historically viewed as junk.
The regulated retrotransposon transcriptome of mammalian cells
Although repetitive elements pervade mammalian genomes, their overall contribution to transcriptional activity is poorly defined. Here, as part of the FANTOM4 project, we report that 6–30% of cap-selected mouse and human RNA transcripts initiate within repetitive elements. Analysis of approximately 250,000 retrotransposon-derived transcription start sites shows that the associated transcripts are generally tissue specific, coincide with gene-dense regions and form pronounced clusters when aligned to full-length retrotransposon sequences. Retrotransposons located immediately 5' of protein-coding loci frequently function as alternative promoters and/or express noncoding RNAs. More than a quarter of RefSeqs possess a retrotransposon in their 3' UTR, with strong evidence for the reduced expression of these transcripts relative to retrotransposon-free transcripts. Finally, a genome-wide screen identifies 23,000 candidate regulatory regions derived from retrotransposons, in addition to more than 2,000 examples of bidirectional transcription. We conclude that retrotransposon transcription has a key influence upon the transcriptional output of the mammalian genome.
 
Like in words you will understand? It gets a bit tedious to explain simple things to you like "vs". Words like "retrotransposon" and "transcriptome" must really blow your mind. The intelligent people on this forum generally read up on things for themselves if they are really interested and don't harass people (especially if they think these people are lay men) for simple explanations (simple logic if you are really the kind of person that want to understand things for themselves). Take a hint, use it don't use it, you seem at least intelligent enough to understand that.
 
Last edited:
Like in words you will understand? It gets a bit tedious to explain simple things to you like "vs". Words like "retrotransposon" and "transcriptome" must really blow your mind. The intelligent people on this forum generally read up on things for themselves if they are really interested and don't harass people (especially if they think these people are lay men) for simple explanations (simple logic if you are really the kind of person that want to understand things for themselves). Take a hint, use it don't use it, you seem at least intelligent enough to understand that.

Simple request = barrage of insults, as predicted, (see the scientific method does work).

Also as predicted no explanation in your own words.

Thanks for that.
 
Simple request = barrage of insults, as predicted, (see the scientific method does work).

Also as predicted no explanation in your own words.

Thanks for that.
Not insult silly, but a barrage of common sense of logic.
Common sense and logic as well as experience dictates you are not really interested to try and understand for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder. Junk DNA = "the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified"; NOT "something useless or worthless".
How quickly the tune of you guys have changed and then blame your ignorance on wiki. Vicious circle.

1) Dr. Susumu Ohno coined the term junk DNA in 1972 in his article So Much ‘Junk DNA' in our Genome.
2) In 1976, Dawkins published his selfish gene idea in his book, The Selfish Gene.
The idea: Genomic DNA can be accounted for by two ways:
A) Specific functions of sequences contribute to phenotypic fitness and was thus selected
B) DNA sequences that do not contribute to fitness are parasitic elements that replicate themselves without any evolutionary function. Selfish elements. These selfish elements were described as non-coding and non-specific sequences, including repetitive sequences, transposons and other degenerate elements.

3) In 1980, the following article appeared:
Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution.
Natural selection operating within genomes will inevitably result in the appearance of DNAs with no phenotypic expression whose only 'function' is survival within genomes. Prokaryotic transposable elements and eukaryotic middle-repetitive sequences can be seen as such DNA's and thus no phenotypic or evolutionary function need be assigned to them

4) Dawkins in this article had the following to say about junk DNA:
Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn’t even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, tandem repeats, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself.

Shame, how science have changed your views and now you have to lie to yourselves that no-one ever said that it was useless.
If you want, you can differentiate between useless and nonfunctional in a meaningful way. Gonna be hard since they are practically synonyms.

Anyway, you guys squabble and lie among yourselves. Simple facts don't get through, has never and probably won't, you are going to have to have a change of heart and mind and be a bit.... more constructive in life. Don't be functionless.
 
Last edited:
How quickly the tune of you guys have changed and then blame your ignorance on wiki. Vicious circle.

Anyway, you guys squabble and lie among yourselves.

So are we now some kind of church, wif dogma, holey books, priests and such crap? Hehe, silly boy! :p
 
Last edited:
Introns -- Nonsense DNA -- May Be More Important to Evolution of Genomes Than Thought
ScienceDaily (Dec. 14, 2009) — The sequences of nonsense DNA that interrupt genes could be far more important to the evolution of genomes than previously thought, according to a recent Science report by Indiana University Bloomington and University of New Hampshire biologists.

Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by "introns," as the interrupting sequences are known. The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict. The scientists also found what appear to be "hot spots" for intron insertion -- areas of the genome where repeated insertions are more likely to occur. And surprisingly, the vast majority of intron DNA sequences the scientists examined were of unknown origin.

"The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects," said postdoctoral fellow Abraham Tucker, a lead author of the Science paper.

Graduate student Wenli Li, whose participation in the research overlaps her dissertation work, was the paper's co-lead author. Li said she was particularly interested in the notion of hot spots that make it more likely for separate lineages of Daphnia to gain introns in the same place (or the same general area) within the water fleas' genomes. Four of the 23 different kinds of introns the scientists found were not unique with respect to position. If introns were always inserted in random places within genes, the scientists would have expected zero introns to have identical insertion points.

"The most intriguing finding for me is the multiple instances of parallel intron gains, because this means that Daphnia is in an active phase of intron proliferation," Li said. "This makes Daphnia an extraordinary system to study intron evolution. In addition, we believe our work facilitates a more accurate estimate of intron gain rates, and directly challenges the assumption that parallel intron gains are rare in many prior analyses."

Whether or not Daphnia is typical of eukaryotes with respect to intron gain (and loss), IU Bloomington evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch, the project's principal investigator, agreed that the discovery of parallelism will surprise his colleagues.

"Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes," Lynch said. "This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor."

A unique and important aspect of the scientists' work is that they focused on one species (Daphnia pulex). Past studies have looked at a few introns shared by vastly different species. In doing so, geneticists have almost certainly missed the ephemeral appearance of new introns, and therefore would come to the wrong conclusions about how introns are gained, why they are lost, and how frequently either occurs.

That many introns are not acquired from a common ancestor but are the result of separate insertion events, the scientists say, means that the rates of intron gain in any species' lineage could be considerably higher than currently estimated.

Even if the rates of intron gain and loss of introns in Daphnia pulex are unlike those found in humans, sunflowers, and mushrooms, the Science report suggests geneticists and genome biologists take another look at introns, some of which could have been the result of hot spot insertion events in separate lines.

"The immediate question will be whether our findings can readily be extended to other species," Lynch said. "We are, in fact, doing that now. In addition, there is need for some solid molecular work to test our hypothesis about the mechanism of intron origin."

Intron is short for "intragenic region," a segment of DNA embedded within the coding portion of a gene. Introns are common in eukaryotic organisms -- animals, plants, fungi, and protists. When genes are expressed, special machinery within the cell nucleus usually removes the introns, thereby producing a transcript of the gene that is devoid of nonsense. Some introns are very small (20 DNA base pairs or fewer). A few introns are shockingly long (nearly 500,000 base pairs) long. Within a gene region, the total length of introns may dwarf the actual coding regions. There's a gene on humans' 22nd chromosome that is so riddled with introns, only 10 percent of it actually contains coding DNA. The rest is comprised of introns.

Scientists have generally assumed introns are so deleterious, their insertion almost always spells doom for the cell lines within individual organisms that produce offspring. With the exception of alternative splicing, introns serve no apparent function and consume needless energy when cells must duplicate all of their DNA. More importantly, the insertion of a new intron in a bad place can interfere with the cellular machinery's expression of an important gene. Experts have taken all of this to mean intron insertions are extremely rare events.

Almost all of the introns the IU Bloomington biologists located possessed a sequence of indeterminate origin. Only one of the 24 identified sequences bore a resemblance to a specific DNA sequences associated either with the Daphnia genome or its parasites. The other 23 introns had sequences that appear to have been improvised by the machinery responsible for DNA synthesis. "Our molecular analyses have enabled us to reject a number of hypotheses for the mechanism of intron origins, while clearly indicating an entirely unexpected pathway -- emergence as accidents arising during the repair of double-strand breaks," Lynch said.

Abraham Tucker, now at Indiana University Bloomington, and paper co-author Way Sung were both graduate students of William Kelley Thomas at the University of New Hampshire's Hubbard Center for Genome Studies when they did the bioinformatic analysis of the Daphnia genome that led to the findings of this paper. Drawing on longtime collaborations between Lynch's lab and the Hubbard Center on the Daphnia genome project, the two were able to access all Daphnia genome sequences.

"It was a very intense analysis, but it was obvious within a few days that there was some very interesting data," says Thomas, who is Hubbard Professor in Genomics and director of the Hubbard Center for Genome Studies. "This was a wonderful collaborative project."

This research was funded with grants from the National Science Foundation.

So....
1) About >90% of our genomes are in fact transcribed into RNA.
2) This includes intronic microRNA.
3) And there is no such thing as junk RNA.

Guess science trumps arguments from incredulity and ignorance and has moved on from this trash....

Who is afraid of a little randomness and chance anyway...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43L1IR5qHIU[/ame]
 
Who is afraid of a little randomness and chance anyway...

Not me, man - nothing like a little bit of sh|t happening around you LOL. :D

PS - wake me up when a function has been found for every bit of DNA on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X