11–20 of 63 posts
Paragraph 4: “Slowly, slowly, slowly, the terminology of ‘junk DNA’ [has] started to die,” Rest of the article: continues to use the term "Junk DNA".
I think more than any other group, programmers can understand the gut reaction of calling code that they don't understand "junk".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone doing biology professionally already knows the non-coding DNA has function. It’s only logical since we know that resource-intensive mechanisms don’t survive the evolutionary pressure if there’s no benefit for them to exist. So it’d be wasteful to replicate 98% of DNA if it’s not functional. Keep in mind it’s not only replicated, there’s error-correction as well.
it's wasteful to replicate non-functional DNA, yet there are organisms whose genomes are 10X-100X larger than any others (literally ten copies of a genome), and they do just fine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica ). The cost of DNA replication isn't that strong a functional selection afaict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's wasteful to replicate non-functional DNA, yet there are organisms whose genomes are 10X-100X larger than any others (literally ten copies of a genome), and they do just fine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica ). The cost of DNA replication isn't that strong a functional selection afaict.
Sounds like "non-functional DNA" might in fact have a function, hm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone doing biology professionally already knows the non-coding DNA has function. It’s only logical since we know that resource-intensive mechanisms don’t survive the evolutionary pressure if there’s no benefit for them to exist. So it’d be wasteful to replicate 98% of DNA if it’s not functional. Keep in mind it’s not only replicated, there’s error-correction as well.
it's wasteful to replicate non-functional DNA, yet there are organisms whose genomes are 10X-100X larger than any others (literally ten copies of a genome), and they do just fine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica ). The cost of DNA replication isn't that strong a functional selection afaict.
Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…
In other words, if every base pair matters, then DNA damage from, say, ionizing radiation is more likely to be a problem than if only 1/100 base pairs matter.
Paragraph 4: “Slowly, slowly, slowly, the terminology of ‘junk DNA’ [has] started to die,” Rest of the article: continues to use the term "Junk DNA".
Introduction: Introduces term. Early text: Details evidence that term is misguided. Late text: Continues to use early term so as to provide a consistent interface to readers. Might use 'scare quotes' if term is particularly egregious but still conserves familiarity of terminology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone doing biology professionally already knows the non-coding DNA has function. It’s only logical since we know that resource-intensive mechanisms don’t survive the evolutionary pressure if there’s no benefit for them to exist. So it’d be wasteful to replicate 98% of DNA if it’s not functional. Keep in mind it’s not only replicated, there’s error-correction as well.
it's wasteful to replicate non-functional DNA, yet there are organisms whose genomes are 10X-100X larger than any others (literally ten copies of a genome), and they do just fine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica ). The cost of DNA replication isn't that strong a functional selection afaict.
You can't prove that they are "extra copies" until you understand pretty much everything about them and their interactions with everything else.
Most genetic variants associated with common diseases fall in non-coding DNA areas, previously thought to be junk DNA. Many of these non-coding areas are actually enhancer elements. These elements produce enhancer RNA, previously thought to be noise, and regulate distant genes thanks to chromosome conformation. Chromosome conformation means DNA folds in complex 3D patterns. The interplay between chromosome conformati…
It's been long ago enough that I don't remember all the details, but my perspective was that it was naive and arrogant to assume we had a good handle on everything about DNA, especially then as it was all new, and there was evidence then that a lot of the noncoding DNA had function.
Dogmatic attitudes are surprisingly prevalent in academics. There's definitely a weird hubris accompanying published findings that goes something like peer reviewed -> established fact as if the point of academics isn't to understand things but to score points like on a test. Some skepticism about certain things seems warranted but other times there's really nothing but overly simplistic models that were really never evaluated to begin with. I wish there was more awareness of the topography of uncertainty in research findings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's wasteful to replicate non-functional DNA, yet there are organisms whose genomes are 10X-100X larger than any others (literally ten copies of a genome), and they do just fine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica ). The cost of DNA replication isn't that strong a functional selection afaict.
You're conflating the size of a genome with the amount of DNA that is non-functional.