Live data from Hacker News

Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

news.cornell.edu

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#41
post #23

Not knowing much about DNA, it seems weird to me that it's assumed the primary purpose of DNA is to encode for proteins. Sure, that's one of its functions, but it would be just as misguided as assuming that bits only exist to encode text, and when they encode anything else, it's seen as some extraordinary exception to the norm.

people like to forget DNA has a 3D structure. A lot of the DNA that doesnt encode proteins might be involved, for example, in the association of 3D topological domains or conformational switches that impact chromatin accessibility. Interesting also is when sufficient factors bind to a local region of DNA to change the local chemistry and initiate phase separated domains where regulatory factors might preferrentially bind and thus drive the transcription of the few coding regions, and that's pretty cool too. Just to add some context to your bits-analogy.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#42
post #21

I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase One of the worst names I've come across for a concept

Of course, nobody who does biological sciences actually believes it is junk.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#43

Don't we have similar terminology for some of human organs. Appendix or some other organs are assumed useless. Personally I feel it's insane to call DNA or organs useless instead of acknowledging that we don't yet understand there true purpose.

Not everything serves a purpose. Onions have more DNA than humans.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#45
post #44

Why don't we give genes names like functions? Seems like the whole thing might be easier to understand if we called a gene "butterflyStripeWidth" rathern than "WntA". It's like we're writing a new core library but only using obfuscated function names.

We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#46

Don't we have similar terminology for some of human organs. Appendix or some other organs are assumed useless. Personally I feel it's insane to call DNA or organs useless instead of acknowledging that we don't yet understand there true purpose.

Not everything serves a purpose. Onions have more DNA than humans.

Has it been demonstrated that that extra DNA has no function or are you just assuming "onions are less complex than us"?

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#47
post #44

Why don't we give genes names like functions? Seems like the whole thing might be easier to understand if we called a gene "butterflyStripeWidth" rathern than "WntA". It's like we're writing a new core library but only using obfuscated function names.

We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea

But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#48
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea

But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.

What if we gain more knowledge, and this isn't suppressBreastTumor. What do you do now?

As I see, the answer still cryptic name, and lookup table.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#49
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea

But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.

BRCA is an acronym for Breast Cancer, so we are already doing that to a large degree.

Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA

#50
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.

What if we gain more knowledge, and this isn't suppressBreastTumor. What do you do now? As I see, the answer still cryptic name, and lookup table.

Sure, you'd expect that to happen. There are lots of interesting things you could do there, all of which are better than random letters and numbers that never change. Committees and proposals, objects and references. Things change their names all the time and society is perfectly capable of handling. Pluto isn't even a planet anymore and we all survived that.

I just think we can do better than the first system we came up with, and improving the system would open the whole thing up to more people and possibility.

Post reply on HN