From obit:
Inherent in the idea of gene regulatory networks was the concept that genome sequences that provided information about how genes should be expressed would be as important as the genome sequences that coded for the proteins themselves. Although non-protein-coding DNA was long considered to be “junk,” Davidson recognized that the key regulatory code resided in this genetic material. In 2006, Davidson co-led a group of 240 researchers from more than 70 institutions that sequenced the purple sea urchin’s genome. In 2008, a consortium of institutions led by Davidson’s lab characterized the 23,000 genes of that genome.
In parallel, the Davidson group systematically created a comprehensive functional testing strategy to detect all of the control connections between the genes involved in the key events in the earliest stages of sea urchin embryo development, and to determine how the activity of each gene affected the ability of every other gene in that part of the embryo to be expressed. The network model, first described in 2002 and elucidated and extended over the next 13 years, revealed that the regulatory networks governing high-level processes such as the formation of a specific type of cell are built from gene circuits that can have striking similarities even when the identities of the genes in the circuits are different. These circuits can be viewed as a few dozen types of modules that perform specific functions. Because similar modular systems appear to exist in flies, frogs, chicks, mice, and zebrafish, they may be a universal feature of higher organisms.More.
Requiescat in lucem pacis aeternitatis
See also: The Myth of Junk DNA
“Although non-protein-coding DNA was long considered to be “junk,” Davidson recognized that the key regulatory code resided in this genetic material.”
It’s a shame that the person who wrote this didn’t understand the science and wasn’t aware of the possibility that people like Denyse O’Leary would be happy to misinterpret.
For the record, no knowledgeable scientist ever believed that all noncoding DNA was junk DNA. We’ve known about the existence of regulatory noncoding DNA since the 1960s.
It’s true that Roy Britten and Eric Davidson proposed in 1969 and 1971 that a large percentage of the DNA outside of genes would prove to be involved in regulation. They were aware of the fact that much of this excess DNA consists of repetitive sequences that don’t look like they are functional but they suggested that these repetitive sequences could be involved in the evolution of developmental regulation. They opposed the idea that most of our genome is junk.
Subsequent work has not supported their idea. Most knowledgeable scientists now agree that about 50% of our genome consists of bits and pieces of broken transposons (repetitive DNA) and hardly any of this has a biological function. It’s almost all junk except for a few bits that have evolved a secondary function. The known functional bits account for less than 0.1% of the genome.
Translating Prof Moran’s soapbox above…
“You don’t understand evolution but I do, trust me, I know better don’t question my authority!!!”
Then he tells us that the once known figure of 90% junk is now only 50% junk but that the 50% is just about 100% junk.
He also takes a stab at Denyse for hitting a nerve.
Then he tells us it evolved, how he does not say, we must just trust his authority, that it is so because he knows better because we just don’t understand.
How did I do Prof Moran?
Larry Moran:
We’ve known that undirected evolution cannot account for regulatory non-coding DNA since the ’60s. Coincidence? I think not…
If we are still on this earth in 50 year’s time people will be laughing about how wrong scientists were on transposons.
Dr. Moran claims that “It’s almost all junk except for a few bits that have evolved a secondary function. The known functional bits account for less than 0.1% of the genome.”
Here is a response, by a ENCODE scientist, to Dr. Moran’s neo-Darwinian claim that most of the genome must be junk :
Dr. Sternberg also begs to differ from Dr. Moran
In the following podcast, Dr. Sternberg’s emphasis is on ENCODE research, and how that research overturned the ‘central’ importance of the gene as a unit of inheritance. As well he reflects on how that loss of the term ‘gene’ as an accurate description in biology completely undermines the modern synthesis, (i.e. neo-Darwinism) as a coherent explanation for biological life.
As to repetitive DNA in particular,
Shapiro comments here:
For the record, no knowledgeable scientist ever believed that all noncoding DNA was junk DNA.
So?