From Nicholas S. Heaton & Bryan R. Cullen at Nature:
Long non-coding RNAs (non-coding RNAs more than 200 nucleotides long) have roles in many aspects of cell biology4,5. In the nucleus, they are involved in transcriptional regulation and remodelling of chromosomes, and in the cytoplasm, they regulate microRNA function as well as the translation of mRNAs to generate proteins. But there are scores of lncRNAs whose functions have not been identified, so there are potentially many more roles to uncover.
…
If it is indeed true that viral replication and normal host-cell physiology have major differences in terms of the metabolic intermediates and enzymes they require, then exciting possibilities for the development of broadly acting antiviral therapies clearly exist. More generally, the discovery that GOT2 is regulated by lncRNA-ACOD1 highlights not only the complexity underlying the regulation of key physiological processes by lncRNAs, but also the intimacy of the interactions that occur between viruses and their hosts.More.
Darwinians are likely going to regret coining terms like “junk DNA.” Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon writes to say,
Remember Dan Graur and the debate about “junk DNA”? That if we permit the ENCODE consortium to claim 80% of non-coding DNA is useful, then Darwinists have lost a game to ID? Here’s a Nature article, conceding the game:
“Long non-coding RNAs (non-coding RNAs more than 200 nucleotides long) have roles in many aspects of cell biology4,5. In the nucleus, they are involved in transcriptional regulation and remodelling of chromosomes, and in the cytoplasm, they regulate microRNA function as well as the translation of mRNAs to generate proteins. But there are scores of lncRNAs whose functions have not been identified, so there are potentially many more roles to uncover.”
Perhaps someone should send Dan a condolences card.
Oh dear. Possibly a gift basket too, at this time of year. Chocolates?
See also: Rob Sheldon on the battle underlying “junk DNA”
and
Junk DNA: Dan Graur (junk!), ENCODE team (not junk!), and the science media
Viruses? Get to know more viruses: See also: Why viruses are not considered to be alive
Another stab at whether viruses are alive
Phil Sci journal: Special section on understanding viruses
Why “evolution” is changing? Consider viruses
The Scientist asks, Should giant viruses be the fourth domain of life? Eukaryotes, prokaryotes, archaea… and viruses?
and
Are viruses nature’s perfect machine? Or alive?