'Junk DNA' News

More uses for “junk DNA”

Spread the love

From Nature: Abstract:

Only a small fraction of the mammalian genome codes for messenger RNAs destined to be translated into proteins, and it is generally assumed that a large portion of transcribed sequences-including introns and several classes of noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs)-do not give rise to peptide products. A systematic examination of translation and physiological regulation of ncRNAs has not been conducted. Here we use computational methods to identify the products of non-canonical translation in mouse neurons by analysing unannotated transcripts in combination with proteomic data. This study supports the existence of non-canonical translation products from both intragenic and extragenic genomic regions, including peptides derived from antisense transcripts and introns. Moreover, the studied novel translation products exhibit temporal regulation similar to that of proteins known to be involved in neuronal activity processes. These observations highlight a potentially large and complex set of biologically regulated translational events from transcripts formerly thought to lack coding potential.

See also: All four segs of Richard Sternberg on supposed “junk DNA” Here’s #5.

Also: Junk DNA’s defender doesn’t do politeness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “More uses for “junk DNA”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    part 5 of Sternberg’s lecture on junk DNA is particularly relevant to this finding of a ‘potentially large and complex set of biologically regulated translational events’ since Dr. Sternberg’s podcast deals with the overturning of the ‘gene’ as the central unit of inheritance in biology.

    Podcast – Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5
    (emphasis on ENCODE and the loss of the term ‘gene’ as a accurate description in biology and how that loss undermines the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism)
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-5/

    Towards the latter half of the podcast, Dr Sternberg, who has a PhD in evolutionary biology, elucidates how the overturning/loss of the ‘gene’ as the central unit of inheritance turns the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism from a science into no better than the disgarded alchemy or Ptolemy astronomy of yesteryear.

    related notes:

    Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012
    Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.,,,
    Isoform expression by a gene does not follow a minimalistic expression strategy, resulting in a tendency for genes to express many isoforms simultaneously, with a plateau at about 10–12 expressed isoforms per gene per cell line.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....11233.html

    Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012
    Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!
    While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25.
    Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance.
    http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin
    https://vimeo.com/106012299

    Why the ‘Gene’ Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking – James Shapiro – 11/30/2012
    Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: “genes are the basic units of all living things.”,,,
    This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian “Modern Synthesis” emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,,
    The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term “gene.” In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled “Complexity of the Gene Concept.” Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term.
    The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.” There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other “DNA elements” (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,,
    Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....07245.html

    Duality in the human genome – Nov. 28, 2014
    Excerpt: Scientists,, have analysed the genetic makeup of several hundred people and decoded the genetic information on the two sets of chromosomes separately. In this relatively small group alone they found millions of different gene forms. The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone.,,,
    it’s important to know,, how mutations are distributed between the two chromosome sets,”,,
    The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
    The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time. Moreover, the conventional view of individual mutations is no longer adequate. Instead, we have to consider the two gene forms and their combination of variants,”,,,
    According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe.,,,
    This dual gene and protein arrangement has the advantage that it allows the activity of genes to be more flexibly adjusted and altered. By using the more favourable variant, the body is better able to adapt to changes in its own processes and to environmental conditions. If the duality of genes goes awry and the wrong protein form is used, this can trigger pathogenic mechanisms. This is probably why those 4,000 genes include many disease genes.
    These findings will change the interpretation of genetic analyses and the prediction of diseases. Moreover, individualised medicine cannot ignore the “dual nature” of human genomes. “Our investigations at the protein level have shown that 96 percent of all genes have at least 5 to 20 different protein forms.,,,
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 139:16
    Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

    High School Musical 2 – You are the music in me
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAXaQrh7m1o

Leave a Reply