Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Artcile: 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Karl Stonjek - 17 May 2004 21:39 GMT
'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.
7 May 2004
HELEN PEARSON

If you thought we had explored all the important parts of our genome, think
again. Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments
that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But
their function is completely unknown.

The segments, dubbed 'ultraconserved elements', lie in the large parts of
the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing
evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA,
could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected.

David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his team
scanned the genome sequences of man, mouse and rat1. They found more than
480 ultraconserved regions that are completely identical across the three
species. That is a surprising similarity: gene sequences in mouse and man
for example are on average only 85% similar. "It absolutely knocked me off
my chair," says Haussler.

The regions largely match up with chicken, dog and fish sequences too, but
are absent from sea squirt and fruitflies. The fact that the sections have
changed so little in the 400 million years of evolution since fish and
humans shared a common ancestor implies that they are essential to the
descendants of these organisms. But researchers are scratching their heads
over what the sequences actually do.

The most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable
genes. Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may be
converted into RNA, the intermediate molecule that codes for protein. The
sequences may help slice and splice RNA into different forms, Haussler
suggests.

Another set may control embryo growth, which follows a remarkably similar
course in animals ranging from fish to humans. One previously identified
ultraconserved element, for example, is known to direct a gene involved in
the growth of the brain and limbs.

To solve the conundrum, experts predict a flurry of studies into the
enigmatic DNA chunks. "People will be intrigued by this [finding]," says
Kelly Frazer who studies genomics at Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View,
California. "It is the kind of stuff that blows people away."

Read the rest at Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-9.html

Comment:
If the "junk DNA", intron, is not junk afteral, then we haven't sequences
the the human genome at all - we have only catelogued the 'classic' protien
coding DNA, and not the all important (?) ultraconserved elements..

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek.
John Harshman - 17 May 2004 23:08 GMT
> 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
> Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.

[snip]

> Comment:
> If the "junk DNA", intron, is not junk afteral, then we haven't sequences
> the the human genome at all - we have only catelogued the 'classic' protien
> coding DNA, and not the all important (?) ultraconserved elements..

First off, this isn't true. The human genome project includes all the
DNA, not just the protein-coding elements.

Second, junk DNA is not synonymous with introns.

Third, what does this have to do with paleontology?
Robert Karl Stonjek - 19 May 2004 04:23 GMT
> > 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
> > Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> First off, this isn't true. The human genome project includes all the
> DNA, not just the protein-coding elements.

Sorry, I didn't mean that only genes have been sequenced.  About 90% of the
human genome has been sequenced.  It is estimated that few genes remain in
the missing sections.  Further, only four examples had been sequenced last
time I looked.  At least nine need to be done for any certainty.

If the intron DNA contains important coding sections then these may well
have been missed and may not be included in the current sequenced genome.
Intron tends to be highly conserved, especially when far from any coding DNA
ie genes.

> Second, junk DNA is not synonymous with introns.

A dictionary explaination may help:
a polynucleotide sequence in a nucleic acid that does not code information
for protein synthesis and is removed before translation of messenger RNA.

And what's this plural 'intronS' ??  There is only Intron and Exon DNA, the
Exon is coding, the Intron is 'junk'.

> Third, what does this have to do with paleontology?

Jois asked me to post it (was originally posted to sci.bio.evolution)

Signature

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.

John Harshman - 19 May 2004 12:17 GMT
>>>'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
>>>Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> the missing sections.  Further, only four examples had been sequenced last
> time I looked.  At least nine need to be done for any certainty.

Beg pardon?

> If the intron DNA contains important coding sections then these may well
> have been missed and may not be included in the current sequenced genome.
> Intron tends to be highly conserved, especially when far from any coding DNA
> ie genes.

Your terminology is confused. Introns are parts of genes. They can't be
far from any coding DNA, by definition. And they do not tend to be
highly conserved. They are in fact evolving with near neutrality.

>>Second, junk DNA is not synonymous with introns.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> And what's this plural 'intronS' ??  There is only Intron and Exon DNA, the
> Exon is coding, the Intron is 'junk'.

Your dictionary definition is incomplete. An intron (it's a noun, and
yes, it has a plural form) is a section of a gene. It's transcribed into
the pre-mRNA but is spliced out, as the definition says. Most DNA is
never transcribed. The parts of a gene that are not spliced out are the
exons. A gene has this form: exon 1, intron 1, exon 2, intron 2, exon 3,
etc. Introns are part of that 3% of the genome estimated to consist of
protein-coding genes, because introns are parts of protein-coding genes.
The other 97% does have some conserved sequences (though a very small
proportion of the total), but they aren't introns.

>>Third, what does this have to do with paleontology?
>
> Jois asked me to post it (was originally posted to sci.bio.evolution)

So that would be "nothing", then.
Robert Karl Stonjek - 19 May 2004 23:31 GMT
> >>>'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
> >>>Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> The other 97% does have some conserved sequences (though a very small
> proportion of the total), but they aren't introns.

RKS:
Always good to learn something new - I was under the impression that
'intron' referred to all non-coding DNA including the non-coding regions
"between" genes, areas that, far from genes, are highly conserved, as I said
(but not, apparently, referred to as 'intron' DNA).

I note that it is not always easy to determine if a particular section of
non-coding DNA is in fact an intron or not until all genes are accounted
for - some introns are very long indeed.  Some of the earlier books I read
didn't bother to make the distinction, later ones certainly did (eg "Human
Molecular Genetics"; "The Molecular Biology of The Cell") but my wrong
assumption lingered on 'till now.

Thanks for that.

Signature

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.

firstjois - 18 May 2004 15:47 GMT
>> 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role
>> Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>> Posted by
>> Robert Karl Stonjek.

Robert knows this is sort of off topic for SAP but I asked him to post this
or the other re: sperm mRNA.  Off topic maybe but still things I like to
think about.  Thanks, Robert.

Jois
John Harshman - 18 May 2004 18:35 GMT
> Robert knows this is sort of off topic for SAP but I asked him to post this
> or the other re: sperm mRNA.  Off topic maybe but still things I like to
> think about.  Thanks, Robert.

Have you ever considered the possibility of subscribing to a newsgroup
where the things you like to think about are on topic, and posting there?
firstjois - 19 May 2004 00:08 GMT
>> firstjois wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> newsgroup where the things you like to think about are on topic, and
>> posting there?

LOL!  Often!  But they are often too far over my head!  I apologize for not
leaving sci.bio.paleontology off my reply to Robert's post.

Jois
Ross Macfarlane - 19 May 2004 05:51 GMT
> > Robert knows this is sort of off topic for SAP but I asked him to post this
> > or the other re: sperm mRNA.  Off topic maybe but still things I like to
> > think about.  Thanks, Robert.
>
> Have you ever considered the possibility of subscribing to a newsgroup
> where the things you like to think about are on topic, and posting there?

Given the controversy about male mtDNA, I don't see this as
necessarily off-topic (I realise it's not the same issue that's being
reported, but nevertheless). I appreciate RKS posting these abstracts
on a semi-regular basis - they add to the level of debate around here,
not detract in any way.

Ditto Jois. Thanks Robert from me too...

Ross Macfarlane
John Harshman - 19 May 2004 12:18 GMT
>>>Robert knows this is sort of off topic for SAP but I asked him to post this
>>>or the other re: sperm mRNA.  Off topic maybe but still things I like to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> on a semi-regular basis - they add to the level of debate around here,
> not detract in any way.

What does either one of them have to do with paleontology?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.