> > '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.