Re: Attention all arrogant "junk"-DNA ignorers!
- From: wlhunt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (William L Hunt)
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:26:30 -0400 (EDT), "Entertained by my own EIMC
Ptd. Lty." <aimforeimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.2371.htmlThis paper doesn't even mention "junk DNA".
It mentions 2% of the genome is transcribed and translated and has a
coding function.
It also mentions they are working out the function of some
"hyper-conserved" RNA gene regulators. These RNAs would be transcribed
but not translated. Because these sequences are conserved, they would
not be considered "junk",even when the function was unknown.
2% of the genome is conserved and has a coding function. A few
percent is conserved but has functions other than coding for proteins.
And it is important to find what these functions are. But about 95% of
the genome is not conserved over evolutionary time as it would be if
it did any uselful function. Sequences in this 95% have no function.
They are call "junk".
William L Hunt
.
- References:
- Attention all arrogant "junk"-DNA ignorers!
- From: Entertained by my own EIMC Ptd. Lty.
- Attention all arrogant "junk"-DNA ignorers!
- Prev by Date: Rates of Evolution (Some Thoughts)
- Next by Date: Re: Evolution of sex revisited
- Previous by thread: Attention all arrogant "junk"-DNA ignorers!
- Next by thread: Symbiosis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
