= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
see comments on [LINK] "Junk" DNA revealed as information processing system? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (6)
Mmmm. It's new data, which is important, but it's not new data that particularly upsets any accepted theoretical models.
It was easy to figure out the count of human proteins to human DNA base pairs, and figure out only a small fraction was actually protein coding back in the 1970s. So people started theorizing about all the rest being junk. We knew something of the 97% had to be regulatory in function, and everybody had their own preferred guesses. Those guesses have been steadily moving higher over the last 20 years (at least). Now we (apparently) know it's on the order of 80% that's regulatory, instead of 3% or 10% of 30% or whatever else people were theorizing.
It does suggest true parasite DNA is a lot less common than some thought (especially back in the 1970s). But there's still lots of room in the remaining 17% for parasite DNA, so while the magnitude has been reduced, the underlying theories still have a good chunk of the genome to play in.
Catching yourself explaining something that doesn't need explaining is an excellent opportunity to recalibrate :D
Oh, certainly, you reduce the explanatory power of an explanation, you lower the probability of the explanation being true.
But, well, "parasite DNA" at the fundamental level is assuming Darwinian mutation-and-selection happens among transposons. Which seems quite plausible on its own, even after this, especially since retroviruses can be treated as a special class of retrotransposons.
And now that I'm actually looking at the paper instead of the news, it's not clear how much of this stuff is "functional" because it actually does something like regulation of expression, and how much is "functional" because it's biologically active "parasite DNA".
Mostly, I'd classify this as another case of "no, really, skip the science news, and read settled science instead."
No.
1 Less than 2% is coding
2 About 8% is known to be regulatory. Most of the interesting stuff from the ENCODE project is about what parts do what in what cells in this category
3 Given how they looked, it is likely that another 10% or so is regulatory in cells that they have not looked at.
4 20% or so has absolutely no effect
5 When they talk about 80% being "functional" that is in the weakest sense of the word functional that anyone has even played with. Typical examples of the functions of the remaining 60% of the genome is that something binds to it for no reason, or something binds to it to prevent it from being transcribed, or it gets transcribed but the RNA thus produced does nothing.