| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: No such thing as 'junk' DNA ? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 13
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Looks like there is a lot more work to do. It seems those 'useless' DNA pieces are now found to be useful:
----------------------------------------"The genome turns out to be a highly complex, interwoven machine with very few inactive stretches, the researchers report." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070614/ts_afp/s...u.C8i.66kCs2qSoPVwWGJhMgF [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jun 14, 2007 9:01:01 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
 The term 'junk DNA' has always been said in an archly humorous tone of voice. The least 'junk DNA' has always been found in some very small and very simple bacterial cells and increases in the archaea (which have more complicated cell membranes) and practically explodes in the eukaryotes, which have complex membranes enclosing a cell nucleus, etc. And then the multi-cellular organisms have the most 'junk'. So it has always been realized that it must be very important. But we haven't figured out what it does yet. Several years ago they finally tracked down the cause of one well-known inherited genetic disease and discovered that it was caused by a single mutation in a long strand of 'junk DNA'. The protein-encoding genes are the 'Bill of Materials' used by living organisms, but there is a lot more to a living cell than just a list of proteins.  I read several articles each year in which surprised journalists report that scientists think that the 'junk DNA' plays an important role in the living cell.Lawrence |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Maybe I should ask to get my appendix and my tonsils back!
|
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2130 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Two possible functions of junk dna are
----------------------------------------1. provide a buffer between protein encoding regions. Since dna is normally tightly wound around neucleosomes and must be unwound in order to be read, having non-coding areas maybe important. 2. the fact that much of the so-called non-coding dna may in fact be transcribed may be due to the need for anti-sense RNA. This is method cells use to silence genes which would otherwise be transcribed to RNA and then to the proteins coded for by the gene. The anti-sense RNA binds to the transcribed RNA and prevents it from being read by the endoplasmic reticulum (organelle that builds and folds proteins).   |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Maybe I should ask to get my appendix and my tonsils back! I forget about the tonsils, but the vermiform appendix is part of the immune system used to (I think) identify antigens on the gut bacteria. It is most important for small children and is much less important in adult life when the major antigen lists have been completed and other mechanisms seem to handle new gut bacteria adequately. There was some argument around the end of the nineteenth century about whether or not the appendix was useful. We finally discovered what it was used for in the last half of the twentieth century. And twilyth is right. The two functions he lists MUST be handled by the 'junk DNA', since they are necessary and we cannot see how they can be handled by the protein-encoding genes. There are probably many more necessary functions also being handled by the 'junk'. We have a lot to learn. Lawrence |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
perhaps somewhere on that junk chain is the 'human consciousness' that crick (the DNA man) was looking for
 |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
recently scientist who thought that about 2 percent of the DNA was different to that of primates, concluded it is really 6% plus. The monkey's uncle thing though still stands.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Here is another article saying that 'junk DNA' plays an important role in the living cell. As always, the reporter thinks that this is a surprising new discovery . . . sigh.
26 Oct 2007 Science Daily - Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Looks like there is a lot more work to do. It seems those 'useless' DNA pieces are now found to be useful: "The genome turns out to be a highly complex, interwoven machine with very few inactive stretches, the researchers report." so, that is no problem - we'ćć do the calcs! everybody who has a little idea about old teachings & a logic of their own has to conclude that that is wrong! so many people have expected that the difference between the monkey would be much higher...and the DNA wasn't just a waste of space! btw, recetly they also found out that the apendix isn't the rudimentary organ...it's rather functional, but people can live without it! ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by KLiK at Oct 27, 2007 4:29:59 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Here is another article about 'junk DNA'. The authors claim that it regulates the formation of major organs such as the kidney and the brain.
13 Feb 2008 Science Daily 'Junk DNA' Can Explain Origin And Complexity Of Vertebrates, Study Suggests http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172609.htm |
||
|
|
|