Yale Researchers Find 'Junk DNA' May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot2. Comment #243619 by atkinson on September 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm
3. Comment #243620 by NewEnglandBob on September 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm
a big thumbs up to genome scientists
4. Comment #243621 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Lets make sure the HACNS1 human sequence does not get into the rat's genome. I don't want to see upright rats using tools.
5. Comment #243629 by Stafford Gordon on September 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm
And so it keeps coming! But how much and how long will it take to do the trick?6. Comment #243630 by SomeDanGuy on September 6, 2008 at 1:36 pm
What exactly do they mean by "non-coding regions" here? Does that mean that sequence analysis does not show an ORF? Or are they talking about non-coding RNA? (that is, RNA that is transcribed but translated). Or does the regulation somehow work through methylation or what? Often when I hear "junk DNA" I think of LINES and SINES, but I don't think that's what they're talking about here either. Do they just mean "it turns out that areas we thought weren't interesting are actually enhancers/suppressors"?7. Comment #243638 by articulett on September 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm
8. Comment #243639 by mordacious1 on September 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm
G E N O M E9. Comment #243641 by robotaholic on September 6, 2008 at 3:12 pm
A rapidly evolving sequence from the human genome drives gene activity in the developing thumb, wrist and ankle of mouse embryos, suggesting the sequence may have contributed to key evolutionary changes in the human limbs that allowed us to walk upright and use tools.
About 95% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.
10. Comment #243643 by Diacanu on September 6, 2008 at 3:19 pm
How can there be so much so called junk?
11. Comment #243659 by Apeseed on September 6, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Still though, it might be better to say it seems to be junk DNA rather than saying it is. All knowledge being provisional and all that.12. Comment #243664 by Beachbum on September 6, 2008 at 4:56 pm
13. Comment #243665 by DamnDirtyApe on September 6, 2008 at 5:19 pm
14. Comment #243671 by gruebait on September 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm
15. Comment #243683 by DeepFritz on September 6, 2008 at 8:36 pm
16. Comment #243691 by robotaholic on September 6, 2008 at 10:24 pm
17. Comment #243696 by SteveN on September 7, 2008 at 12:24 am
The line should actually say - the difference between humans and other apes. Humans are still apes...
There is less difference between us and orangutans than there is between a horse and a donkey.
18. Comment #243709 by King of NH on September 7, 2008 at 3:04 am
Anybody know any good 'beginner' books about genetics? I want to learn more but it gets so complex so fast!
19. Comment #243772 by Andrew Stich on September 7, 2008 at 10:02 am
Atkinson,20. Comment #243817 by William Kaiser on September 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm
21. Comment #243873 by OhioLen on September 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm
How about instead of the dismissive "junk DNA," we think of it instead as "legacy code?" 22. Comment #244611 by John Desclin on September 9, 2008 at 8:49 am
Might the label "junk" not merely reflect our present ignorance about the actual function of this "junk" DNA? This reminds me of those people who, not so long ago,believed that "we use only a rather low percentage of our available neurones" and still spout such nonsense today, because they don't understand that neuroscientits actually said "we don't know the function of these neurones" ?23. Comment #244798 by Stafford Gordon on September 9, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It's too difficult; there are too many long words; I prefer my imaginary friend.24. Comment #245154 by Degsy on September 10, 2008 at 9:59 am
Robotaholic-25. Comment #245572 by Jim Pivonka on September 11, 2008 at 6:06 am
edit: First, emphatically, I recommend reading the Carl Zimmer article cited by gruebait, Comment 14: (http://tinyurl.com/5hr328) That source is more precise and less speculative than my note here. /edit26. Comment #245593 by symo on September 11, 2008 at 6:49 am
What worries me is that I can see the "aeroplane in the junkyard" being trotted out again. Being an engineer and not a biologist I assume that this is good news. Perhaps this may explain our susceptibility to certain illnesses??27. Comment #245602 by Jim Pivonka on September 11, 2008 at 7:11 am
symo, if you are referring to SNP's, yes; the sense of things among many researchers seems to be that single nucleotide polymorphisms account for genetic variation in susceptibility or resistance to disease, as well as for individual variation in response to drugs - and lots of other stuff, presumably.
1. Comment #243598 by crusader234 on September 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
Other Comments by crusader234