Poll on noncoding DNA and "junk"
Introduction The ENCODE papers were published this week! Twitter and blogs lit up with some debate over whether or not one of the main headlines: the "junk" DNA image/perception should be laid to rest, as 80% of the bases in our genome had been shown to have some biological activity.
- Methods I decided to test the hypothesis put forward by Mike Eisen and others, specifically stated on Mike's blog as "As the authors undoubtedly know, nobody actually thinks that non-coding DNA is ‘junk’ any more." In my interactions with the general public, I find I get asked about junk DNA with some frequency, so I disagree with Mike. But, we are scientists; let's do the experiment.
- The peer review began before the data even came in. Predictably, Mike disagreed with my methods, and Leonid Kruglyak asked for more statistics.
- Results Answers ran in two camps. The first could be summarized as "yes indeed I was taught that much of the genome was junk, at least at some point." I note that this camp has a higher proportion of non-genomicists.
@girlscientist I saw a lecture by @pzmyers wherein he made a strong case that a lot of DNA was just junk. Is that not true, now?
@girlscientist I was taught that most of the genome was "junk"/non-coding-it didn't make proteins, and nobody was really sure what it did.
@girlscientist bio prof in 2007 taught that it was mostly junk, but said it's possible this perspective on non-coding elements was changing.
@girlscientist not sure about proportions of people. I guess more one knows, more one understands there is still junk, plenty of it.
@dicentric I've thought of junk DNA like a junk drawer. It's all useful, but we're not quite sure how just yet. @girlscientist
@girlscientist @BoraZ i think drs tell patients about "junk" DNA the time, especially when describing the promise of exome sequencing
@girlscientist Was taught that we didn't KNOW what "junk" DNA was for/was doing but not that it was KNOWN it truly "junk".
@girlscientist beyond junk- in hs in 1988 I was taught cells only do 'stuff' during mitosis, rest of time 'nothing much happened in cell'.
@girlscientist It was (and is still) called 'junk DNA', but my understanding was that purpose was unknown rather than completely useless- @girlscientist My vague belief was scientists thought that a lot of DNA didn't *seem* to do anything (popularly called 'junk'). But also...
- @girlscientist ... idea that amount thought to be like this was getting smaller as we learned more.
@girlscientist Was taught: Some junk, unclear how much. Always nod to reg elements.
@girlscientist If I remember right, 1988 sci fi novel Neverness by David Zindell built partly around idea that "junk" DNA actually critical.
@girlscientist while taught 'junk DNA' in school, nothing else I've come across in science is pointless. Maybe not understood well yet?
@girlscientist In HS, we learned about #junkDNA. In grad school (mol bio), we learned about all the great uses for that junk.
@girlscientist I was taught that there was a lot of junk DNA; later reinforced by SF that took it as gospel. (non-genetics guy here)
