|
Author
|
Topic: Now is the time for forward-looking scientists to abolish the term "Junk DNA".
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 05. September 2002 14:05
I've been thinking about this for several months. The term "junk DNA" is an old vestige of a time when scientists knew very little about DNA and possibly knew nothing about the programming aspects of DNA. As new evidence comes out, I believe it is now overwhelmingly obvious that DNA is essentially highly sophisticated chemical programming. A type of programming that is, in fact, beyond current human capability. I believe that in order to maintain accuracy and credibility in science this unfortunate term should be discarded immediately.
Here is the recent study that actually triggered this post:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020830072103.htm
Date: Posted 8/30/2002
Essential Cell Division "Zipper" Anchors To So-Called Junk DNA
PHILADELPHIA - When cells divide in two, they must carefully manage the process by which their DNA is replicated and then apportioned to the daughter cells. In one critical step along the way, the replicated DNA strands - or sisters - are held together for a period by a temporary scaffold of bridging proteins. When the timing is right, the proteins unzip, allowing the DNA sisters to separate. Errors in this or other steps in cell division can lead to cell death, faulty development, or cancer, which is largely defined as misregulated cell division.
Scientists have had a number of questions about these important bridging proteins, called cohesins. For example, how and where do the proteins attach themselves to the DNA? To protect genes from inappropriate activation, DNA is tightly wrapped around small proteins called histones and then further coiled into a higher structure called chromatin that serves as an effective accessibility barrier to the genes.
In a new study in the August 29 issue of Nature, researchers at The Wistar Institute identify a cohesin-containing protein complex that reshapes chromatin to allow cohesins to bind to DNA. In doing so, they also identified the locations on the human genome where the cohesins bind. Somewhat to their surprise, the binding sites were found to be a repetitive DNA sequence found throughout the human genome for which no previous role had ever been identified. These bits of DNA, known as Alu sequences, are liberally represented along those vast stretches of the human genome not known to directly control genetic activity, sometimes referred to as junk DNA.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 05. September 2002 14:34
Glad to see you embracing science's progress so quickly! Wonder whether you'll do the same with the other 500+ articles that come up in Nature every year!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Mod: I know this post doesn't fulfill Brainstorms requirements. It's in good spirit, though!
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 05. September 2002 14:43
quote:
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
posted 05 September 2002 14:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you embracing science's progress so quickly! Wonder whether you'll do the same with the other 500+ articles that come up in Nature every year!
Mod: I know this post doesn't fulfill Brainstorms requirements. It's in good spirit, though!
Sure it is. The little winky face proves that....
The progress of science has never been a problem for me. It is quickly dissolving the evolution hypothesis, which is a very good thing. It is truly humbling to see how intelligent and creative our Creator is.
Regarding your other 500+ articles, you go ahead and post the ones you find important to this board. I only get three posts per day, so I don't have the luxury of banter.
[ 05 September 2002, 14:44: Message edited by: nobody ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 05. September 2002 17:02
Seriously, nobody, I thought you first post was banter!
That article (which can be found here for those interested in the actual data), is very interesting, but in fact shows that 30% of about 10% (3% total) of all the non-genic (so-called "junk") DNA binds to a protein complex that has a function in chromatin remodeling. It doesn't show however that even that 3% of "junk" DNA sequences have a function (just that they bind the complex), and certainly says nothing about the other 97% of "junk" DNA. If you'd like the entire scientific community to provisionally stop calling that 3% of DNA "junk", they may even oblige, but it sure doesn't make the hypothesis that much, possibly most of our genomic DNA is functionless any less likely.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 05. September 2002 17:49
Topic closed. This thread does nothing to further the conversation.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic