Tag: junk DNA

Twisted tree of life award #15: NBC News on "Junk DNA mystery"

Oh for fu$*# sake.  Really MSNBC?  I mean, I know perhaps I should not expect much from some in the press but this is just awful: ‘Junk’ DNA mystery solved: It’s not needed.

Brought to us by NBC News and LiveScience (which actually can have some pretty good science coverage).  This article has some complete and utter crap:

Some parts that I have issues with:

  • The headline: “‘Junk’ DNA mystery solved: It’s not needed.”  The headline is silly but alas it is consistent with what is in the article.
  • “So-called junk DNA, the vast majority of the genome that doesn’t code for proteins“.  So – they have redefined junk DNA as all non coding DNA?
  • “For decades, scientists have known that the vast majority of the genome is made up of DNA that doesn’t seem to contain genes or turn genes on or off.”  Apparently there is an entity out there known as “The Genome”.  
And then we get into the quoting of author and researcher Victor Albert with no comments or responses from anyone is painful too.
  • “At least for a plant, junk DNA really is just junk — it’s not required.”  Except that they did not show this – they just showed that one plant can have a small genome and not have a lot of “junk” as they call it, which of course does not really say anything about what “junk” does or does not do in other organisms.
  • “Nobody’s really known what junk DNA does or doesn’t do” apparently calling into question the some 10,000 plus papers on the topic.

Apparently, from reading the rest the whole point of this article is that it turns out that people sequenced the genome of a bladderwort and it has a small genome but a lot of genes.  Oh and the organism is complex.  Therefore, apparently, it follows that

“The findings suggest junk DNA really isn’t needed for healthy plants — and that may also hold for other organisms, such as humans.”

And this leads us to ‘Junk’ DNA mystery solved: It’s not needed.

So – basically – if ONE FUCKING ORGANISM DELETES SOME OF IT’S NON PROTEIN CODING PORTIONS OF ITS GENOME THEN THIS MEANS THAT ALL NON CODING DNA IS USELESS.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

And for this evolutionary logic, I am awarding NBC News, Tia Ghose (the author of the piece) and Victor Albert, the 15th coveted Twisted Tree of Life Award.

Past winners:
UPDATE 5/17/13
Some other discussions of this paper and related to my critique (though not always agreeing with me)
——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Selfish DNA, symbionts and parasites – some quick links

I was at a committee meeting yesterday for a great PhD student here at UC Davis, Michael Hornsby and the topic of selfish DNA came up.  After his meeting we sat down and looked for some new papers and review papers on the topic.  I just thought it might be of value to share some of these here:

We also discussed briefly the evolution of mutualists and parasites and here are a few papers that came up:

If anyone knows of any other good recent papers or blog posts about selfish DNA or mutualists vs. parasites please post them here.  Thanks
——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–