Fairy Friend
27th November 2013, 23:27
Junk DNA
I have noticed this term thrown around a lot with some misconceptions. Very little DNA does not have a purpose. This originates in the 1960s and went mainstream in the 1970s and still persists, yet most scientists keyed into the fact that all that DNA was not useless indeed. Mother nature is not so untidy.
The 2% is more like active codes and the truth is we have more like 3-8% codes (probably 5%), most turned off and although I have seen it also stated, the rest of the DNA is regulation of the codes this is not accurate either. There are replication and packaging functions as well. And it's about protecting the codes too.
The problem is that the definition has become what makes a protein is non-junk DNA or coded DNA and there's more to the codes than that. It's probably 60-80% regulation of codes, protection of the codes, replication functions and packaging of the DNA and 10-25% really 'junk'. I'm giving a little buffer zone for myself here, truthfully I think it's less than 10%.
The other problem is that the term junk DNA implies that it has no function and is useless. All junk DNA is noncoding but not all noncoding DNA is junk. No wonder people are confused. A lot of scientists don't like the term junk DNA. I refer to them as variant regions like 1qh, 9qh,11qh etc.
I do not mind the computer analogy (referring to the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is) but you must realize that it is not one computer but a network of computers with many discs that are being used and copied. An interactive operating system. We find both biochemistry and genetics often both play roles and both provide answers to many questions. The computer analogy is a little misleading because people seem to think it's all about the codes and they control everything. Computers have a help button and I rather like that but they are not the brains or operator.
Another analogy is a blueprint (given in this forum with mind, matter and meditation post which I like as well) but one has to think of it as a set of many blueprints (books) to a city with water and sewer and electricity, not just a house. Or a robot that is sentient and mobile.
There are start codes, stop codes, enhancers which really turn on a gene. Operons are sets of genes turned on together and are next to each other on the DNA. Transposons, an operon or single gene but is capable of relocated elsewhere in a different area of DNA.
There are buffer regions (intron) between the genes in the set (operon) which are later cut out. Here I can see the term junk apply but not, for you have to think of it as spaces between paragraphs or pages or chapters. It's function to help conserve or protect the sequence of code that is the gene from mutations. Whole sets of genes are turned on together to make a heart and turned off together when the heart is made.
There are structural functions as well.
Transcription factor that reads the DNA has to attach to the DNA, as do other regulatory proteins. There are often both positive and negative feedback loops that will bind to the DNA and functions this way. DNA and proteins interact. NOR or nuclear organizing regions contain genes for the ribosomal RNAs. Areas of repeated sequences.
There are functions relating to preserving the codes and duplicating them for cell division.
Centromere another area never labelled junk DNA, the centromere is the anchor between the replicating strands. We see a constriction point in the chromosome (clearly visible) and when the cell is ready to replicate, spindle fibers form microfilaments (barely visible), anchoring it to the centromere. Like tethers or strings, the two copies are pulled apart and go to opposite sides of the cell, which is clearly visible and then the cell divides. The two new cells grow first then the DNA replicates and exists mostly in this state. DNA changes how it is packaged when it replicates versus not being read versus when it is being read or unpackaged.
The DNA molecule is visible to the eye with the use of a regular microscope. Most people think it is a single strand that is a double helix but that is not correct.
We have 46 chromosomes or packages of DNA. (23 from mom and 23 from dad) Which is duplicated after cell division and makes 92 strands of DNA in every single cell. The cell exists in this state until it gets a signal to divide. A lot of code all into the nucleus of each single cell, every cell of your body. DNA is often referred to as a double helix strand that is one molecule thin, yet 3 ft long. However, this lead people to believe it is one strand, but it is really in 46 packages that are duplicated or 92 strands. Multiple copies of the blueprints exist. Multiple copies in every cell.
We refer to 46 chromosomes as our single set of genes. Primates have 42 to 48 chromosomes. Cows have 60. This is a grand world.
I have seen 12 strands of DNA quoted frequently and I traced it back to 2006 but the origin seems to be from a channelling and I am interpreting their use as metaphysical or inter-dimensional or metaphorical. A different context.
There are packaging instructions.
It seems DNA twists or is torqued tighter and tighter, like if you were to take a string or rubber band and twist it more and more, it starts folding down into a small ball. You do the twisting how does the DNA do it? Most of it probably is molecular and natural bonds as well as the interaction of DNA with proteins. It folds down exactly the same way. And it has to untwist to replicate and express codes or genes that are turned on. It twists down and in this compact form helps resists mutations. So we roll the blueprints up to prevent them from being damaged.
The PhD. Susumu Ohno, 1972, who coined the phrase “junk DNA” thought it was the primordial ground for genetics material to arise from or new codes to be born. He also thought that it was necessary to have this much DNA to regulate 20,000-30,000 genes and it looks like he was right there also. I don't refute his idea.
However, I made the argument that mother nature is very capable of utilizing the codes already in use. Hemoglobin code is nearly identical to four copies of myoglobin code. Hemoglobin transports oxygen in the blood stream everywhere while myoglobin holds the oxygen for the skeletal muscular system and gives it to the muscle when you use it. The code traces back to cytochrome c which is in single celled organisms. A fetus turns on at least 2 additional genes with subtle differences in codes, that taps more into getting more oxygen from the mother's bloodstream which is separated from the babies blood and has to cross a membrane barrier. When we are born these genes turn off and are not expressed in an adult.
I have come to find out recently, we are both right. Pseudogenes are found all over the variant regions or the 'junk' DNA areas. So it appears to be both a primordial ground for new and unique codes, as well as utilizing fragments or sections of old codes. So apparently there are fossil remains of codes, or sketches of blueprints hanging around too.
This area of the DNA is the perfect place to insert a code because you don't want to insert one code into another code. No one has been able to do that except viruses do that. At least to control it so it only inserted there, viruses insert everywhere.
Then there's the telomeres.
The key longevity, may be all about the telomeres.
The caps or very top and bottom of the DNA. One of the areas initially deemed junk DNA and yes it was obvious this isn't junk. The more intact these telomeres are, the longer you live. Rats have huge telomeres and are very resistant to disease and radiation. I believe cockroaches do too. I recently seen a study where they looked at areas where people live longer. They seem to be in areas with less pollution and in nature, with less stress, simpler, better water, .... Where they go out in nature see it everyday. Usually beautiful and remote. And their telomeres are seen to be more intact. Not just the size but keeping them intact. Dr. Lorraine Meisner keyed me into this at the UW.
Most cells go through 25-40 cell divisions, somewhere in that ballpark, and then are programmed to die, except stem cells. Every time the DNA replicates it loses some DNA from the ends. It would dwindle down to nothingness if it kept replicating. The reason why cells are programmed for cell death. At least one of the reasons, making copies of copies will introduce a certain amount of errors eventually, even with corrections occurring (DNA repair genes/proteins). Abnormalities are seen in this area in cancers too.
A long life is all about the telomeres. There are now 100s of research papers showing she's correct, or soon will be. It is also a huge buffer region from the end of the DNA until you reach areas of codes. It's not in the codes, it's about not forcing the cells through replication cycles. It's about the cells not having to replicate to replace damaged cells. Unless you want to talk about immune functions which include many, many genes. Certainly a factor of health also.
We are 98-99% genetically related to primates, 96-98% related to rats. A small change in codes makes a whole new species.
I hope to shed light on some of the confusion here. Hopefully people aren't more confused. Fairy Friend.
I have noticed this term thrown around a lot with some misconceptions. Very little DNA does not have a purpose. This originates in the 1960s and went mainstream in the 1970s and still persists, yet most scientists keyed into the fact that all that DNA was not useless indeed. Mother nature is not so untidy.
The 2% is more like active codes and the truth is we have more like 3-8% codes (probably 5%), most turned off and although I have seen it also stated, the rest of the DNA is regulation of the codes this is not accurate either. There are replication and packaging functions as well. And it's about protecting the codes too.
The problem is that the definition has become what makes a protein is non-junk DNA or coded DNA and there's more to the codes than that. It's probably 60-80% regulation of codes, protection of the codes, replication functions and packaging of the DNA and 10-25% really 'junk'. I'm giving a little buffer zone for myself here, truthfully I think it's less than 10%.
The other problem is that the term junk DNA implies that it has no function and is useless. All junk DNA is noncoding but not all noncoding DNA is junk. No wonder people are confused. A lot of scientists don't like the term junk DNA. I refer to them as variant regions like 1qh, 9qh,11qh etc.
I do not mind the computer analogy (referring to the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is) but you must realize that it is not one computer but a network of computers with many discs that are being used and copied. An interactive operating system. We find both biochemistry and genetics often both play roles and both provide answers to many questions. The computer analogy is a little misleading because people seem to think it's all about the codes and they control everything. Computers have a help button and I rather like that but they are not the brains or operator.
Another analogy is a blueprint (given in this forum with mind, matter and meditation post which I like as well) but one has to think of it as a set of many blueprints (books) to a city with water and sewer and electricity, not just a house. Or a robot that is sentient and mobile.
There are start codes, stop codes, enhancers which really turn on a gene. Operons are sets of genes turned on together and are next to each other on the DNA. Transposons, an operon or single gene but is capable of relocated elsewhere in a different area of DNA.
There are buffer regions (intron) between the genes in the set (operon) which are later cut out. Here I can see the term junk apply but not, for you have to think of it as spaces between paragraphs or pages or chapters. It's function to help conserve or protect the sequence of code that is the gene from mutations. Whole sets of genes are turned on together to make a heart and turned off together when the heart is made.
There are structural functions as well.
Transcription factor that reads the DNA has to attach to the DNA, as do other regulatory proteins. There are often both positive and negative feedback loops that will bind to the DNA and functions this way. DNA and proteins interact. NOR or nuclear organizing regions contain genes for the ribosomal RNAs. Areas of repeated sequences.
There are functions relating to preserving the codes and duplicating them for cell division.
Centromere another area never labelled junk DNA, the centromere is the anchor between the replicating strands. We see a constriction point in the chromosome (clearly visible) and when the cell is ready to replicate, spindle fibers form microfilaments (barely visible), anchoring it to the centromere. Like tethers or strings, the two copies are pulled apart and go to opposite sides of the cell, which is clearly visible and then the cell divides. The two new cells grow first then the DNA replicates and exists mostly in this state. DNA changes how it is packaged when it replicates versus not being read versus when it is being read or unpackaged.
The DNA molecule is visible to the eye with the use of a regular microscope. Most people think it is a single strand that is a double helix but that is not correct.
We have 46 chromosomes or packages of DNA. (23 from mom and 23 from dad) Which is duplicated after cell division and makes 92 strands of DNA in every single cell. The cell exists in this state until it gets a signal to divide. A lot of code all into the nucleus of each single cell, every cell of your body. DNA is often referred to as a double helix strand that is one molecule thin, yet 3 ft long. However, this lead people to believe it is one strand, but it is really in 46 packages that are duplicated or 92 strands. Multiple copies of the blueprints exist. Multiple copies in every cell.
We refer to 46 chromosomes as our single set of genes. Primates have 42 to 48 chromosomes. Cows have 60. This is a grand world.
I have seen 12 strands of DNA quoted frequently and I traced it back to 2006 but the origin seems to be from a channelling and I am interpreting their use as metaphysical or inter-dimensional or metaphorical. A different context.
There are packaging instructions.
It seems DNA twists or is torqued tighter and tighter, like if you were to take a string or rubber band and twist it more and more, it starts folding down into a small ball. You do the twisting how does the DNA do it? Most of it probably is molecular and natural bonds as well as the interaction of DNA with proteins. It folds down exactly the same way. And it has to untwist to replicate and express codes or genes that are turned on. It twists down and in this compact form helps resists mutations. So we roll the blueprints up to prevent them from being damaged.
The PhD. Susumu Ohno, 1972, who coined the phrase “junk DNA” thought it was the primordial ground for genetics material to arise from or new codes to be born. He also thought that it was necessary to have this much DNA to regulate 20,000-30,000 genes and it looks like he was right there also. I don't refute his idea.
However, I made the argument that mother nature is very capable of utilizing the codes already in use. Hemoglobin code is nearly identical to four copies of myoglobin code. Hemoglobin transports oxygen in the blood stream everywhere while myoglobin holds the oxygen for the skeletal muscular system and gives it to the muscle when you use it. The code traces back to cytochrome c which is in single celled organisms. A fetus turns on at least 2 additional genes with subtle differences in codes, that taps more into getting more oxygen from the mother's bloodstream which is separated from the babies blood and has to cross a membrane barrier. When we are born these genes turn off and are not expressed in an adult.
I have come to find out recently, we are both right. Pseudogenes are found all over the variant regions or the 'junk' DNA areas. So it appears to be both a primordial ground for new and unique codes, as well as utilizing fragments or sections of old codes. So apparently there are fossil remains of codes, or sketches of blueprints hanging around too.
This area of the DNA is the perfect place to insert a code because you don't want to insert one code into another code. No one has been able to do that except viruses do that. At least to control it so it only inserted there, viruses insert everywhere.
Then there's the telomeres.
The key longevity, may be all about the telomeres.
The caps or very top and bottom of the DNA. One of the areas initially deemed junk DNA and yes it was obvious this isn't junk. The more intact these telomeres are, the longer you live. Rats have huge telomeres and are very resistant to disease and radiation. I believe cockroaches do too. I recently seen a study where they looked at areas where people live longer. They seem to be in areas with less pollution and in nature, with less stress, simpler, better water, .... Where they go out in nature see it everyday. Usually beautiful and remote. And their telomeres are seen to be more intact. Not just the size but keeping them intact. Dr. Lorraine Meisner keyed me into this at the UW.
Most cells go through 25-40 cell divisions, somewhere in that ballpark, and then are programmed to die, except stem cells. Every time the DNA replicates it loses some DNA from the ends. It would dwindle down to nothingness if it kept replicating. The reason why cells are programmed for cell death. At least one of the reasons, making copies of copies will introduce a certain amount of errors eventually, even with corrections occurring (DNA repair genes/proteins). Abnormalities are seen in this area in cancers too.
A long life is all about the telomeres. There are now 100s of research papers showing she's correct, or soon will be. It is also a huge buffer region from the end of the DNA until you reach areas of codes. It's not in the codes, it's about not forcing the cells through replication cycles. It's about the cells not having to replicate to replace damaged cells. Unless you want to talk about immune functions which include many, many genes. Certainly a factor of health also.
We are 98-99% genetically related to primates, 96-98% related to rats. A small change in codes makes a whole new species.
I hope to shed light on some of the confusion here. Hopefully people aren't more confused. Fairy Friend.