Today’s Popular Posts
- .
Popular Posts
- ,
Posts in this Impact Area: (DNA Decoding)
- Gene expression and regulation: It’s the location, baby.
- Fetal DNA sequencing: Reading ma and pa’s genome
- Bonobo Genome: Our ever-lovin’ kin get closer
- microDNA: A new piece of genetics puzzle
- Personal genome disease risk analysis: New study finds important limits
- Human genetics: The mysterious unequal mutation by sex
- Oh Daphnia, why so many genes?
- Hoogsteen base pairs: An alternate structure in DNA
- The shape of the genome influences genetics
- DNA redundancy: Genetic sequence copies are more prevalent and important than thought
- Histones: DNA packaging and much more
- A form of muscular dystrophy depends on ‘junk’ DNA
- Transposons and the dynamic genome
- microRNA: A cellular communicator
- Update: Research on ‘old-age genes’ challenged
- The Human Genome Project: Ten years later
- Fascinating: Many of us have genes from Neanderthals
- The growing GWAS controversy
- Genetic pause control
- A new layer of genetic information: DNA sub-code
- The pitfalls of ‘informed consent’ for DNA analysis
- Surprise verdict in U.S. gene patent case
- Fingered by hand bacteria
- Clinical genetics: Two cases
- New study: Metagenomics gets a gut feel
- Small RNA: New pathways for gene regulation?
- Follow-up: Another ‘junk DNA’ study
- More ‘junk DNA’ that actually does something
- Waking the dead
- New study and research tool: DNA mutations and molecular effects
- Common diseases: Rare gene mutations are important
- Update: Males not at the end of genetic line
- New study: Males not at the end of genetic line
- Heart disease linked to epigenetics
- In the helix grooves – how proteins find the DNA
- Biological clocks: RNA keeps time
- Corn (maize) genome sequenced
- Important bacteria protein-DNA link discovered
- DNA Barcoding and the supermarket of genetic identification
- Evolution seen through 10K vertebrate genomes
- Beyond the genome: Mapping the epigenome
- Mapping human genome variations

More ‘junk DNA’ that actually does something
This is not a screed, or it shouldn’t be. However, the next time you read something about ‘junk DNA’ – check its provenance. It’s true that for years researchers have looked at the huge tracts of genetic material that doesn’t appear to do anything vital (that is, coding for proteins) – which is about 98% of the total DNA – and for lack of any better knowledge called it ‘junk DNA.’ Slowly (and I’m obliged to say) but surely, that pejorative seems to be falling away. The reasons are new studies, such as the one just published in Nature conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which has identified a segment of ‘junk DNA’ where variances increase the risk of coronary artery disease.
The new study builds on previous work showing that a variant (gene or genes) in an interval of DNA (a length of base pairs) on chromosome 9p21 indicates a person has an increased chance of developing coronary artery disease. Explaining the link more precisely was the goal for the new study. They found that the sequence of DNA in this interval regulates a pair of genes that inhibit cell division. When there are bad copies of this sequence (for example, missing some base pairs), the genes’ expression is inhibited. The researchers speculate that without adequate control from these genes, vascular cells proliferate more than normal and eventually narrow the coronary arteries.
The researchers in this study have taken to calling junk DNA ‘non-coding DNA,’ which seems almost as non-informative but may have to do for now. While it should have been dubious that so much DNA would follow the simplistic formula: non-coding DNA = junk DNA, research is just beginning to find ‘other links’ and is a long way from an accurate molecular explanation of the various roles of non-coding DNA.
This one example may have considerable impact on research for heart disease. It will be worth following similar discoveries in the coming years.