3 ms·
As the article says, we know there's important stuff in those repetitive regions, it's just really hard to read.
by phyzome 9y ago
As the article says, we know there's important stuff in those repetitive regions, it's just really hard to read.
- coldtea 9y agoWell: "“A lot of people in the 1980s and 1990s [when the Human Genome Project was getting started] thought of these regions as nonfunctional,” said Karen Miga, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “But that’s no longer the case.” " And: "“I’m between agnostic and a little skeptical that these bits will be important for disease, but maybe I’m saying that because we can’t read them,” Lander said.".
- throwanem 9y agoThe "no such thing as junk DNA" claim comes from a paper which is, to say the least, controversial in the field. I would hesitate to take it as prima facie reliable, and in general would recommend looking with extensive skepticism upon popular reporting in this realm of scientific endeavor. After all, this very thread originates in a piece of popular reporting that only seems novel because all of the previous popular reporting has been wrong...