3 ms·
Nice explanation but you seem to be saying that at most 3% (being generous) of DNA would be functional (if the rest is “random noise”). This number is over twic
by klmr 7y ago
Nice explanation but you seem to be saying that at most 3% (being generous) of DNA would be functional (if the rest is “random noise”). This number is over twice as small as the lowest estimate (~ 8%) of even the most fervent critics of ENCODE’s number. I’d love to hear a brief break-down of your reasons, if possible.
- mnw21cam 7y agoAs an added complication, a decent proportion of DNA in the genome is meaningful at least in how long it is, because it separates two functional pieces of DNA that interact in 3D space due to the way the DNA wraps around other stuff. If you change the content of this DNA, it doesn't cause disease, but if you change the length, it does.
- astazangasta 7y agoEh, I graduated in 2008. ENCODE was only a pilot yet. We didn't know about lincRNAs. My estimate was based on multi-species sequence alignments so it is pretty conservative. At the time it was not, however; it was doubling the amount of functional sequence. To be honest i am not sure what the current best estimates are based on (i switched fields). 8% seems absurdly high to me, but there is a ton more evidence now than i had.
- klmr 7y agoAh, I misunderstood your commend as saying that you’re currently working on the thesis.