4 ms·
Calling the "junk DNA" a "header" is closer to what it may do, but still slightly different because in computer software a header is still read with the same co
by TheJoeMan 5y ago
Calling the "junk DNA" a "header" is closer to what it may do, but still slightly different because in computer software a header is still read with the same codec (bits) as the data, much like DNA is usually read with the protein codec.
Instead, we are learning the "unknown" DNA performs biological functions due to its physical nature, such as physically blocking things from binding.
Imagine if a small section of a hard drive was so strongly magnetized that it repulsed the read head - if you were trying to translate it into binary it would appear to be nonsense.
- robwwilliams 5y agoWe are not learning that. Much unknown DNA is repetitive crufts. Get used to it. Biology is even messier than coding.
- xenadu02 5y agoIm not sure which of your many comments to respond to here but we certainly have learned that a small part of "junk" DNA (as that term was originally meant) performs useful functions not directly related to protein coding. So the comment you replied to is absolutely accurate. Of course you are accurate as well: if we subtract the protein coding and the known non-coding but useful bits the rest is almost certainly absolute junk... duplications, bits of retroviruses, etc. But it would be inappropriate to claim we are absolutely certain none of it is useful. Will we find out 50% is useful? Obviously not. But I would rather say "current evidence suggests at least 97% is true junk; we are not likely to find large sequences with hidden uses at this point".
- shadowgovt 5y agoTo build a (bad) analogy to human cultures... There are two things we lock up tight. Things that could cause damage if freely accessed or openly roaming, and things that it is vital to protect and must not be changed. My rough read of biology is that it could use the same mechanism to lock down both.