4 ms·
> junk (i.e. non-functional DNA) Perhaps people should use the term "non-functional DNA" instead of "junk DNA" more often. Calling something as "junk" has unne
by rpozarickij 2y ago
> junk (i.e. non-functional DNA)
Perhaps people should use the term "non-functional DNA" instead of "junk DNA" more often. Calling something as "junk" has unnecessarily dismissive connotations.
- pretendscholar 2y agoThey should call it non-translating-to-protein-but-probably-has-some-function DNA
- darby_nine 2y agoEven non-functional isn't nearly as good as "genetic data with unknown function or expression".
- tim333 2y agoNon-coding DNA (ncDNA) seems good to me. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA)
- tsimionescu 2y agoThat's a very different concept. There's a lot of non-coding DNA that has never been considered non-functional/junk.
- dataflow 2y agoOr UCO... unidentified coding object.