Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Scientists vie to break junk DNA's secret code

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 06/10/2003)

Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.

The discovery is of potentially huge significance, since it could lead to an entirely new explanation for certain diseases and symptoms. A race is now on among teams of scientists worldwide to investigate this cryptic code.

While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.

In the latest issue of the journal Science, Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School, Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, and colleagues have reported compelling evidence that up to three per cent of our genetic material has a crucial role that is not understood.

They made the unexpected discovery that some DNA regions of humans, dogs and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical. These regions of what were once called junk have been dubbed "conserved non-genic sequences", or CNGs, a reference to how they are not conventional genes.

Prof Antonarakis said: "I suspect that mutations in CNGs may contribute to numerous genetic disorders." Defects in CNGs could result in illness while the symptoms of Down's syndrome, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome, might be linked to the presence of additional CNGs.

"Many laboratories are now working on identifying pathogenic mutations," he said.

[VadeRetro]

Your ignorance extends to inability to read. You're running away from your own statement. Don't blame you. I'd just issue a retraction. That would be the honest thing. Bet you don't have it in you.

[balrog666]

I was unaware that Catholics had another Bible. Being rather irreligious I'm not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, you have your head up your butt most of the time on most topics so I suspect your analysis to be faulty.

Well said. I'll have to steal the last lime from time to time though.

[exmarine]

Your ignorance extends to inability to read. You're running away from your own statement. Don't blame you. I'd just issue a retraction. That would be the honest thing. Bet you don't have it in you.

What are you talking about? Retract what? I said nothing about a catholic bible - you seem to be confused (nothing new there). I was speaking to the issue of our Christian Heritage (you brought it up) and how you secular humanists are destroying it. So, what the flip are you talking about? What are you smoking?

[exmarine]

Did you mean to say that Catholics are not bible-believing Christians, Mr. Pig-Ignorant Thumper?

Your comment is being reported to the Admin Moderator. Keep insulting - I'll keep sending them to Admin Moderator. Care to try it again now?

[VadeRetro]

You could be moving up on the hit list, especially of one of the suicide bombers takes me out.

[exmarine]

This is from VadeRetro to me.

Did you mean to say that Catholics are not bible-believing Christians, Mr. Pig-Ignorant Thumper?

[exmarine]

Keep insulting - see what happens. I should be interesting.

[VadeRetro]

That's right - Baltimore was the catholic enclave. Of the remaining 250 founding fathers, all but about 12 were bible-believing Christians.

Alright, I didn't originally hit the button on it, but I find your statement offensive. I'm not even a Catholic, not even a Christian, but your statement is offensive to anyone who knows anything about Catholicism and the people who follow it.

[exmarine]

I didn't say anything bad about catholics. Post my offensive remark now or retract your insult.

[exmarine]

I don't see an insult in my comment - you READ INTO IT what you wanted to read into it. That's your problem.

[js1138]

Isn't "non-Christian conservative" an oxymoron?

You again, with the same tired question. I supppose there are no conservative Jews? That will be a surprise to our friends at Jewish World Review.

Now if you can get your mind around that, perhaps it can expand to include people who don't accept you as the final interpreter of the Bible.

[exmarine]

You again, with the same tired question. I supppose there are no conservative Jews? That will be a surprise to our friends at Jewish World Review.

It was humor silly...and it was directed at another Christian. Of course, there are conservatives jews - Medved, Dr. Laura, etc., who are also friends of the Christian faith. But thanks for clarifying that so that no one else will read into it what isn't there.

[VadeRetro]

That's your problem.

Your protests are extremely implausible. Your problem. Another thing, stay out of my freepmail. I will delete unread anything with your name on it.

[js1138]

I can accept humor, but quite frankly, you aren't known for posting humor, and there are private replies for posts that aren't intended for everybody. At least one freeper posted the opinion that Conservatism required Christianity -- just moments before being banned, so it is a hot button issue. Sorry if I overreacted.

[Ogmios]

I have yet to see any scientific evidence of your assertions, I see scientific fantasy on your part, but no scientific evidence whatsoever. I see antiscience, not science, so I find your claims beyond anything even remotely resembling reality.

When a person throws the entire theory of evolution out the window, because it goes against their personal religious convictions, every scientific claim they make is suspect. Evolution is a well proven theory, it happened, there is no way to disprove this without using antiscience, laying aside data and evidence that you cannot abide. All of your conclusions therefore are suspect.

You use antiscience, you have come to a conlusion, use evidence that fits your conclusion and toss or ignore the rest of the evidence that will not fit your conclusion.

You are an antiscientist. When you speak science, every conclusion and claim should therefore be examined and tested by anyone that reads your posts. If they do so, they will find that you will have misrepresented, left evidence out, and lied.

Sorry Gore3000, but you are a holy warrior, and are not trustworthy.

[js1138]

Goodness. I was out shopping for a new server for a few minutes and a religious war has broken out. Time to save pages before we get pulled.

[exmarine]

I can accept humor, but quite frankly, you aren't known for posting humor, and there are private replies for posts that aren't intended for everybody. At least one freeper posted the opinion that Conservatism required Christianity -- just moments before being banned, so it is a hot button issue. Sorry if I overreacted.

No problem - sorry for the sorry attempt at humor.

But hey! I can be funny!

[exmarine]

Your protests are extremely implausible. Your problem. Another thing, stay out of my freepmail. I will delete unread anything with your name on it.

No, it seems you are the one with the problem as you are the one who was lobbing insults like grenades. But then you learned that doesn't work anymore.

[VadeRetro]

Time to save pages before we get pulled.

Facts have surprisingly little impact in these discussions, of course, but we might as well save what we can.