Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | July 5th 2007 10:02 PM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

Vertebrate genomes are full of junk. Despite the occasional confusing magazine article, the spurious claims by creationists, or obfuscatory statements by some scientists, we know that our genomes are stuffed full of DNA sequence that serves no functional role for the organism. The vast bulk of this junk sequence consists of molecular parasites, called transposable elements, whose only 'function' is to replicate themselves. While our genomes obviously contain critical information required to build and maintain ourselves, they are also vast ecosystems of virus-like parasites that have colonized our DNA.

A recent paper in the journal Genome Research describes the DNA ecosystem of the opossum genome. "Ecosystem" is not an exaaggeration; more than 52% of the opossum genome is comprised of transposable elements, which can be classed into nearly 500 different families. Transposable elements are similar to viruses; they are, one way or another, able to replicate themselves within an organism's genome and get passed on to the next generation. These elements have variety of survival strategies; some elements get transcribed into RNA and then 'reverse transcribed' back into DNA and inserted somewhere in the genome, while other elements never go through an RNA stage. Some transposable elements encode proteins that enable them to spread through the genome more efficiently; other elements don't bother to code for any proteins and instead hijack the proteins produced by those elements that can code for them.

Why do transposable elements exist in our genomes? Because they can. If a DNA element in an organism's genome can get itself passed on into the next generation, whether that element is beneficial to the organism or not, then obviously it will remain in the genome of that species. Since these elements don't generally serve any functional role, there is no reason for natural selection to preserve them, and we thus see piles of defective copies of transposable elements scattered around our genomes. These elements no longer have the ability to spread through the genome and they serve no function - they are pure junk. While our cells do have systems that try to stop these elements from spreading, we, and most animals, have not evolved effective ways to get rid of the junk elements once they are there; these elements therefore hang around and bulk up our genomes with non-functional material. About 45% of the human genome consists of these elements; that fraction rises to 52% for the opossum (which has a genome slightly larger than ours).

Transposable elements are not completely useless. For one, biologists love them because they can be helpful for studying evolutionary history - one approach to teasing out relationships among various species is to reconstruct a rough history of transposable element activity in various genomes. We have also known for some time that these elements can occasionally be recruited for a functional role (such as telemoeres in flies, X-chromosome inactivation in mammals, and centromeres in various organisms).

The opossum paper offers even more tantalizing, although not wholly unprecedented, evidence of a larger role for transposable elements. The authors of this paper looked at transposable elements, common to both opossum and human, that were present in known or suspected regulatory regions of the genome. Transposable elements in these regions are obvious candidates for a functional role. And remarkably, the researchers found that a handful of transposable element families were highly abundant in these regulatory regions - in one case, 70% of all the individual elements of one family were found in regulatory regions of the genome. It is possible that this particular family of transposable elements somehow contains a useful 'regulatory module,' some sequence that has been recruited through evolution to control the expression some genes. If this is true, than this would be a case of transposable elements providing the raw genetic material to create new layers of regulation in the genome.

So while most of the self-perpetuating transposable element ecosystem is undoubtedly junk from the perspective of the organism hosting it, our genomes are occasionally able to scoop up some of the detritus and put it to good use.

Comments

The fact that this article resorts to namecalling of its opponents rather than any suggestion of a mechanism by which we could "know" such things throws a rather large shadow over the believability of the whole proposition.

Perhaps it's no more "junk" than the storage rooms of a handyman are "junk" - just because they appear that way to someone who only buys and consumes, and has no comprehension of building and recycling.

Hank's picture
You think this had name calling? You must be new to the internet. We are positively the beacons of tolerance compared to every science site out there.

Obviously we're an open community so if you have science that you want to write, write it and publish it here. Comparing DNA to handyman's tools is not science, though. It's not even philosophy. It might be wishful thinking.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Namecalling? Where did you get that from?

As I point out in the article, sometimes this 'junk' does get picked up and used by the organism, but the fact is that most copies of transposable elements are simply parasitic pieces of DNA that have the ability to spread themselves throughout the genome. It's not that mysterious, and the term junk is appropriate, your non-sensical statement about buying and consuming notwithstanding.

As for 'mechanism by which we know such things', if really you want more technical references about how researchers study transposable elements, I'll be happy to dig some up.

Just because we don't understand why all this "junk" DNA exists, we should not rule out that it is still somehow useful. The energy load to transcribe all this DNA must have its limits on survival on Darwinian terms. For example, we know little about how cells communicate with each other. There must be a mechanism in the early stages of immune system development, for the cells to communicate that they are self, and not to be attacked by T-cells. What better form of communication than that by viruses which can easily bud off from cells and roam to other cell receptors, to inform the that they are neighbors. Nerve growth heavily depends on communication for cells to grow in the right direction. Wound healing and scarring depend heavily on information supplied by neighboring cells to tell them what kind of cells to grow into. Cell receptors on the surface of the cell are obviously very important for cell type recogition, but they do not explain everything of how cells recognize each other. Additionally, there is a time factor in development when a cell can be recognized as self as opposed to foreign. Virus-like reverse transcription would be an obvious role of virus like particles to do the communicating in cells. There are so many roles of genomic DNA that are yet needed to understand how cells work, that it would be premature to dismiss the "unnecessary DNA" as junk.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
I pointed out in the post that we in fact do know why much of this junk DNA exists - transposable elements are molecular parasites that have the ability to spread themselves throughout our genomes. I call it 'junk' not because we don't know why it exists, but because we DO know how most of it came to be.

As I mentioned in this piece, we also know that some of these transposable elements have been recruited for functional roles, however there is no compelling reason to suppose that all, or even most transposable elements are functional for the organism.

Regarding cell-cell communication, I disagree that there don't seem to be enough protein-coding genes in the genome to account for the biology of wound healing or immunology. None of the colleagues I work with who study immunology or wound healing think that the problem is that there aren't enough known protein coding genes - a lot of the functional diversity we see comes from reusing basic classes of proteins in different functional contexts. You seem to be suggesting that the ~24,000 protein coding genes in our genomes (along with their regulatory elements) simply can't be enough to account for our biology. You'd be hard pressed to find many molecular biologists who would agree with you on that.

Viruses are an intriguing possibility, but most transposable elements have no ability to bud out of the cell like real viruses.

The explanation of evolution is exactly the appropriate process for these junk genomes. Many people assume that evolution is the survival of the fittest. A more appropriate term would be:

Non-survival of the least fit.

Within this definition, junk genomes are totally appropriate as long as they do no significant harm, They don't make us better and they don't make us signfcantly worse.They don't make us better survivors but they don't make us lessor survivors.

ITD.

Are the gaps in traffic 'junk'?

"Transposable elements in these regions are obvious candidates for a functional role." These are obvious candidates for information sharing between cells, immune system reconition, developmental time-stamps, species recognition, ....the possibilities are almost endless. The immune system relies on only about 10,000 different DNA sequences for functionality. Is this enough? I doubt it. But if the immune system has the ability to decipher coded sequences in "junk" DNA, it might serve a useful purpose. Don't forget that Mitochondria and its associative DNA have been assimilated from a primitive bacteria, but put to use in eukaryotic cells. Nobody knows how this happened. Viruses are an obvious candidate for this role, too.

'X Y' with 'junk' - 'knot knot' without 'junk'!

some people seem offended by the "junk" term, but I think its appropriate; if I consider my household as an organism or ecosystem, like the DNA genome, then I've got oodles of junk stuffed away in the garage, attic, closets, etc. some of it has survived transitioning from one household to another for 5 moves and forty years! some junk is still around from my grandparents in their youth. although I now and then toss some of it to Goodwill, most stays moldering away. recently a grandchild found some of that junk from my own youth, that I'd intended to toss years ago and had no function all this time -- and now its in his room, a prized possession that involves him (an organ in this household organism) for hours; how much of our 45% junk genome material will someday find a purpose? one man's junk is another man's treasure, and so it may be with our genome

Which animals have evolved a mechanism to drop junk DNA? If Religion is a philosophy and removed from scientific examination how can you delegate a religious interpretation as spurious? Why do scientists obfuscate? When will the sycophants here realize that there is a place for both science and philosophy and the two are naturally independent of each other. One exists in our experiences and the other in our imagination and we cannot validate or debunk one with the other. Grow up Mr. White.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
It's Dr. White to you, by the way...

I don't really see that your comment has a coherent point. A religious interpretation is spurious when it's based on complete ignorance of the scientific evidence. A serious religious claim could conscientiously reject scientific evidence, but a person making such a claim should be aware of what they are rejecting. Most religious claims that I've seen about junk DNA are made by people who are compeltely clueless about the existing scientific knowledge.

Microrganisms are able to keep their genomes largely (but not completely) free of transposable elements. Most animal and plant species have mechanisms to try to suppress the spread of transposable elements, but they haven't developed ways to eliminate existing copies.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.