The chapter contains an excellent summary of the history of genome sizes in bacteria and eukaryotes and a detailed description of both the c-value paradox and the mutation load arguments. The relationship between junk DNA and population size is described.
I was especially pleased to see that the author didn't pull any punches in describing the ENCODE publicity campaign and their false statements about junk DNA.
In 2012, a post-human-genome project called ENCODE, which aims to experimentally identify regions of the human genome that undergo transcription—or are bound by a set of DNA-binding proteins, or undergo chemical changes called epigenetic modifications—came to a stunning conclusion that at least 80% of the human genome is functional and that it was time to sing a requiem for the concept of junk DNA! However, this conclusion, which has been severely criticised since its publication, ignores decades of well-supported arguments from evolutionary biology arising from the c-value paradox, some of which we have described here or will do so shortly; it does not quite explain why this conclusion—if broadly applied to the genomes of other multicellular eukaryotes—would not imply that a fish needs 100 times as much functional DNA as a human; and plays “fast and loose” with the definition of the term ‘function’. While the ENCODE project, a great success in many ways, has provided an invaluable resource for the study of human molecular biology, we can safely ignore its ill-fated conclusion on what fraction of the human genome is functional.
2 comments :
Larry, thanks for informing us about openbookpublishers, I never heard of it.
This is a very wise and sensible conclusion:
"While the ENCODE project, a great success in many ways, has provided an invaluable resource for the study of human molecular biology, we can safely ignore its ill-fated conclusion on what fraction of the human genome is functional."
Hi Larry, Thanks a lot for your kind words on the book!
Hi Gert: I came across Open Book Publishers while looking for a home for this book (just when I had almost given up getting it published formally and was exploring more "creative" left-field options). It being open access makes a big difference especially for students here in India. Of course there are no royalties involved, but I never wrote the book for royalties.
They seem to have a strong presence in the humanities and in the history of science, but are also publishing in the sciences now. It was a pleasure working with them through peer review and publisher proof-reading and copy-editing. A colleague got a print copy of the book and it looks rather nice (I cannot wait to receive mine, which should eventually reach me by post).
Post a Comment