This relationship (lungfish-tetrapods) was firmly established recently by comparing the genome of the Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) with that of tetrapods (Meyer et al., 2021). The other possibility had been ceolacanth-tetrapods. Coelacanths and lungfish are related—they form the class Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish).
In order to build the case for revolution, he tries to demonstrate a paradigm shift in our view of molecular biology by showing a huge gap between the understanding of previous generations of molecular biologists and the post-genomic view. I believe he is wrong about this for two reasons: first, he misrepresents the views of older molecular biologists and, second he misrepresents the discoveries of the past twenty years. I tried to explain why he was wrong about these two claims in a previous post where I discussed an article he published in Scientific American in May 2024: Philip Ball says RNA may rule our genome.
Philip Ball responded to my criticism in a comment under that article.
I said ...
Ball begins with the same old myth that writers like him have been repeating for many years. He claims that before ENCODE most molecular biologists were really stupid. According to Philip Ball, most of us thought that coding DNA was the only functional part of the genome and most of the rest was junk DNA.
In the comment section of my earlier post, Philip Ball says,
I’m sorry to say that Larry’s commentary here is dismayingly inaccurate.
Let’s get this one out of the way first:
“He claims that before ENCODE most molecular biologists were really stupid.”
I have never made this claim and never would – it is a pure fabrication on Larry’s part. I guess this is what John Horgan meant in his comment to Larry: credible writers don’t just make up stuff.
I admit that Philip Ball never said those exact words. I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether my characterization of his position is accurate.
I stand by the statements I made although I admit to a bit of hyperbole. Ball has said repeatedly that the molecular biologists of my generation were wedded to the idea that coding regions were the only important part of the genome and he often connects that to the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. He also claims that the experts in molecular biology dismissed all non-coding DNA as junk. Here's how he puts it in another article that he published recently in Aeon: We are not machines.
Only around 1-2 per cent of the entire human genome actually consists of protein-coding genes. The remainder was long thought to be mostly junk: meaningless sequences accumulated over the course of evolution. But at least some of that non-coding genome is now known to be involved in regulating genes: altering, activating or suppressing their transcription in RNA and translation into proteins.
I interpret that to mean that older molecular biologists, like me, didn't know about functional non-coding DNAs such as centromeres, telomeres, origins of replication, non-coding genes, SARs, and regulatory sequences in spite of the fact that thousands of papers on these sequences were published in the 30 years that preceded the publication of the first draft of the human genome sequence. This is not true, we did know about those things. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that Philip Ball thinks we were really stupid.
Here's what he says in his book, "How Life Works" (p. 85) when he's talking about the beginning of the human genome project.
Even at its outset, it faced the somewhat troubling issue that just 2 percent or so of our genome actually accounts for protein-coding genes. The conventional narrative was that our biology was all about proteins, for each of which the genome held the template. ... But we had all this other DNA too! What was it for? The common view was that it was mostly just junk, like the stuff in our attics: meaningless material accumulated during evolution, which our cells had no motivation to clear out.
Again, his claim is that in 1990 at the beginning of the human genome project the experts in molecular biology thought that non-coding DNA was mostly junk (98% of the genome). I have repeatedly refuted this myth and challenged anyone to come up with a single scientific paper arguing that all non-coding DNA is junk. I challenge Philip Ball to find a single molecular biology textbook written before 1990 that fails to discuss regulation, non-coding genes, and other non-coding functional elements in the human genome.
The truth is that the molecular biology experts concluded in the 1970s that we had about 30,000 genes and that 90% of our genome is junk and 10% is functional. That 10% consisted of about 2% coding DNA (now thought to be only 1%) and 8% functional non-coding DNA. So the "conventional narrative" was that there was a lot more functional non-coding DNA than coding DNA.
"Ball is one of the most meticulous, precise science writers out there. He is the antithesis of hypey, "dumb-it-down" reporting. He is MUCH more credible than you are, Laurence."
John Horgan July, 2024The title of the article I was discussing is "Revolutionary Genetics Research Shows RNA May Rule Our Genome." In that article Ball says that ENCODE was basically right and there are many more non-coding genes than protein-coding genes. I pointed out that Ball mentions some criticism of this idea but only to dismiss it. I said that "[Ball] wants you to believe that almost of all of those transcripts are functional—that's the revolution that he's promoting." Philip Ball objects to this statement ...
This too is sheer fabrication. I don’t say this in my article, nor in my book. Instead, I say pretty much what Larry seems to want me to say, but for some reason he will not admit it – which is that there is controversy about how many of the transcripts are functional."
Ball states that "ENCODE was basically right" when they claimed that 75% of our genome was transcribed and he goes on to say that ...
Dozens of other research groups, scoping out activity along the human genome, also have found that much of our DNA is churning out 'noncoding' RNA.
He says that ENCODE has identified 37,000 noncoding genes but there may be as many as 96,000. After making these definitive statements, he mentions that there are "still doubters" but then discuss why these discoveries are revolutionary. Later on he quotes John Mattick suspecting that there may be more that 500,000 non-coding genes.
Toward the end of the article, after discussing all kinds of functional RNAs, he brings up the Ponting and Haerty review where they say that most lncRNAs are just noise. He also mentions that the low copy number of non-coding RNAs raises questions about whether they are functional but immediately counters with the standard excuses from his allies.
Ball closes the article with ...
Gingeras says he is perplexed by ongoing claims that ncRNAs are merely noise or junk, as evidence is mounting that they do many things. "It is puzzling why there is such an effort to persuade colleagues to move from a sense of interest and curiosity in the ncRNA field to a more dubious and critical one," he says.
Perhaps the arguments are so intense because they undercut the way we think our biology works. Ever since the epochal discovery about DNA's double helix and how it encodes information, the bedrock idea of molecular biology has been that there are precisely encoded instructions that program specific molecules for particular tasks. But ncRNAs seem to point to a fuzzier, more collective, logic to life. It is a logic that is harder to discern and harder to understand. ut if scientists can learn to live with the fuzziness, this view of life may turn out to be more complete.
What's remarkable about the quote from a leading ENCODE worker (Gingeras) is that he is "puzzled" by scientists who are dubious and critical about claims in the ncRNA field. Isn't that what good scientists are supposed to do? Isn't that exactly what we did when we successfully challenged the dubious claims about junk DNA made in 2012?
There is no doubt in my mind that Philip Ball has fallen hook-line-and-sinker for the ENCODE claims that our genome is buzzing with non-coding genes. He only brings up the counter-arguments to dismiss them and pretend that he is being fair. Nobody who was truly skeptical about the function of transcripts would write an article with the title, "Revolutionary Genetics Research Shows RNA May Rule Our Genome."
However, as Ball points out in other comments, he does have a sentence in his book where he mentions that perhaps only 30% of the genome is functional. He says in the comment that what he believes is that the amount of functional DNA lies somewhere between 10% and 30%. That's not something that he mentions in the Scientific American article but, if he's being honest, it does mean that I was unfair when I said he believes that "almost of all of those transcripts are functional" but I only know that from what he now says, not from the published article.
If I were to take Philip Ball at his word—as expressed in the comment—then he must believe that most of the ENCODE transcripts are junk RNA. That's not a belief that you get from reading his published work.2 Furthermore, if I were to take him at his word, then he must believe that there are some reasonable criteria that must be applied to a transcript in order to decide whether it has a biologically relevant function. So, when he says that ENCODE identified 37,600 non-coding genes he must have these criteria in mind but he doesn't express any serious skepticism about that number. We all know that there's no solid evidence that such a large number of transcripts are functional but that doesn't bother Philip Ball. He thinks we are in the middle of an RNA revolution.
1. In commenting to my previous post, Ball says he believes that somewhere between 70% and 90% of our genome is junk but he doesn't say this in the Scientific American article. Instead, he says that scientists were surprised to learn that 75% of the human genome is transcribed implying that there's a lot of function. He goes on the say that "ENCODE was basically right." But what the ENCODE publicity campaign actually said was that junk DNA is dead and there's practically no junk DNA. If Ball really believes that up to 90% of the genome is junk then to me this means that ENCODE was spectacularly wrong not "basically right."
2. Ball says that 75% of the genome is transcribed. If Ball believes that as little as 10% may be functional then he must believe that less than 10% is transcribed to produce functional RNAs since he has to allow for regulatory sequences and other functional DNA elements. Let's say that 8% is a reasonable number. Ball seems to be willing to admit that 67% of the genome might be transcribed to produce junk RNA.
Ball's ideas are complicated and I won't go into all of them in this article. Instead, I want to focus on one of his more scientific claims; namely, the claim that genomic data has overthrown the fundamental principles of molecular biology. Let's look at his recent (May 14, 2024) article in Scientific American: Revolutionary Genetics Research Shows RNA May Rule Our Genome.1
The subtile of the article is "Scientists have recently discovered thousands of active RNA molecules that can control the human body" and that's the issue that I want to discuss here.
Zach Hancock is a postdoc in ecology & evoluvionary biology at the University of Michigan. He has a YouTube channel with several thousand subscribers. You might recall that he interviewed me last year when my book came out [Zach Hancock interviews me on his YouTube channel].
He has just posted a new video on junk DNA that's well worth watching. He tries to correct all the falsehoods and misinformation on junk DNA, especially those promoted by creationists. It's well worth watching.
The main issue in this field concerns the number of non-coding genes in the human genome. I cover the available data in my book and conclude that there are fewer than 1000 (p.214). Those scientists who promote the importance of RNA (e.g. Tom Cech) would like you to believe that there are many more non-coding genes; indeed, most of those scientists believe that there are more non-coding genes than coding genes (i.e. > 20,000). They rarely present evidence for such a claim beyond noting that much of our genome is transcribed.
Although most scientists now agree on RNA's bright promise, we are still only beginning to unlock its potential. Consider, for instance, that some 75 percent of the human genome consists of dark matter that is copied into RNAs of unknown function. While some researchers have dismissed this dark matter as junk or noise, I expect it will be the source of even more exciting breakthroughs.
Let's dissect this to see where the bias lies. The first thing you note is the use of the term "dark matter" to make it sound like there's a lot of mysterious DNA in our genome. This is not true. We know a heck of a lot about our genome, including the fact that it's full of junk DNA. Only 10% of the genome is under purifying selection and assumed to be functional. The rest is full of introns, pseudogenes, and various classes of repetitive sequences made up mostly of degraded transposons and viruses. The entire genome has been sequenced—there's not much mystery there. I don't know why anyone refers to this as "dark matter" unless they have a hidden agenda.
The second thing you notice is the statement that 75% of the genome is transcribed at some time or another and, according to Tom Cech, these transcripts have an unknown function. That's strange since protein-coding genes take up roughly 40% of our genome and we know a great deal about coding DNA, UTRs, and introns. If you add in the known examples of non-coding genes, this accounts for an additional 2-3% of the genome.1
Almost all the rest of the transcripts come from non-conserved DNA and those transcripts are present at less than one copy per cell. As the ENCODE researchers noted in 2014, they are likely to be junk RNA resulting from spurious transcription. I'd say we know a great deal about the fraction of the genome that's transcribed and there's not much indication that it's hiding a plethora of undiscovered functional RNAs.
Photo credit: University of Colorado, Boulder.
1. In my book I make a generous estimate of 5,000 non-coding genes in order to avoid quibbling over a smaller number and in order to demonstrate that even with such a obvious over-estimate the genome is still 90% junk.
All of Us published the results from almost 250,000 genome sequences in a recent issue of Nature (All of Us Research Program Investigators, 2024). They found one billion variants of which 275 million had not been seen before.
Recall that the UK study (UK Biobank) emphasized the importance of variation in determining whether a given region of DNA was functional or not. They noted that regions that were constrained (i.e. fewer variants) were likely under purifying selection whereas regions that accumulated variants were likely junk [Identifying functional DNA (and junk) by purifying selection]. Their results indicated that only about 10% of the genome was constrained and that's consistent with the view that 90% of our genome is junk. The American study did not address this issue so we don't know how it related to the junk DNA controversy.
Note that if 90% of our genome is junk then that represents 2.8 billion base pairs and the potential for more than 8 billion variants in the human population.1 Some of these will be quite frequent in different groups just by chance but most of them will be quite rare. We'll have to wait and see how this all pans out when more genomes are sequenced. The idea of increasing the detection of unusual variants by sequencing more diverse populations is a good one but the real key is just more genome sequences.
One of the things you can do with this data is to cluster the variants according to the self-identified ethnic group of the participants and All of Us didn't hesitate to do this. They even identified the clusters as races, proving once again that there are clear genetic diffences between these groups, just as you would expect. Given the sensitive nature of this fact, you would also expect a lot of criticism on the internet and that's what happened.
1. I'm defining a "variant" as a difference from the reference genome sequence. I'm aware of the terminology issue but it's not important here. There will also be a large number of variants in the functional regions.
All of Us Research Program Investigators (2024) Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program. Nature 627:340. [doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06957-x].
The phrase "dark matter of the genome" is used by scientists who are skeptical of junk DNA so they want to convey the impression that most of the genome consists of important DNA whose function is just waiting to be discovered. Not surprisingly, the term is often used by researchers who are looking for funding and investors to support their efforts to use the latest technology to discover this mysterious function that has eluded other scientists for over 50 years.
The term "dark matter" is often applied to the human genome but what does it mean? We get a clue from a BBC article published by David Cox last April: The mystery of the human genome's dark matter. He begins the article by saying,
Twenty years ago, an enormous scientific effort revealed that the human genome contains 20,000 protein-coding genes, but they account for just 2% of our DNA. The rest of was written off as junk – but we are now realising it has a crucial role to play.
The Zoonomia project aligned the genome sequences of 240 mammalian species and determined that only 10.7% of the human genome is conserved. This is consistent with the idea that about 90% of our genome is junk.
The April 28, 2023 issue of science contains eleven papers reporting the results of a massive study comparing the genomes of 240 mammalian species. The issue also contains a couple of "Perspectives" that comment on the work.
The latest summary of the number of genes in the human genome gets the number of protein-coding genes correct but their estimate of the number of known non-coding genes is far too high.
In order to have a meaningful discussion about molecular genes, we have to agree on the definition of a molecular gene. I support the following definition (see What Is a Gene?).
This chapter describes gene families in the human genome. I explain how new genes are born by gene duplication and how they die by deletion or by becoming pseudogenes. Our genome is littered with pseudogenes: how do they evolve and are they all junk? What are the consequences of whole genome duplications and what does it teach us about junk DNA? How many real ORFan genes are there and why do some people think there are more? Finally, you will learn why dachshunds have short legs and what "The Bridge on the River Kwai" has to do with the accuracy of the human genome sequence.
Click on this link to see more.
Gene Families and the Birth and Death of Genes
If you are interested in learning more about junk DNA here's some links to relevant information.
Prologue Chapter 1: Introducing Genomes Chapter 2: The Evolution of Sloppy Genomes Chapter 3: Repetitive DNA and Mobile Genetic Elements Chapter 4: Why Don't Mutations Kill Us? Chaper 5: The Big Picture Chapter 6: How Many Genes? How Many Proteins? Chapter 7: Gene Families and the Birth and Death of Genes Chapter 8: Noncoding Genes and Junk RNA Chapter 9: The ENCODE Publicity Campaign Chapter 10: Turning Genes On and Off Chapter 11: Zen and the Art of Coping with a Sloppy Genome
The antarctic krill genome is the largest animal genome sequenced to date.
Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) is a species of small crustacean (about 6 cm long) that lives in large swarms in the seas around Antarctica. It is one of the most abundant animals on the planet in terms of biomass and numbers of individuals.
It was known to have a large genome with abundant repetitive DNA sequences making assembly of a complete genome very difficult. Recent technological advances have made it possible to sequence very long fragments of DNA that span many of the repetitive regions and allow assembly of a complete genome (Shao et al. 2023).
The project involved 28 scientists from China (mostly), Australia, Denmark, and Italy. To give you an idea of the effort involved, they listed the sequencing data that was collected: 3.06 terabases (Tb) PacBio long read sequences, 734.99 Gb PacBio circular consensus sequences, 4.01 Tb short reads, and 11.38 Tb Hi-C reads. The assembled genome is 48.1 Gb, which is considerably larger than that of the African lungfish (40 Gb), which up until now was the largest fully sequenced animal genome.
The current draft has 28,834 protein-coding genes and an unknown number of noncoding genes. About 92% of the genome is repetitive DNA that's mostly transposon-related sequences. However, there is an unusual amount of highly repetitive DNA organized as long tandem repeats and this made the assembly of the complete genome quite challenging.
The protein-coding genes in the Antarctic krill are longer than in other species due to the insertion of repetitive DNA into introns but the increase in intron size is less than expected from studies of other large genomes such as lungfish and Mexican axolotl. It looks like more of the genome expansion has occurred in the intergenic DNA compared to these other species.
This study supports the idea that genome expansion is mostly due to the insertion and propagation of repetitive DNA sequences. Some of us think that the repetitive DNA is mostly junk DNA but in this case it seems unusual that there would be so much junk in the genome of a species with such a huge population size (about 350 trillion individuals). The authors were aware of this problem but they were able to calculate an effective population size because they had sequence data from different individuals all around Antarctica. The effective population size (Ne) turned out to be one billion times smaller than the census population size indicating that the population of krill had been much smaller in the recent past. Their data suggests strongly that this smaller population existed only 10 million years ago.
The authors don't mention junk DNA. They seem to favor the idea that large genomes are associated with crustaceans that live in polar regions and that large genomes may confer a selective advantage.
Shao, C., Sun, S., Liu, K., Wang, J., Li, S., Liu, Q., Deagle, B.E., Seim, I., Biscontin, A., Wang, Q. et al. (2023) The enormous repetitive Antarctic krill genome reveals environmental adaptations and population insights. Cell 186:1-16. [doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.02.005]
The initial measurement of the difference between the human and chimp genomes was based on aligning 2.4 billion base pairs in the two genomes. This gave a difference of 1.23% by counting base pair substitutions and small deletions and insertions (indels). However, if you look at larger indels, including genes, you can come up with bigger values because you can count the total number of base pairs in each indel; for example, a deletion of 1,000 bp will be equivalent to 1,000 SNPs.
C. David Allis died on January 8, 2023. You can read about his history of awards and accomplishments in the Nature obituary with the provocative subtitle Biologist who revolutionized the chromatin and gene-expression field. This refers to his work on histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and his ideas about the histone code.
The key paper on the histone code is,
Strahl, B. D., and Allis, C. D. (2000) The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature, 403:41-45. [doi: 10.1038/47412]
Histone proteins and the nucleosomes they form with DNA are the fundamental building blocks of eukaryotic chromatin. A diverse array of post-translational modifications that often occur on tail domains of these proteins has been well documented. Although the function of these highly conserved modifications has remained elusive, converging biochemical and genetic evidence suggests functions in several chromatin-based processes. We propose that distinct histone modifications, on one or more tails, act sequentially or in combination to form a ‘histone code’ that is, read by other proteins to bring about distinct downstream events.
They are proposing that the various modifications of histone proteins can be read as a sort of code that's recognized by other factors that bind to nucleosomes and regulation gene expression.
This is an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between chromatin structure and gene expression. Nobody doubts that transcription is associated with an open form of chromatin that correlates with demethylation of DNA and covalent modifications of histone and nobody doubts that there are proteins that recognize modified histones. However, the key question is what comes first; the binding of transcription factors followed by changes to the DNA and histones, or do the changes to DNA and histones open the chromatin so that transcription factors can bind? These two models are referred to as the histone code model and the recruitment model.
Strahl and Allis did not address this controversy in their original paper; instead, they concentrated on what happens after histones become modified. That's what they mean by "downstream events." Unfortunately, the histone code model has been appropriated by the epigenetics cult and they do not distinguish between cause and effect. For example,
The “histone code” is a hypothesis which states that DNA transcription is largely regulated by post-translational modifications to these histone proteins. Through these mechanisms, a person’s phenotype can change without changing their underlying genetic makeup, controlling gene expression. (Shahid et al. (2022)
The language used by fans of epigenetics strongly implies that it's the modification of DNA and histones that is the primary event in regulating gene expression and not the sequence of DNA. The recruitment model states that regulation is primarily due to the binding of transcription factors to specific DNA sequences that control regulation and then lead to the epiphenomenon of DNA and histone modification.
The unauthorized expropriation of the histone code hypothesis should not be allowed to diminish the contribution of David Allis.
There are several different ways to describe the human genome but the most common one focuses on the DNA content of the nucleus in eukaryotes; it does not include mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA . The standard reference genome sequence consists of one copy of each of the 22 autosomes plus one copy of the X chromosome and one copy of the Y chromosome. That's the definition of genome that I will use here.
The earliest direct estimates of the size of human genome relied on Feulgen staining. The stain is quantitative so a properly conducted procedure gives you the weight of DNA in the nucleus. According to these measurements, the standard diploid content of the human nucleus is 7.00 pg and the haploid content is 3.50 pg [See Ryan Gregory's Animal Genome Size Database].
Since the structure of DNA is known, we can estimate the average mass of a base pair. It is 650 daltons, or 1086 x 10-24 g/bp. The size of the human genome in base pairs can be calculated by dividing the total mass of the haploid genome by the average mass of a base pair.
3.5 pg/1086 x 10-12 pg/bp = 3.2 x 109 bp
The textbooks settled on this value of 3.2 Gb by the late 1960s since it was confirmed by reassociation kinetics. According to C0t analysis results from that time, roughly 10% of the genome consists of highly repetitive DNA, 25-30% is moderately repetitive and the rest is unique sequence DNA (Britten and Kohne, 1968).
A study by Morton (1991) looked at all of the estimates of genome size that had been published to date and concluded that the average size of the haploid genome in females is 3,227 Mb. This includes a complete set of autosomes and one X chromosome. The sum of autosomes plus a Y chromosome comes to 3,122 Mb. The average is about 3,200 which was similar to most estimates.
These estimates mean that the standard reference genome should be more than 3,227 Mb since it has to include all of the autosomes plus an X and a Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is about 60 Mb giving a total estimate of 3,287 Mb or 3.29 Gb.
The common assumption about the size of the human genome in the past two decades has dropped to about 3,000 Mb because the draft sequence of the human genome came in at 2,800 Mb and the so-called "finished" sequence was still considerably less than 3,200 Mb. Most people didn't realize that there were significant gaps in the draft sequence and in the "finished" sequence so the actual size is larger than the amount of sequence. The latest estimate of the size of the human genome from the Genome Reference Consortium is 3,099,441038 bp (3,099 Mb) (Build 38, patch 14 = GRCh38.p14 (February, 2022)). This includes an actual sequence of 2,948,318,359 bp and an estimate of the size of the remaining gaps. The total size estimates have been steadily dropping from >3.2 Gb to just under 3.1 Gb.
The first complete sequence of a human genome was published in April, 2022 [The complete human genome sequence (2022)]. This telomere-telomere (T2T) assembly of every autosome and one X chromosome came in at 3,055 Mb (3.06 Gb). If you add in the Y chromosome, it comes to 3.12 Gb, which is very similar to the estimate for GRCh38.p14 (3.10 Gb). Based on all the available data, I think it's safe to say that the size of the human genome is about 3.1 Gb and not the 3.2 Gb that we've been using up until now.
Everything comes with a caveat and human genome size is no exception. The actual size of your human genome may be different than mine and different from everyone else's, including your close relatives. This is because of the presence or absence of segmental duplications that can change the size a human genome by as much as 200 Mb. It's possible to have a genome that's smaller than 3.0 Gb or one that's larger than 3.3 Gb without affecting fitness.
Nobody has figured out a good way to incorporate this genetic variation data into the standard reference genome by creating a sort of pan genome such as those we see in bacteria. The problem is that more and more examples of segmental duplications (and deletions) are being discovered every year so annotating those changes is a nightmare. In fact, it's a major challenge just to reconcile the latest telomere-to-telomere sequence (T2T-CHM13) and the current standard reference genome [What do we do with two different human genome reference sequences?].
[Image Credit: Wikipedia: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]
Britten, R. and Kohne, D. (1968) Repeated Sequences in DNA. Science 161:529-540. [doi: 10.1126/science.161.3841.529]
Morton, N.E. (1991) Parameters of the Human Genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 88:7474-7476 [free article on PubMed Central]
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004) Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431:931-945 [doi:10.1038/nature03001]
In order to have a productive discussion about junk DNA we needed to agree on how to define "function" and "junk." Disagreements over the definitions spawned the Function Wars that became intense over the past decade. That war is over and now it's time to move beyond nitpicking about terminology.
The idea that most of the human genome is composed of junk DNA arose gradually in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The concept was based on a lot of evidence dating back to the 1940s and it gained support with the discovery of massive amounts of repetitive DNA.
Various classes of functional DNA were known back then including: regulatory sequences, protein-coding genes, noncoding genes, centromeres, and origins of replication. Other categories have been added since then but the total amount of functional DNA was not thought to be more than 10% of the genome. This was confirmed with the publication of the human genome sequence.
From the very beginning, the distinction between functional DNA and junk DNA was based on evolutionary principles. Functional DNA was the product of natural selection and junk DNA was not constrained by selection. The genetic load argument was a key feature of Susumu Ohno's conclusion that 90% of our genome is junk (Ohno, 1972a; Ohno, 1972b).
New techniques are being developed to obtain the complete sequences of both copies (maternal and paternal) of a typical diploid individual.
The first two sequences of the human genome were published twenty years ago by the International Human Genome Project and by a company called Celera Genomics. The published sequences were a consensus using DNA from multiple indivduals so the final result didn't represent the sequence of any one person. Furthermore, since each of us has inherited separate genomes from our mother and father, our DNA is actually a mixture of two different haploid genomes. Most published genome sequences are an average of these two separate genomes where the choice of nucleotide at any one position is arbitrary.
The first person to have a complete genome sequence was James Watson in 2007 but that was a composite genome sequence. Craig Venter's genome sequence was published a few months later and it was the first complete genome sequence containing separate sequences of each of his 46 chromosomes. (One chromosome from each of his parents.) In today's language, we refer to this as a diploid sequence.
The current reference sequence is based on the data published by the public consortium (International Humand Genome Project)—nobody cares about the Celera sequence. Over the years, more and more sequencing data has been published and this has been incorporated into the standard human reference genome in order to close most gaps and improve the accuracy. The current version is called GRCh38.p14 from February 3, 2022. It's only 95% complete because it's missing large stretches of repetitive DNA, especially in the centromere regions and at the ends of each chromosome (telomeric region).
The important point for this discussion is that CRCh38 is not representative of the genomes of most people on Earth because there has been a bias in favor of sequencing European genomes. (Some variants are annotated in the reference genome but this can't continue.) Many scientists are interested the different kinds of variants present in the human population so they would like to create databases of genomes from diverse populations.
The first complete, telomere-to-telomere (T2T), human genome sequence was published last year [A complete human genome sequence (2022). It was made possible by advances in sequencing technology that generated long reads of 10,000 bp and ultra-long reads of up to 1,000,000 bp [Telomere-to-telomere sequencing of a complete human genome]. The DNA is from a CHM13 cell line that has identical copies of each chromosome so there's no ambiguity due to differences in the maternal and paternal copies. The full name of this sequence is CHM13-T2T.
The two genomes (CRCh38 and CHM13) can't be easily merged so right now there are competing reference genomes [What do we do with two different human genome reference sequences?].
The techniques used to sequence the CHM13 genome make it possible to routinely obtain diploid genome sequences from a large number of individuals because overlapping long reads can link markers on the same chromosome and distinguish between the maternal and paternal chromosomes. However, in practice, the error rate of long read sequencing made assembly of separate chromosomes quite difficult. Recent advances in the accuracy of long read sequencing have been developed by PacBio, and this high fidelity sequencing (PacBio HiFi sequencing) promises to change the game.
The Human Pangene Reference Consortium has tackled the problem by sequencing the genome of an Ashkenazi man (HG002) and his parents (HG002-father and HG004-mother) using the latest sequencing techniques. They then asked the genome community to submit their assemblies using their best software in a kind of "assembly bakeoff." They got 23 responses.
Jarvis, E. D., Formenti, G., Rhie, A., Guarracino, A., Yang, C., Wood, J., et al. (2022) Semi-automated assembly of high-quality diploid human reference genomes. Nature, 611:519-531. [doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05325-5]
The current human reference genome, GRCh38, represents over 20 years of effort to generate a high-quality assembly, which has benefitted society. However, it still has many gaps and errors, and does not represent a biological genome as it is a blend of multiple individuals. Recently, a high-quality telomere-to-telomere reference, CHM13, was generated with the latest long-read technologies, but it was derived from a hydatidiform mole cell line with a nearly homozygous genome. To address these limitations, the Human Pangenome Reference Consortium formed with the goal of creating high-quality, cost-effective, diploid genome assemblies for a pangenome reference that represents human genetic diversity. Here, in our first scientific report, we determined which combination of current genome sequencing and assembly approaches yield the most complete and accurate diploid genome assembly with minimal manual curation. Approaches that used highly accurate long reads and parent–child data with graph-based haplotype phasing during assembly outperformed those that did not. Developing a combination of the top-performing methods, we generated our first high-quality diploid reference assembly, containing only approximately four gaps per chromosome on average, with most chromosomes within ±1% of the length of CHM13. Nearly 48% of protein-coding genes have non-synonymous amino acid changes between haplotypes, and centromeric regions showed the highest diversity. Our findings serve as a foundation for assembling near-complete diploid human genomes at scale for a pangenome reference to capture global genetic variation from single nucleotides to structural rearrangements.
We don't need to get into all the details but there are a few observations of interest.
The Wikipedia article on the Human genome contained a reference that I had not seen before.
"Finally DNA that is deleterious to the organism and is under negative selective pressure is called garbage DNA.[43]"
Reference 43 is a chapter in a book.
Pena S.D. (2021) "An Overview of the Human Genome: Coding DNA and Non-Coding DNA". In Haddad LA (ed.). Human Genome Structure, Function and Clinical Considerations. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 5–7. ISBN 978-3-03-073151-9.
Sérgio Danilo Junho Pena is a human geneticist and professor in the Dept. of Biochemistry and Immunology at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. He is a member of the Human Genome Organization council. If you click on the Wikipedia link, it takes you to an excerpt from the book where S.D.J. Pena discusses "Coding and Non-coding DNA."
There are two quotations from that chapter that caught my eye. The first one is,
"Less than 2% of the human genome corresponds to protein-coding genes. The functional role of the remaining 98%, apart from repetitive sequences (constitutive heterochromatin) that appear to have a structural role in the chromosome, is a matter of controversy. Evolutionary evidence suggests that this noncoding DNA has no function—hence the common name of 'junk DNA.'"
Professor Pena then goes on to discuss the ENCODE results pointing out that there are many scientists who disagree with the conclusion that 80% of our genome is functional. He then says,
"Many evolutionary biologists have stuck to their guns in defense of the traditional and evolutionary view that non-coding DNA is 'junk DNA.'"
This is immediately followed by a quote from Dan Graur, implying that he (Graur) is one of the evolutionary biologists who defend the evolutionary view that noncoding DNA is junk.
I'm very interested in tracking down the reason for equating noncoding DNA and junk DNA, especially in contexts where the claim is obviously wrong. So I wrote to Professor Pena—he got his Ph.D. in Canada—and asked him for a primary source that supports the claim that "evolutionary science suggests that this noncoding DNA has no function."
He was kind enough to reply saying that there are multiple sources and he sent me links to two of them. Here's the first one.
I explained that this was somewhat ironic since I had written most of the Wikipedia article on Non-coding DNA and my goal was to refute the idea than noncoding DNA and junk DNA were synonyms. I explained that under the section on 'junk DNA' he would see the following statement that I inserted after writing sections on all those functional noncoding DNA elements.
"Junk DNA is often confused with non-coding DNA[48] but, as documented above, there are substantial fractions of non-coding DNA that have well-defined functions such as regulation, non-coding genes, origins of replication, telomeres, centromeres, and chromatin organizing sites (SARs)."
That's intended to dispel the notion that proponents of junk DNA ever equated noncoding DNA and junk DNA. I suggested that he couldn't use that source as support for his statement.
Here's my response to his second source.
The second reference is to a 2007 article by Wojciech Makalowski,1 a prominent opponent of junk DNA. He says, "In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe all noncoding sections of a genome" but that is a demonstrably false statement in two respects.
First, Ohno did not coin the term "junk DNA" - it was commonly used in discussions about genomes and even appeared in print many years before Ohno's paper. Second, Ohno specifically addresses regulatory sequences in his paper so it's clear that he knew about functional noncoding DNA that was not junk. He also mentions centromeres and I think it's safe to assume that he knew about ribosomal RNA genes and tRNA genes.
The only possible conclusion is that Makalowski is wrong on two counts.
I then asked about the second statement in Professor Pena's article and suggested that it might have been much better to say, "Many evolutionary biologists have stuck to their guns and defend the view that most of human genome is junk." He agreed.
So, what have we learned? Professor Pena is a well-respected scientist and an expert on the human genome. He is on the council of the Human Genome Organization. Yet, he propagated the common myth that noncoding DNA is junk and saw nothing wrong with Makalowski's false reference to Susumu Ohno. Professor Pena himself must be well aware of functional noncoding elements such as regulatory sequences and noncoding genes so it's difficult explain why he would imagine that prominant defenders of junk DNA don't know this.
I think the explanation is that this connection between noncoding DNA and junk DNA is so entrenched in the popular and scientific literature that it is just repeated as a meme without ever considering whether it makes sense.
1. The pdf appears to be a response to a query in Scientific American on February 12, 2007. It may be connected to a Scientific American paper by Khajavinia and Makalowski (2007).Khajavinia, A., and Makalowski, W. (2007) What is" junk" DNA, and what is it worth? Scientific American, 296:104. [PubMed]
