Revisiting the deflated ego problem

Humans are just another animal. All animals share a core set of several thousand genes and all mammals have about the same number of homologous genes (~25,000). The differences between species such as gorillas, bats and whales are due almost exclusively to differences in the timing of expression of these common genes.

This concept is not new. It was the major theme of Stephen Jay Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, back in 1977 [Learning About EVO-Devo]. Over the next twenty years or so, the concept was confirmed repeatedly by the work of hundreds of developmental biology labs working mostly with model organisms such as Drosophila (fruit flies). The field is evolutionary developmental biology or "evo-devo" and that work has been nicely summarized in several popular books appearing in the 21st century.

Celebrating 50 years of Neutral Theory

The importance of Neutral Theory and Nearly-Neutral Theory cannot be exaggerated. It has radically transformed the way experts think about evolution, especially at the molecular level. Unfortunately, the average scientist is not aware of the revolution that took place 50 years ago and they still think of evolution as a synonym for natural selection. I suspect that 80% of biology undergraduates in North American universities are graduating without a deep understanding of the importance of Neutral Theory.¹

The journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution has published a special issue: Celebrating 50 years of the Neutral Theory. The key paper published 50 years ago was Motoo Kimura's paper on “Evolutionary rate at the molecular level” (Kimura, 1968) followed shortly after by a paper from Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes on "Non-Darwinian Evolution" (King and Jukes, 1969).

The special issue contains reprints of two classic papers published in Molecular Biology and Evolution in 1983 and 2005. In addition, there are 14 reviews and opinions written by editors of the journal and published earlier this year (see below). It's interesting that several of the editors of a leading molecular evolution journal are challenging the importance of Neutral Theory and one of them (senior editor Matthew Hahn) is downright hostile.

DNA Is Not Destiny by Steven J. Heine

DNA Is Not Destiny: The Remarkable Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes
by Steven J. Heine
W.W. Norton & Company, New York/London (2017)
ISBN: 978-0-393-24408-3

Steven Heine is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, B.C., Canada). He has written a book about the perils of DNA testing and his main thesis is that the results of such tests are bound to make you fell unhappy because you will learn that you have a higher risk of several nasty diseases. He warns us that the science behind these predictions is not nearly as solid as the testing companies would have you believe but his main point is the psychological impact of the test results. He claims that we are not conditioned to put the results into the proper perspective because we are pre-conditioned to adopt a very fatalist view of our genetic makeup.

He had his DNA analyzed by a number of companies. Here's some of what he learned from 23 and Me.

23andMe provided me with a gripping set of predictions about my health with real concrete numbers—I learned that I have a 2.1 percent chance of developing Parkinson's disease, and this is 32 percent higher than the average person. The 23andMe experience "felt" satisfying because it provided a wealth of highly specific and personal information about my health. But then, so would the fortune-teller down the street, and at least she isn't claiming any scientific foundation to her predictions.

The role of chance in evolution

I highly recommend this brief editorial by Naruya Saitou: "Chance, Finiteness, and History" (Saitou, 2018). Saitou is a strong proponent of Neutral Theory and the importance of random genetic drift. Together these influences, along with the "random" nature of mutation, introduce a major element of chance and accident into evolution.

Saitou was a student of Masatochi Nei and he recounts how he was influenced by Nei's 1987 book "Molecular Evolutionary Genetics." I remember reading that book 30 years ago and being very impressed with Nei's case for mutationism. Dan Graur also studied with Nei and he was kind enough to introduce me to Nei a few years ago in Chicago.

I think it's very clear that the role of chance in evolution, especially in molecular evolution, is very much underappreciated by the average scientist and by almost all non-scientists who are interested in the field. I doubt they will be convinced by a short essay but at least it will alert them to a different way of thinking.

Here's an example from Saitou's essay of that way of thinking ...

This world is finite. Our earth is just a 40,000-km circumference sphere. Life evolved on this tiny planet. We have to face the finiteness of the living world when we think about evolution. Random fluctuation of DNA copies (allele frequencies in classic sense) is a logical consequence of this finiteness. Because evolution follows time, evolution is historical. And chance played an important role in evolutionary history, as already noted by Darwin (1859). This is why I often mention three words—chance, finiteness, and history—in my talks and books as well as the title for this perspective.

Saitou is using "evolution" in two different senses. First, there's the ongoing process involving changes in allele frequencies and then there's the history of life. I think it's best to avoid using the word "evolution" as a stand-in for the history of life but that's just a quibble. The idea behind the history of life is that the pathway that each extant lineage has followed over the past three billion years is very much due to chance and accident. It's like Gould's idea that the tape of life can't be replayed.

The essay contains a sentence about junk DNA ...

From direct comparison of protein or RNA coding gene regions with noncoding regions of many genomes, it became clear that the majority of intergenic regions and introns are in fact “junk” DNA, as predicted by Ohno (1972).

This is about all the comment that's needed if you're a population geneticist. From their perspective, the debate is over and junk DNA won decisively over the speculation that most of our genome is functional. I wish more scientists, journalists, and philosophers would realize that the leading experts have reached a consensus on this subject.¹

---

1. Let me repeat what I've said many times before: you don't have to agree with the views of these experts but you do have to acknowledge what you are up against when you argue for function. Do not mislead your audience by ignoring the experts in order to make your own opinion seem more reasonable.

Saitou, N. (2018) Chance, finiteness, and history. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(6), 1556-1557. [doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy087]

John Mattick's latest attack on junk DNA

John Mattick is the most prominent defender of the idea that the human genome is full of functional sequences. In fact, he is just about the only scientist of any prominence who's on that side of the debate. His main "evidence" is the fact that genomes are pervasively transcribed and that most of the transcripts are functional. Let's look at his latest review paper to see how well this argument stands up to close scrutiny (Mattick, 2018).¹

As you read this post, keep in mind that in 2012 John Mattick was awarded a prize by the Human Genome Organization for proving his hypothesis [John Mattick Wins Chen Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in Human Genetic and Genomic Research].

The Award Reviewing Committee commented that Professor Mattick’s “work on long non-coding RNA has dramatically changed our concept of 95% of our genome”, and that he has been a “true visionary in his field; he has demonstrated an extraordinary degree of perseverance and ingenuity in gradually proving his hypothesis over the course of 18 years.”

Mattick follows his usual format by giving us his version of history. He has argued for the past 15 years that the scientific community has been reluctant to accept the evidence of massive amounts of regulatory RNA genes because it conflicts with the standard paradigm of the supremacy of proteins. In the past he has claimed that this paradigm is based on the Central Dogma which states, according to him, that the only real function of DNA is to make proteins [How Much Junk in the Human Genome?]. As we shall see, he hasn't abandoned that argument but at least he no longer refers to the Central Dogma for support

The great junk DNA debate

I've been talking to philosophers lately about the true state of the junk DNA controversy. I imagine what it would be like to stage a great debate on the topic. It's easy to come up with names for the pro-junk side; Dan Graur, Ford Doolittle, Sean Eddy, Ryan Gregory etc. It's hard to think of any experts who could defend the idea that most of our genome is functional. The only scientist I can think of who would accept such a challenge is John Mattick but let's imagine that he could find three others to join him in the great debate.

I claim that the debate would be a rout for the pro-junk side. The data and the theories are all on the side of those who would argue that 90% of our genome is junk. I don't think the functionalists could possibly defend the idea that most of our genome is functional. What do you think?

Assuming that I'm right, why is it that the average scientist doesn't know this? Why do they still believe there's a good case for function when none of the arguments stand up to close scrutiny? And why are philosophers not conveying the true state of the controversy to their readers? I'm told that anti-junk philosophers like Evelyn Fox Keller are held in high regard even though her arguments are easy to refute [When philosophers talk about genomes]. I'm told that John Mattick is highly respected in philosophy circles even though knowledgeable scientists have little use for his writings.

Can readers help me identify papers by philosophers of science that come down on the side of junk DNA and conclude that experts like Graur, Doolittle, etc are almost certainly correct?

---

Image Credit: The cartoon is by Tom Gauld and it was published online at the The New York Times Magazine website. I hope they will consider it fair use on an educational blog. See: Junk DNA comments in the New York Times Magazine.

Alternative splicing and the gene concept

I just learned about a workshop scheduled for the end of this month. The topic is: Evolutionary Roles of Transposable Elements and Non-coding DNA: The Science and the Philosophy.

I'd love to attend but it's a just small workshop designed to encourage dialogue between scientists and philosophers who are interested in the topic. Here's a list of the speakers ...

• Ryan Gregory: Junk DNA, genome size, and the onion test.
• Stefan Linquist: Four decades debating junk DNA and the Phenotype Paradigm is (somehow) alive and well.
• Chris Ponting: 92.9% of the human genome evolved neutrally.
• Paul Griffiths: Both adaptation and adaptivity are relevant to diagnosing function.
• Ford Doolittle: Selfish genes and selfish DNA: is there a difference?
• Justin Garson: Biological functions, the liberality problem, and transposable elements.
• Joyce Havstad: Evolutionary Thinking about Critique of Function Talk.
• Guillame Bourque: Impact of transposable elements on human gene regulatory networks.
• Ulrich Stegman: On parity, genetic causation and coding.
• Steven Downes: Understanding non-coding variants as disease risk alleles.
• Alexander Palazzo: How nuclear retention and cytoplasmic export of RNAs reduces the deleteriousness of junk DNA.
• David Haig: Pax somatica
• Cedric Feschotte: Transposable elements as catalysts of genome evolution.

Who wants "A Sad Case: Owen vs Huxley" pamphlet and a possible Darwin letter?

A friend has a neighbor who's in possession of a pamphlet from 1863 on the Owen vs Huxley debate. The text of the pamphlet is here: A Report of A SAD CASE, Recently tried before the Lord Mayor, OWEN versus HUXLEY, In which will be found fully given the Merits of the great Recent BONE CASE. A photocopy of the pamphlet is shown below along with a possible letter from Charles Darwin (I have not authenticated the letter).

The owners are willing to donate the material to a worthy cause, preferably a museum if it's valuable. Does anyone know of a worthy home?

---

How many protein-coding genes in the human genome?

The three main human databases (GENCODE/Ensembl, RefSeq, UniProtKB) contain a total of 22,210 protein-coding genes but only 19,446 of these genes are found in all three databases. That leaves 2764 potential genes that may or may not be real. A recent publication suggests that most of them are not real genes (Abascal et al., 2018). The issue is the same problem that I discussed in recent posts [Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published] [Nature falls (again) for gene hype].

Nature falls (again) for gene hype

Nature is arguably the most prestigious science journal. Articles published in Nature are widely perceived to be correct, unbiased, and factual. This perception is certainly true of articles that appear in the News section of the journal since these article are presumably written by expert science writers who have evaluated the new study and decided that it's worth reporting.

Sandwalk readers know that this perception is false (fake news). It turns out that science writers who publish in Nature are not very much better than science writers in general and that's not good.

I recently published a post about an extraordinary claim concerning the number of human genes [Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published ]. It concerns a paper posted on an archive site claiming to have found 4,998 new genes of which 1,178 are new protein-coding genes (Pertea et. al., 2018). About five weeks later another paper was posted that effectively refuted the claim of new protein-coding genes (Jungreis et al., 2018). In between publication of those two papers, a freelance science writer, Cassandra Willyard, wrote an article for Nature News that covered the original claim of 4,998 new genes [New human gene tally reignites debate].

Let's see how she handled the controversy.

Disappearing genes: a paper is refuted before it is even published

Several readers alerted me to a paper that was posted on bioRxiv a few weeks ago (May 28, 2018). The paper claimed that the human genome contains 43,162 genes consisting of 21,306 protein-coding genes and 21,856 noncoding genes. The authors reported that they had discovered 3,819 new noncoding genes and 1,178 new protein-coding genes. In addition, they claim to have discovered 97,511 new splice variants raising the total number of splice variants to 12.5 per protein-coding gene although they seem to suggest that almost one-third of these splice variants are non-functional splicing errors. The most striking result, according to the authors, is that 95% of all transcripts are just transcriptional noise.

Here's the paper ...

Press release from the Francis Crick Institute misrepresents junk DNA

Press releases have become a serious problem. I'm frequently upset whenever I read a press release covering a field I'm familiar with. They rarely do a good job of explaining what's actually in the paper and putting it into the proper context. The people who write press releases are more concerned with sensationalizing the work than they are with teaching the general public about how science works. They often do this with the blessing and participation of the scientists who did the work.

Let me illustrate the problem using a recent examples from the Francis Crick Institute in London, UK [Non-coding DNA changes the genitals you're born with]. The press release covers a recent Science paper from the Lovell-Badge lab ....

Is lateral gene transfer (LGT) Lamarckian?

There's an interesting discussion going on about lateral gene transfer (LGT) in eukaryotes. LGT is the process by which DNA from one species invades the genome of another species. It was apparently very common among primitive bacteria several billion years ago and it's still quite common in modern bacteria.

There are many reports of LGT in eukaryotes but some of them seem to be due to contamination from bacteria rather than true LGT. Many scientists are skeptical of these reports; notably Bill Martin (Heinrich Heine Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany) who suggests that almost all of them are artifacts and lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes is extremely rare [see Lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes - where's the evidence?].

Fixing carbon by reversing the citric acid cycle

The citric acid cycle¹ is usually taught as depicted in the diagram on the right.² A four-carbon compound called oxaloaceate is joined to a two-carbon compound called acetyl-CoA to produce a six-carbon tricarboxylic acid called citrate. In subsequent reactions, two carbons are released in the form of carbon dioxide to regenerate the original oxaloacetate. The cycle then repeats. The reactions produce one ATP equivalent (ATP or GTP), three NADH molecules, and one QH₂ molecule.

The GTP/ATP molecule and the reduced coenzymes (NADH and QH₂) are used up in a variety of other reactions. In the case of NADH and QH₂, one of the many pathways to oxidation is the membrane-associated electron transport system that creates a proton gradient across a membrane. The electron transport complexes are buried in membranes—plasma and internal membranes in bacteria and the inner mitochondrial membrane in eukaryotes. Students are often taught that this is the only fate of NADH and QH₂ but that's not true.

One of the other common misconceptions is that the citric acid cycle runs exclusively in one direction; namely, the direction shown in the diagram. That's also not true. The reactions of the citric acid cycle are near-equilibrium reactions like most reactions in the cell. What this means is that the concentrations of the reactants and products are close to the equilibrium values so that a slight increase in one of them will lead to a rapid equilibration. The reactions can run in either direction.³

Philosophers talking about genes

It's important to define what you mean when you use the word "gene." I use the molecular definition since most of what I write refers to DNA sequences. There's no perfect definition but, for most purposes, a good working definition is: A gene is a DNA sequence that is transcribed to produce a functional product. [What Is a Gene?].

There are two types of genes: protein-coding genes and those that specify a functional noncoding RNA (i.e ribosomal RNA, lincRNA). The gene is the part of the DNA that's transcribed so it includes introns. Transcription is controlled by regulatory sequences such as promoters, operators, and enhancers but these are not part of the gene.

In addition to genes, there are many other functional parts of the genome. In the case of eukaryotic genomes, these include centromeres, telomeres, origins of replication, SARs, and some other bits. None of this is new ... these functions have been known for decades and the working definition I use has been common among knowledgeable experts for half-a-century. Scientists know what they are talking about when they say that the human genome contains about 20,000 protein-coding genes and at least 5,000 genes for non-coding RNAs. They are comfortable with the idea that our genome has lots of other functional regions that lie outside of the genes.

Non-experts may not be familiar with the topic and they may have many misconceptions about genes and DNA sequences but we don't base our science on the views of non-experts.

Because of my interest in this topic, I was intrigued by the title of a new book, The Gene: from Genetics to Postgenomics. I ordered it a soon as I heard about it and I've just finished reading it. The version I read has been translated from German by Adam Bostanci.