) but the fact that they completely ignore any other explanation of the data and consider the case for abundant alternative splicing to be settled. 
Photo Credit: The photo of Yana Eglit at her microscope is from the Dalhousie University press office [Hidden in plain sight: Dal evolutionary biologists uncover a new branch on the Tree of Life]
1. Which she might accidentally reveal if she responds to this post!
2. The fact they were "dancing" gave me an excuse to use a corny title that refers to one of our favorite TV shows, "Last Tango in Halifax."
Lax, G., Eglit, Y., Eme, L., Bertrand, E. M., Roger, A. J., and Simpson, A. G. B. (2018) Hemimastigophora is a novel supra-kingdom-level lineage of eukaryotes. Nature. (in press) [doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0708-8]
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.
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.
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]
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
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.
- 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.
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 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.
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 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 ....
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?].
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.
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.
This is a list of scientific papers on junk DNA that you need to read (and understand) in order to participate in the junk DNA debate. It's not a comprehensive list because it's mostly papers that defend junk DNA and refute arguments for massive amounts of function. The only exception is the paper by Mattick and Dinger (2013).1 It's the only anti-junk paper that attempts to deal with the main evidence for junk DNA. If you know of any other papers that make a good case against junk DNA then I'd be happy to include them in the list.
If you come across a publication that argues against junk DNA, then you should immediately check the reference list. If you do not see some of these references in the list, then don't bother reading the paper because you know the author is not knowledgeable about the subject.
1. The paper by Kellis et al. (2014) is ambiguous. It's clear that most of the ENCODE authors are still opposed to junk DNA even though the paper is mostly a retraction of their original claim that 80% of the genome is functional.
It's Bruce Alberts' 80th birthday party in San Francisco. There will be food, wine, cake, and (probably) dancing but first you go to the symposium on education.
Photo: Bruce Alberts with his first three graduate students: Glenn Herrick (right), Keith Yamamoto (left), Larry Moran (middle right), Bruce Alberts (middle left).
Continuing my survey of recent papers on junk DNA, I stumbled upon a review by Subash Lakhotia that has recently been accepted in The Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy (Lakhotia, 2018). It illustrates the extent of the publicity campaign mounted by ENCODE and opponents of junk DNA. In the title of this post, I paraphrased a sentence from the abstract that summarizes the point of the paper; namely, that the 'recent' discovery of noncoding RNAs refutes the concept of junk DNA.
Lakhotia claims to have written a review of the history of junk DNA but, in fact, his review perpetuates a false history. He repeats a version of history made popular by John Mattick. It goes like this. Old-fashioned scientists were seduced by Crick's central dogma into thinking that the only important part of the genome was the part encoding proteins. They ignored genes for noncoding RNAs because they didn't fit into their 'dogma.' They assumed that most of the noncoding part of the genome was junk. However, recent new discoveries of huge numbers of noncoding RNAs reveal that those scientists were very stupid. We now know that the genome is chock full of noncoding RNA genes and the concept of junk DNA has been refuted.
There is no such thing as “junk DNA.” Indeed, a suite of discoveries made over the past few decades have put to rest this misnomer and have identified many important roles that so-called junk DNA provides to both genome structure and function (this special issue; Biémont and Vieira 2006; Jeck et al. 2013; Elbarbary et al. 2016; Akera et al. 2017; Chen and Yang 2017; Chuong et al. 2017). Nevertheless, given the historical focus on coding regions of the genome, our understanding of the biological function of non-coding regions (e.g., repetitive DNA, transposable elements) remains somewhat limited, and therefore, all those enigmatic and poorly studied regions of the genome that were once identified as junk are instead best viewed as genomic “dark matter.”
Here's my latest compilation of the composition of the human genome. It's depicted in the form of a pie chart.1 [UPDATED: March 29, 2018]
Some DNA sequencing technologies aren't very good at sequencing and assembling DNA that's rich in GC base pairs. What this means is that some sequenced genomes could be missing stretches of GC-rich DNA if they rely exclusively on those techniques. This difficult-to-sequence DNA was called "dark DNA" in a paper published last summer (July 2017).
The paper looked at some missing genes in the genome of the sand rat Psammomys obesus. The authors initially used a standard shotgun strategy in order to sequence the sand rat genome. They combined millions of short reads (<200 bp) to assemble a complete genome. A large block of genes seemed to be missing—genes that were conserved and present in the genomes of related species (Hargraves et al., 2017). They knew the genes were present because they could detect the mRNAs corresponding to those genes.
Kostas Kampourakis is a specialist in science education at the University of Geneva, Geneva (Switzerland). Most of his book is an argument against genetic determinism in the style of Richard Lewontin. You should read this book if you are interested in that argument. The best way to describe the main thesis is to quote from the last chapter.
Here is the take-home message of this book: Genes were initially conceived as immaterial factors with heuristic values for research, but along the way they acquired a parallel identity as DNA segments. The two identities never converged completely, and therefore the best we can do so far is to think of genes as DNA segments that encode functional products. There are neither 'genes for' characters nor 'genes for' diseases. Genes do nothing on their own, but are important resources for our self-regulated organism. If we insist in asking what genes do, we can accept that they are implicated in the development of characters and disease, and that they account for variation in characters in particular populations. Beyond that, we should remember that genes are part of an interactive genome that we have just begun to understand, the study of which has various limitations. Genes are not our essences, they do not determine who we are, and they are not the explanation of who we are and what we do. Therefore we are not the prisoners of any genetic fate. This is what the present book has aimed to explain.
We were discussing the field of evolutionary psychology at our local cafe scientific meeting last week. The discussion was prompted by watching a video of Steven Pinker in conversation with Stephen Fry. I pointed out that the field of evolutionary psychology is a mess and many scientists and philosophers think it is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of this post is to provide links to back up my claim.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect was first proposed in a classic 1999 paper (Kruger and Dunning, 1999).1 People suffering from this effect show one of two characteristics. If they are not knowledgeable about a subject they tend to overestimate their ability. If they are experts in a subject they tend to underestimate their ability (see figure).
The phenomenon is more significant in people who overestimate their ability because it includes a large number of people who are making decisions on subjects that they know little about. Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, they are confident that their decisions are based on facts and evidence. That's bad enough, but there's another aspect to this problem—why do these people seem to be incapable of recognizing that they are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? Here's how Kruger and Dunning explain this ...
