Non-coding DNA: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:08, 2 March 2023

Revision as of 20:07, 3 March 2023

Line 119:

=== Terminology ===

The term "junk DNA" is contentious and different exact definitions (and associated methods) yield widely different estimates of its prevalence.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Palazzo |first1=A F |last2=Kejiou |first2=N S |year=2022 |title=Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology |journal=Front. Genet. |volume=13 |pages=831068 |doi=10.3389/fgene.2022.831068 |pmc=8888898 |pmid=35251134 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Some authors assert that the term occurs mainly in [[popular science]] and is no longer used in serious research articles.<ref name="SA">{{cite journal |vauthors=Khajavinia A, Makalowski W |date=May 2007 |title=What is "junk" DNA, and what is it worth? |journal=Scientific American |volume=296 |issue=5 |pages=104 |bibcode= |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0507-104 |pmid=17503549 |quote=The term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years}}</ref> It has also been pointed out that the term 'junk' can imply that its accumulation is disadvantageous, whereas the majority of non-functional sequence is likely merely neutral.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brenner |first1=Sydney |date=September 1998 |title=Refuge of spandrels |journal=Current Biology |volume=8 |issue=19 |pages=R669 |doi=10.1016/s0960-9822(98)70427-0 |pmid=9776723 |doi-access=free |s2cid=2918533}}</ref> Strong reactions to the term "junk DNA" have also lead some to recommend more neutral terminology, such as "nonfunctional DNA."<ref name="eddy" />

=== Measurement and estimates ===