Cargando…

On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk

The idea that much of our genome is irrelevant to fitness—is not the product of positive natural selection at the organismal level—remains viable. Claims to the contrary, and specifically that the notion of “junk DNA” should be abandoned, are based on conflating meanings of the word “function”. Rece...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doolittle, W. Ford, Brunet, Tyler D. P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29207982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0460-9
_version_ 1783284265263300608
author Doolittle, W. Ford
Brunet, Tyler D. P.
author_facet Doolittle, W. Ford
Brunet, Tyler D. P.
author_sort Doolittle, W. Ford
collection PubMed
description The idea that much of our genome is irrelevant to fitness—is not the product of positive natural selection at the organismal level—remains viable. Claims to the contrary, and specifically that the notion of “junk DNA” should be abandoned, are based on conflating meanings of the word “function”. Recent estimates suggest that perhaps 90% of our DNA, though biochemically active, does not contribute to fitness in any sequence-dependent way, and possibly in no way at all. Comparisons to vertebrates with much larger and smaller genomes (the lungfish and the pufferfish) strongly align with such a conclusion, as they have done for the last half-century.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5718017
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57180172017-12-08 On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk Doolittle, W. Ford Brunet, Tyler D. P. BMC Biol Opinion The idea that much of our genome is irrelevant to fitness—is not the product of positive natural selection at the organismal level—remains viable. Claims to the contrary, and specifically that the notion of “junk DNA” should be abandoned, are based on conflating meanings of the word “function”. Recent estimates suggest that perhaps 90% of our DNA, though biochemically active, does not contribute to fitness in any sequence-dependent way, and possibly in no way at all. Comparisons to vertebrates with much larger and smaller genomes (the lungfish and the pufferfish) strongly align with such a conclusion, as they have done for the last half-century. BioMed Central 2017-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5718017/ /pubmed/29207982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0460-9 Text en © Doolittle et al. 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Opinion
Doolittle, W. Ford
Brunet, Tyler D. P.
On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title_full On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title_fullStr On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title_full_unstemmed On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title_short On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
title_sort on causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk
topic Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29207982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0460-9
work_keys_str_mv AT doolittlewford oncausalrolesandselectedeffectsourgenomeismostlyjunk
AT brunettylerdp oncausalrolesandselectedeffectsourgenomeismostlyjunk