This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have added some rough percentages as opposed " a large number" but the paper is out of date. Will change this once i find a more suitable reference DesiLady ( talk) 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Intergenic regions are a subset of noncoding DNA." This is a useless statement. There's nothing special about noncoding DNA and it's pefectly obvious that the regions between genes are not part of genes.
"Occasionally some intergenic DNA acts to control genes nearby, ... " Yes, it's true that most regulatory elements are located outside of a gene but why stop there? Some integenic regions are centromeres, origins of replication, and scaffold attachment regions. Do we really want to get into all of those descriptions when they are covered in numerous other Wikipedia articles?
" ... but most of it has no currently known function." I just listed a bunch of known functions. Most of the rest is known to be junk DNA. This is not the place to be discussing those features and the evidence that supports them.
"It is one of the DNA sequences sometimes referred to as junk DNA, ..." No, that's not true. Nobody has ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. That would be silly.
"... though it is only one phenomenon labeled such and in scientific studies today, the term is less used." The term "junk DNA" is widely used, just as you would expect since 90% of our genome is junk. There will be a separate article on junk DNA where the evidence will be described.
"Recently transcribed RNA from the DNA fragments in intergenic regions were known as 'dark matter' or 'dark matter transcripts'." RNA produced from intergenic regions is, by definition, not from a gene. These are spurious transcripts or junk RNA. (What else could they be if they aren't from a gene?) The term 'dark matter' is used by opponents of junk DNA who usually don't understand how much we know about our genome.
I will be reposting my version of the introduction in a few days unless I hear some convincing arguments for keeping the old out-of-date material that Praxidicae restored.
Genome42 ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Statements in the current (Aug. 17, 2022) version are in quotation marks.
"Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function. However, it has been known for a long time that these regions do contain functionally important elements such ..."
What's the point? Can both of these sentences be true? No, there are no knowledgeable experts who ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. The mainstream science viewpoint is that there are all kinds of functional elements in intergenic regions and that's been known for more than 60 years.
The rest of the 'Functions' section describes some of the known functional elements in the part of the genome that lies outside of genes. But this is not the place to describe those elements. Besides, some of the most important ones ones are missing. Let's leave that description to other Wikipedia articles that can do a better job.
I propose to delete (again) the entire section unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it.
Genome42 ( talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
This figure is not helpful. What is a "gene cluster"?
Deleted. Genome42 ( talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The human karyotype figure is not relevant to this topic. This article is not about the human genome - it addresses intergenic regions in all species.
The description is inaccurate because there are lots of genes and intergenic regions in both the lighter regions and the darker regions of the stained human chromsomes. Also, the images depicted are not very good cartoons of the actual G-banding as seen under the microscope.
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have added some rough percentages as opposed " a large number" but the paper is out of date. Will change this once i find a more suitable reference DesiLady ( talk) 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Intergenic regions are a subset of noncoding DNA." This is a useless statement. There's nothing special about noncoding DNA and it's pefectly obvious that the regions between genes are not part of genes.
"Occasionally some intergenic DNA acts to control genes nearby, ... " Yes, it's true that most regulatory elements are located outside of a gene but why stop there? Some integenic regions are centromeres, origins of replication, and scaffold attachment regions. Do we really want to get into all of those descriptions when they are covered in numerous other Wikipedia articles?
" ... but most of it has no currently known function." I just listed a bunch of known functions. Most of the rest is known to be junk DNA. This is not the place to be discussing those features and the evidence that supports them.
"It is one of the DNA sequences sometimes referred to as junk DNA, ..." No, that's not true. Nobody has ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. That would be silly.
"... though it is only one phenomenon labeled such and in scientific studies today, the term is less used." The term "junk DNA" is widely used, just as you would expect since 90% of our genome is junk. There will be a separate article on junk DNA where the evidence will be described.
"Recently transcribed RNA from the DNA fragments in intergenic regions were known as 'dark matter' or 'dark matter transcripts'." RNA produced from intergenic regions is, by definition, not from a gene. These are spurious transcripts or junk RNA. (What else could they be if they aren't from a gene?) The term 'dark matter' is used by opponents of junk DNA who usually don't understand how much we know about our genome.
I will be reposting my version of the introduction in a few days unless I hear some convincing arguments for keeping the old out-of-date material that Praxidicae restored.
Genome42 ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Statements in the current (Aug. 17, 2022) version are in quotation marks.
"Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function. However, it has been known for a long time that these regions do contain functionally important elements such ..."
What's the point? Can both of these sentences be true? No, there are no knowledgeable experts who ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. The mainstream science viewpoint is that there are all kinds of functional elements in intergenic regions and that's been known for more than 60 years.
The rest of the 'Functions' section describes some of the known functional elements in the part of the genome that lies outside of genes. But this is not the place to describe those elements. Besides, some of the most important ones ones are missing. Let's leave that description to other Wikipedia articles that can do a better job.
I propose to delete (again) the entire section unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it.
Genome42 ( talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
This figure is not helpful. What is a "gene cluster"?
Deleted. Genome42 ( talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The human karyotype figure is not relevant to this topic. This article is not about the human genome - it addresses intergenic regions in all species.
The description is inaccurate because there are lots of genes and intergenic regions in both the lighter regions and the darker regions of the stained human chromsomes. Also, the images depicted are not very good cartoons of the actual G-banding as seen under the microscope.