Are introns just junk?

David Konerding rafael at cse.ucsc.edu
Mon Nov 1 13:49:39 EST 1993


arlin at ac.dal.ca wrote:
: In article <CFDGHs.Jzq at usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, John Logsdon <jlogsdon at bio.indiana.edu> writes:

: Here, here!  Its been known for about 10 years that there is not a general
: 1:1 correspondence between exons and domains (see Blake, 1983, Nature 306:
: p. 535), but this canard is repeated _ad nauseam_ in reviews and textbooks, 
: such as Watson, et al. (_Molecular Biology of the Gene_) which has the 
: sententious section heading "Exons Correspond to Functional Domains of 
: Proteins" (p. 1146).  This textbook also informs us of "The Great 
: Antiquity of mRNA Introns" (p. 1145) and that "Protein-coding Genes 
: were Assembled by Exon Shuffling" (p. 1146), as though these were 
: matters of established fact, which they emphatically are not.

It saddens me somewhat, as an undergraduate studying to be a molecular
biologist, to know that Watson's text is filled with speculations
presented as fact.  I'd expect (after paying about $50 for the book,
and about $10,000 for an education) a little more.

: Arlin

: Dr. Arlin Stoltzfus
: Department of Biochemistry
: Dalhousie University
: Halifax, Nova Scotia
: B3H 4H7 CANADA
: internet: arlin at ac.dal.ca

--
---
David Konerding						   rafael at cats.ucsc.edu
University of California, Santa Cruz			   rafael at cse.ucsc.edu



More information about the Bioforum mailing list