garfinkl at iitmax.iit.edu (Mark D. Garfinkel) writes:
>afc at gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (Andrew Cockburn) writes:
>>It is correct that most genomic DNA in higher eucaryotes is noncoding.
>>However, the argument that most of this is repetitive is blatantly
> *Also, let's remember that a significant portion of human
>repetitive DNA, namely the Alu repeats, code for the 7SL RNA that is a
>component of signal recognition particle. Not all "complex" repetitive
>DNA is retrotransposon or other selfish DNA, or "mysterious" in some way.
Alu repeats evolved from the 7SL RNA gene, but don't believe Alu's
actually produce functional 7SL RNAs.
>>What I would like to see is an explanation of how a small genome
>>can evolve from a large genome full of repeats. I believe that this
Readers of this thread should note the recent paper from
Sydney Brenner's group on the fugu (pufferfish) genome --
less than 1/2 a gigabase and apparently relatively free of
repetitive sequences. The paper was in Nature in November
(366:265 + a News&Views I think). Brenner thinks that fugu
represents an unexpanded, ancestral genome type but it's not
obvious that it is not a reduced genome which ejected the 'junk'.
Department of Cellular and Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI
krobison at nucleus.harvard.edu