Does Junk DNA = Intron DNA?
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Actually that statement is wrong. Intron is derived from "intragenic region" and refers to stretches within a gene that are not translated. Junk DNA, however, refers to any region of DNA (especially outside of genes) with unknown function, a definition that is more and more revised nowadays.
Also it is wrong to assume that introns are junk DNA. While introns do not code proteins, they still may possess certain functions, including for instance (but not limited to) splicing events.
Also I would be often careful if someone (especially online) uses phrases like "for us scientists".
Also it is wrong to assume that introns are junk DNA. While introns do not code proteins, they still may possess certain functions, including for instance (but not limited to) splicing events.
Also I would be often careful if someone (especially online) uses phrases like "for us scientists".
Are both then called "non-coding" DNA? I have stock in GENE (more at www.gtg.com.au) Their patents section of web page states:
"GTG resolved to make its ‘non-coding DNA technology’ widely available and implemented an active out-licensing program.
Direct licensing of these patents is now the single largest source of revenue for the company, with 40 licenses granted to date.
The non-coding technology finds application across a wide range of activities, ..."
They do animal (humans included) and plant testing and even have at least one cattle breaders in US licensed. They claim to be the largest genetic testing lab in Australia.
If interested look at their web site and tell me more about what they seem to be doing - they seem to claim a dominate patent position in the "non-coding" DNA field and the people 40 firms paying to us this IP must agree.
"GTG resolved to make its ‘non-coding DNA technology’ widely available and implemented an active out-licensing program.
Direct licensing of these patents is now the single largest source of revenue for the company, with 40 licenses granted to date.
The non-coding technology finds application across a wide range of activities, ..."
They do animal (humans included) and plant testing and even have at least one cattle breaders in US licensed. They claim to be the largest genetic testing lab in Australia.
If interested look at their web site and tell me more about what they seem to be doing - they seem to claim a dominate patent position in the "non-coding" DNA field and the people 40 firms paying to us this IP must agree.
This is essentially correct, with limitations. In the classic sense the term "coding" refers to coding for amino acids. So essentially introns would be classified as such. Structural RNAs were, for a long time, considered to be special cases. However, with the discovery of more and more RNAs with specific, non-coding functions, like e.g. ribozymes, riboswitches, sRNAs and so on, sometimes DNA that encode those RNAs are also termed as coding areas. In this case, of course it is meant they they encode a specific RNA.
Introns are somewhat something in-between. No real function by themselves, but are involved in maturation of the final RNA, which in turn may either have coding or other functions.
Introns are somewhat something in-between. No real function by themselves, but are involved in maturation of the final RNA, which in turn may either have coding or other functions.