Useless DNA
- Thread starter jwsiii
- Start date
Its a little more complicated than that. I use to know a great deal about this but it all flew out the window the day Bio class ended.
What I recall is that not all of DNA is involved when it does its work....rather a length of peptides that interact with the RNA.
Otherwise I Have no clue.
What I recall is that not all of DNA is involved when it does its work....rather a length of peptides that interact with the RNA.
Otherwise I Have no clue.
yes about 2%-5% is consider protein coding (I have seen many diffrent numbers in this range) another yet unknown percentage code for RNA-only genes, another unknown percentage is critical for rate of gene transcription and gene regulation. Most the genome consists of small repeating sequence over and over again with little variation, this is not junk though, its existences is structural without it chromosome could not cross-over during meiosis, telomerse would not exist the prevent he chromosomes from wearing way, in fact your genome would not even be able to survive the act of mitosis if it was not properly filed and organized by this structural DNA. Even so there is in fact junk DNA: some of our genome is viral in origin, many transponding genes are formal viruses that are now genome parasites, some genes are of no use any more and in the process of become structural.
WCF - are there any highly conserved areas that are considered "junk", i.e., not protein coding, not attractors/inhibitors, not telomeres or any other section that we know the use of?
there are many highly conserved areas that we do not know the use of, for example RNA-only genes are a resent theory for some of these regions.
Every cell in an organism minus red blood cells contains the coding for every trait, enzyme, and protein the organism contains, proven by dolly. But not all this information is needed, by every cell. When a zygote is dividing it goes through cellular differentiation, which is just the cells becoming specialized in function and structure. When the cells differentiate they no longer need most of their DNA for example a nerve cell will never use any of the DNA coding for enzymes produced by mussel cells and vice versa. Then there is all the junk DNA which isn't junk we just don't know what it does.
I remember a story on the ABC(Oz) a couple of years ago mentioned that a few diseases were originating in non-coding DNA. I wouldn't worry too much about non-coding DNA as the story was about the fact that ONE man held the patent (sold just before the airing of the story I think) on all non-coding DNA, so if you want to do reasearch on this stuff you apparently need a licence:bugeye:
kazakhan said:
he has a patent on something he doesn't even know how it works?
That is somehow ironic.
I heard the US patent office was being careless, but that's a little weird for them. That's like patenting "hydrocarbons", or something.
Apparently there was a big race to complete the human genome between the International Collaboration (I don't recall the actual name of the organisation) and a company called Celera. If Celera were to publish the sqeuence first, they would have been able to patent it. So what the International collaboration (this was a colaboration of about 51 labs worldwide, and was not privately owned) did, was put the genome into the public domain in parts. Whenever they had a new stretch of sequence, they would put it on the net, making it unpublishable, and therefore stopping Celera from getting a patent on it. However, Celera still does have some of the sequence patented.
I can’t think of how to describe my distaste for the use of the patent system for ‘biological discoveries’. Anyway. Yes mid 90’s everyone was patenting everything, even if the ‘function’ was not known, you only had to isolate and maybe reproduce it. It’s harder to get a patent now, and its also harder to stop the infringement. Ether they scrap the system or everyone just stops caring.
'Junk' DNA pioneer defends patents
July 9 2003
By Tom Noble
Health Editor
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/08/1057430202587.html
Picture: JOHN WOUDSTRA
Malcolm Simons has defended his patenting of use of "junk DNA".
In the late 1980s, Malcolm Simons went against scientific convention.
While those around him believed so-called "junk DNA" was useless, he argued it was important to human life. So he patented its use.
Today, Dr Simons's patent is coming into its own. "Junk DNA" may end up being a key to many diseases and the patent - owned by Genetic Technologies, a listed Australian company based in Fitzroy - is being enforced worldwide on those pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms and researchers using it.
But among leading scientists at the International Genetics Congress, the patent's enforcement has caused disquiet and resentment, becoming a focal point for those concerned about the increasing privatisation of science itself.
The patent applies to 95 per cent of the DNA of most living creatures and, with eight years left - and longer on others developed by Dr Simons - the discoveries could be worth a fortune.
But Dr Simons, an immunologist, will not benefit. He sold his stake in the company three years ago and today, at 63, has little money.
He is also dying of cancer - a disease that appears to stem from the "junk" area of his DNA - yet his spirit still burns strongly.
Yesterday he responded strongly to criticism from Francis Collins, director of the US Human Genome Research Institute, who singled out Genetic Technologies for requiring research institutes to pay for licences.
Dr Collins, one of the world's leading scientists, said the Melbourne company had broken a tradition that academic researchers pursuing basic science be allowed to use patented material for free, and said enforcing the patents would lead to a firestorm of controversy.
"It would seem to me to be better if he got a few of the facts straight before he made public statements," Dr Simons said.
"He was having a smack at my inventiveness and I don't appreciate that."
Dr Simons said he did not want to comment on how the patents were now being commercially exploited. "It's got nothing to do with me. It's a commercial decision in which I've got no part."
He said, however, that he had filed a patent yesterday related to haploid chromosomes. If developed, access to that material would be available for a nominal sum of $1.
Genetic Technologies executive chairman Mervyn Jacobson said only one university had been asked to buy a licence, and the $1000 charge covered all research for 15 years.
He said his company was building a database that now had names of 2000 groups believed to be infringing the patent. About $5 million had been charged in licence fees in the past year, he said.
"We are not a multinational. We are not throwing our weight around," Dr Jacobson said.
"We are a little research group that did what the system encouraged us to do: to take risks, to make inventions, to be successful.
"And we are doing it in a socially responsible way. We want the technology to get out."
But Nobel prize-winner and public science advocate Sir John Sulston said science was swinging more towards a profit motive, which was destroying credibility and trust in the field.
"We have drifted away from the understanding that there are common goods in science and they are absolutely vital," Sir John said.
"Science thrives on independent endeavour, sure... but it is built on a very firm foundation of the common good."
'Junk' DNA pioneer defends patents
July 9 2003
By Tom Noble
Health Editor
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/08/1057430202587.html
Picture: JOHN WOUDSTRA
Malcolm Simons has defended his patenting of use of "junk DNA".
In the late 1980s, Malcolm Simons went against scientific convention.
While those around him believed so-called "junk DNA" was useless, he argued it was important to human life. So he patented its use.
Today, Dr Simons's patent is coming into its own. "Junk DNA" may end up being a key to many diseases and the patent - owned by Genetic Technologies, a listed Australian company based in Fitzroy - is being enforced worldwide on those pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms and researchers using it.
But among leading scientists at the International Genetics Congress, the patent's enforcement has caused disquiet and resentment, becoming a focal point for those concerned about the increasing privatisation of science itself.
The patent applies to 95 per cent of the DNA of most living creatures and, with eight years left - and longer on others developed by Dr Simons - the discoveries could be worth a fortune.
But Dr Simons, an immunologist, will not benefit. He sold his stake in the company three years ago and today, at 63, has little money.
He is also dying of cancer - a disease that appears to stem from the "junk" area of his DNA - yet his spirit still burns strongly.
Yesterday he responded strongly to criticism from Francis Collins, director of the US Human Genome Research Institute, who singled out Genetic Technologies for requiring research institutes to pay for licences.
Dr Collins, one of the world's leading scientists, said the Melbourne company had broken a tradition that academic researchers pursuing basic science be allowed to use patented material for free, and said enforcing the patents would lead to a firestorm of controversy.
"It would seem to me to be better if he got a few of the facts straight before he made public statements," Dr Simons said.
"He was having a smack at my inventiveness and I don't appreciate that."
Dr Simons said he did not want to comment on how the patents were now being commercially exploited. "It's got nothing to do with me. It's a commercial decision in which I've got no part."
He said, however, that he had filed a patent yesterday related to haploid chromosomes. If developed, access to that material would be available for a nominal sum of $1.
Genetic Technologies executive chairman Mervyn Jacobson said only one university had been asked to buy a licence, and the $1000 charge covered all research for 15 years.
He said his company was building a database that now had names of 2000 groups believed to be infringing the patent. About $5 million had been charged in licence fees in the past year, he said.
"We are not a multinational. We are not throwing our weight around," Dr Jacobson said.
"We are a little research group that did what the system encouraged us to do: to take risks, to make inventions, to be successful.
"And we are doing it in a socially responsible way. We want the technology to get out."
But Nobel prize-winner and public science advocate Sir John Sulston said science was swinging more towards a profit motive, which was destroying credibility and trust in the field.
"We have drifted away from the understanding that there are common goods in science and they are absolutely vital," Sir John said.
"Science thrives on independent endeavour, sure... but it is built on a very firm foundation of the common good."
So, he patented Junk DNA for "the common good", and then lost the patent to a business that probably has no intention of pursuing the common good.
If he'd behaved like a BUSINESS, charging license fees and so forth and had gotten the benefit from it, I might think it was wrong but I couldn't fault him for doing well for himself.
If he'd behaved like a SCIENTIST and intentionally made the information public domain, then he would have been poor, but done a big favour for the world.
But what did he do? He patented Junk DNA and then gave the patent to a business who has avowedly demanded money of all those infringing it. And he doesn't get a cent... poor him, because he's a retard, having done neither of the things that he should have done with the information. Hooray for science.
If he'd behaved like a BUSINESS, charging license fees and so forth and had gotten the benefit from it, I might think it was wrong but I couldn't fault him for doing well for himself.
If he'd behaved like a SCIENTIST and intentionally made the information public domain, then he would have been poor, but done a big favour for the world.
But what did he do? He patented Junk DNA and then gave the patent to a business who has avowedly demanded money of all those infringing it. And he doesn't get a cent... poor him, because he's a retard, having done neither of the things that he should have done with the information. Hooray for science.
BigBlueHead said:
Actually I think the company is just trying to ‘scare’ researchers into paying, bit like the internet music situation. I don't think it would stand up in court today, which might be why he sold his shares.
So anyone know what happed about Myriad's BRCA1/2?
