Junk DNA goodbye!: non-coding lncRNA identification (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 04:51 (2259 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

A new method for understanding these strange parts of DNA and find their function:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-scientists-reveal-vast-unknown-territory.html

"'Long non-coding RNAs are part of what you might call the 'dark matter' of the genome, and this tool we've developed should help us understand much better how they work in health and disease," said study senior author Mauro Calabrese, Ph.D., assistant professor of pharmacology and member of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.

"Genetic information in animals and plants is stored in DNA, and cells make use of that genetic information by transcribing the DNA into closely related molecules known as RNAs. Many RNAs go on to be translated into proteins. But scientists in recent decades have been forced to reckon with the fact that less than 2 percent of the genome is used that way. Most of the DNA is transcribed into RNAs that do not encode proteins. These are called non-coding RNAs, and the ones over 200 nucleotides in length are classified as long non-coding RNAs.

"Many of these RNAs bind to proteins or other molecules to switch genes on or off, thus regulating cellular processes. One of the best known lncRNAs is called Xist, which is important for normal development in females. High levels of another called MALAT, have been linked to more aggressive and metastatic cancers. On the whole, biologists are sure that many lncRNAs have key regulatory roles whose disruption contributes to disease. So far, however, they have characterized the functions of only a small fraction of the many thousands of lncRNAs that are thought to exist in mammalian cells.

"One reason biologists have been slow to understand what these molecules do is that a lncRNA's function is not readily apparent when you study how it's put together from its sequence of nucleotide building-blocks. Often two lncRNAs with similar functions appear to have very different sequences.

"Calabrese and his team, including first author Jessime Kirk and Peter Mucha, Ph.D., professor of mathematics and applied physical sciences in the UNC College of Arts and Sciences, tried to decipher the otherwise obscure relationship between lncRNA sequence and function. They started with two key clues: Firstly, there is evidence that lncRNAs function mainly by binding to proteins. Secondly, RNAs connect to proteins using short sequences within their overall structures.

***

"The team developed a computer-based method called SEEKR to find and compare protein-binding sequences they called "kmers" in lncRNAs, regardless of the kmers' precise locations. The team found that about half of all human and mouse lncRNAs could be grouped into five different communities, based on similarities in their kmer content. The kmer-based approach also could help predict where lncRNAs are normally found within cells and to what kinds of protein they bind.

"'We can now take sequence information from a well-studied lncRNA, and use it to discover lncRNAs that may be functioning through a related mechanism. In a way, it's like being able to finally understand the different scripts in the Rosetta Stone." Calabrese said.

"Surprisingly, the team found that kmer-content communities were often highly similar between species. Human and mouse lncRNA communities resembled each other closely, but some mammalian lncRNA communities had clear counterparts even among distantly related animals. One mammalian lncRNA community, represented by an lncRNA called HOTTIP, appeared to have cousin lncRNA communities in other vertebrates and even in sea urchins.

"'In terms of kmer content, subsets of human lncRNAs may be more similar to lncRNAs from evolutionarily distant species than they are to other human lncRNAs," Calabrese said. "This supports the idea that groups of lncRNAs have similar functions in different organisms despite lacking obvious linear sequence similarity."

***

"'Our genomes produce so many lncRNAs, and now we have a much better idea of how to look at the sequences of these molecules to predict which ones are doing important things in our cells," Calabrese said."

David: Comment: There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists

Tony:That sounds eerily familiar. In fact, it sounds exactly as I predicted in my hypothesis on the programmatic nature of DNA.

DNA is way more complex than the Darwin theory. Not only is most of it active, the 3-D relationships of various parts to each other are vital. Only two precent codes but 80% is active.