DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[mingwan0]

I agree with most of this except the assertion that non-coding DNA must be playing a passive role. Below is one real-world example where it does not. First some terminology:

"...each SNP can be classified by whether it is coding or not. Coding SNPs can be classified by whether they alter the sequence of the protein encoded by the altered gene. Changes that alter protein sequences can be classified by their effects on protein structure. And non-coding SNPs can be classified according to whether they are found in gene-regulating segments of the genome — many complex diseases may arise from quantitative, rather than qualitative, differences in gene products."

Single nucleotide polymorphisms: to a future of genetic medicine. Aravinda Chakravarti. Nature 409, 822 - 823 (2001)

BTW Chakravarti is interesting in his own right:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/humangenetics/facultypages/chakravarti.html

"We hypothesize that most complex diseases arise from common, missense mutations in genes encoding proteins within a pathway."

However:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/W02/top_2.html

Edward Rubin, The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

"The non-coding sequences of the genome remain a vast, mysterious sea,"said Edward Rubin. In his talk titled "Jewels in Junk," Rubin gloried in metaphors in hopes investigators would give sequences of DNA that apparently don't code for genes a closer look.

Focusing on an especially large stretch of chromosome five that carries interleukin genes, Rubin showed the value of a comparative approach to flush out useful non-coding areas outside of the genes. He pinpointed the non-coding sections in human, cow, dog and rabbit DNA—sections long preserved by evolution—and showed they held similar sequences. Deleting those preserved bits in mice strongly reduced the activity of nearby interleukin genes. "That means, in short, that we've found a genetic switch outside of the genes."

Looks like the non-coding DNA sometimes controls the coding DNA?