Johnny, I clearly owe you an apology, you do in fact have good reason for your level of understanding, based on the terminology in those two references. They have both used the term 'non-coding' while referring to activity within the 'coding' region of the DNA.
Look up the definition of 'non-coding' DNA and you will find the explanation that all DNA does not play a part in the workings of life. There are the 'genes' that code for specific proteins, but there are vast areas that do nothing, these are called non-coding regions.
In both of these papers the researchers are not speaking of non-coding DNA, they are speaking about the internal workings of genes. These genes are 'necessarily' in the 'coding' region. The genes 'code' for a specific protein. In both papers they talk about the effect within the gene of the specific polymorphisms. They suggest that these polymorphisms interfere in some way with the creation of the protein. Realize that in order to 'interfere', the polymorphisms have to react in some way with the 'coding' process.
I suspect that they are using the term 'non-coding' in the sense of something that disrupts (and perhaps stops) the code as opposed to something that is not involved in coding at all. So it is something of a misnomer. In order to disrupt the code it has to be involved with the coding process, in fact in a very real sense it has to 'code' it's information into the process in order to create that disruption.
Nevertheless, they have used the term 'non-coding' and your misunderstanding in terms of our discussion is quite understandable. So again, I owe you an apology and I am glad to provide it. If you would care to return to that discussion in light of this better understanding, I will be glad to oblige. I'm sure you can see that my position is still quite viable.
best regards,
frog
