DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[nyrome]

Thanks, but the confusion is yours.

The use of the words "coding regions" are reserved excusively for regions of the DNA that code for proteins. By convention, the regions of DNA that code for RNA (or anything and nothing else) are termed "non coding". My use of the word "code" in my previous post was sloppy. The sentence "and regions which code for RNA" should read "and regions which transcribe into RNA". DNA needs more than "code" to build a protein (regulatory regions, promoter regions, binding sites for RNA and DNA polymerases, inducers, inhibitors, enhancers, etc..) not to mention the cellular machinery to actually manufacture the protein, but the only part of the DNA that is "code" is the actual "coded" amino acid sequnce in the final functional protein.

Junk DNA is just that, junk. It "does" nothing. This is different from saying it means nothing. A wealth of information is in the "junk" (evolutionary history, for example). Regions previous believed to be junk, that turn out to have "function" (code, regulatory, structural or informative) are no longer considered "junk". (So, over time the amount of "junk" DNA diminshes (not disappears)). Disease markers do exist in non coding regions (Hirschsprung disease, for example and polymorphisms in the MMP3 gene regulatory region relating to heart disease for another). Do disease markers exist in "junk"? Of course they do, but then another piece of "junk" would need to be reclassified. Get it?