That is not the central dogma. The central dogma is refers to the flow of information, as in "DNA makes RNA makes protein". 98% of the human genome being "non-coding" ("non protein-coding" would be more accurate) is an observation, not a dogma.

That is not the central dogma. The central dogma is refers to the flow of information, as in "DNA makes RNA makes protein". 98% of the human genome being "non-coding" ("non protein-coding" would be more accurate) is an observation, not a dogma.

We are still in the infancy for that concerning the understanding of what is inside the genome in terms of information. The interpretation of what is coding and not coding is evolving and I agree that without the labeling "protein" coding your statement is not correct. Indeed, the coded information inside the genome is much more complex than what we were thinking. So many new messages are coming like the duons and the possibility of peptide coding of ncRNA. Therefore, even in the sense of protein coding, it is very likely that this number will be revised. The fact that still we do not understand which is the role of the 98% of the genome is evidence that still we have so much work to do and so many lessons to learn before we can decode the whole meaning of our genome.

@Artur I must say you are rude but actually very straight to cut. I disagree on the way you respond but simultaneously very agree to what you respond. Facts are facts, no matter you find them making sense or not.

@Ahamad Yes its very true that only around two percent codes for proteins, but if a sequence does not code for proteins, it does not mean it does not do anything. may be there is regulatory RNA coding. Regulatory roles are very important, what is being produced more important than that is when, where, how much, when to not... it is produced. so, a paradigm kind of thing exists here which says, non coding portion but as we get to know more and more, like repetitive sequences, which were supposed to be waste are now found to play important role in regulation, this paradigm shifts. So, the reason of this much quantity of non coding genome may be the extent of regulation over expression of 2% coding portion.

@Artur Please correct me on my speculations.

Thank you Artur,

Amphibians have a point in having extensive genome altogether, adapting for terrestrial life may have a link with it, and beautifully some of them in fact, many of them they are equally successful in water as well as land so , it may have a sense I guess.

C value paradox is in fact not understood by me till yet. Do you have any opinion to its explanation.

I appreciate you.

:-)

Hey Satya, This may help give you some more information (actually a lot) about your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE

You can always look up ENCODE and get more details. They are doing some fascinating work trying to establish what the rest of the genome does. Also look up FANTOM (Riken)

Thank you Jude

Hello everybody,

The way I see this genome-size question is partly explained in our latest publication (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260684506_Quadruplex-forming_DNA_sequences_spread_by_retrotransposons_may_serve_as_genome_regulators).

We know now that most of the "extra" DNA in genomes contains repetitive elements, such as satellite DNA tandem repeats, transposons and retrotransposons. It is known that these elements are often silenced but that they experienced bursts of activity in the past (which gave rise to this "extra" DNA). These bursts may be related to some function coded in these elements that is beneficial genome-wide. We are currently focused on quadruplex DNA present in many of these elements as a DNA structural feature that seems to be present in promoters and replication origins and the chromatin-organizing associations of quadruplexes.

It should be noted that these functions are hard to see by genetic methods, since they are expected to reside in multiple repeated loci and to be actively selected for "en masse" only during these bursts of activity when the whole thing is regulated "per-family" and not "per transposon copy". Later some of these features may not catch on and disappear, slowly reducing the sze of the genome, for example by ectopis recombination events.This also somehow relates to the fiery discussions between geneticists and ENCODE project members about what "biological function" is and whether it is 5% or 100% of the genome that is functional.

Article Quadruplex-forming DNA sequences spread by retrotransposons ...

@ all ... thank you

@ Adrian : you are right ... it's more accurate to say non protein-coding.

@Satya : thank you ... be more patient

@ Artur : thank you for correction ... I already meant the human genome.

@ Matej : thank you for the valuable information