Junk DNA is still a thing - some parts of thr genome are verifiably junk, and the rest is just “unkown”. It’s just that some of the “unknown” bits back in the day have now been found to actually be useful. At least this is my understanding as a non expert.
Previously it was thought that non-coding sequences were junk, and enormous numbers like 99% were thrown around at the time. Later, we found out that more and more of the non-coding regions actually do various other things, and the scope of junk DNA got narrower as years went by. Nowadays, you don’t really hear that term much, because future scientists have a tendency of discovering new functions for sequences that were previously thought of as non-functional. There’s also debate as to where do we draw the line.
As usual, biochemistry is a fast moving target, and people have gotten cautions about these things. As more and more is discovered, older notions are updated or even thrown away.
Junk DNA is still a thing - some parts of thr genome are verifiably junk, and the rest is just “unkown”. It’s just that some of the “unknown” bits back in the day have now been found to actually be useful. At least this is my understanding as a non expert.
Previously it was thought that non-coding sequences were junk, and enormous numbers like 99% were thrown around at the time. Later, we found out that more and more of the non-coding regions actually do various other things, and the scope of junk DNA got narrower as years went by. Nowadays, you don’t really hear that term much, because future scientists have a tendency of discovering new functions for sequences that were previously thought of as non-functional. There’s also debate as to where do we draw the line.
As usual, biochemistry is a fast moving target, and people have gotten cautions about these things. As more and more is discovered, older notions are updated or even thrown away.