0
5

[–] varialus 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This seems like an oxymoron to me. I looked up just what makes up a gene and here's the first clear definition that I found. "A gene is a distinct stretch of DNA that determines something about who you are." So if that portion of the DNA influences the development of the mice, how is that non a gene? I'm sincerely asking because I'm assuming that the phrase is correct and I'm the one that doesn't understand since I'm not a geneticist, even though it sounds moronic from my limited, perhaps even moronic perspective.

0
5

[–] Its_over_9000 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe it's a repeated sequence or it doesn't code for a specific protein so they hadn't considered it a gene before? Maybe it's a stupid headline. Damn now I have to read the article.

0
1

[–] belphegorsprime 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

My first thought was that it is a stupid headline (so many these days), that uses some arbitrarily narrow definition of "gene" as a sequence of codons that directly correspond to amino acids in a protein. I wonder, for example, if this definition includes promoter regions or not, or if introns and exons are categorized similarly.

0
1

[–] McFluffy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

well, in programming there are lots of blank spaces.

depending on what you are calling code/dna i guess. the blank spaces are kinda like formatting lol.

0
1

[–] Le_Squish 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What I recall from my studies of epigenetics and development is that DNA is more like a materials list and doesn't contain all the instructions. There are relative processes based on time and spacial information. Formation of the eyes is a good example of this.

0
3

[–] Naught405 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This has to do with people not understanding DNA. around 2% of DNA directly codes for protein production, and the rest we don't understand. The default assumption was that it was meaningless junk data for some stupid ass reason.