Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome

Notes on Nomenclature

There’s a bit of a linguistic difficulty in writing a book on junk DNA, because it is a constantly shifting term. This is partly because new data change our perception all the time. Consequently, as soon as a piece of junk DNA is shown to have a function, some scientists will say (logically enough) that it’s not junk. But that approach runs the risk of losing perspective on how radically our understanding of the genome has changed in recent years.

Rather than spend time trying to knit a sweater with this ball of fog, I have adopted the most hard-line approach. Anything that doesn’t code for protein will be described as junk, as it originally was in the old days (second half of the twentieth century). Purists will scream, and that’s OK. Ask three different scientists what they mean by the term ‘junk’, and we would probably get four different answers. So there’s merit in starting with something straightforward.

I also start by using the term ‘gene’ to refer to a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein. This definition will evolve through the course of the book.

After my first book The Epigenetics Revolution was published, I realised the readership was quite binary with respect to gene names. Some people love knowing which gene is being discussed, but for other readers it disrupts the flow horribly. So this time I have only used specific gene names in the text where absolutely necessary. But if you want to know them, they are in the footnotes, and the citations for the original references are at the back of the book.