Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- From: "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Jan 2006 10:15:23 -0800
John Harshman wrote:
> rev.goetz wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>Selection for fast replication? That's the usual idea for bacteria, but
> >>do mitochondria have to replicate that often compared to the nucleus of
> >>the same cell? That would depend on the lifetime of a mitochondrion and
> >>its standing population in the cell. I'll have to look that up.
> >>
> >>If not that, then what?
> >>
> >>There are mitochondria with junk. In fact the control region has been
> >>duplicated several times in different groups of birds, and one of the
> >>copies is clearly non-functional. So it does happen. But why so rarely?
> >
> >
> > Junk DNA is an extavagant byproduct of evolutionary processes because
> > the rate of neutral mutational insertions from various types of
> > repeated sequences appears to be significantly more frequent than the
> > fixation rate of all mutational deletions. And I recall that only
> > diploid cells have the mechanisms that generate various types of
> > repeated sequences. (I do not have the time to look up the reasons for
> > this.)
>
> You would seem to be talking about unequal crossing over. That's only
> one of a host of processes that generate new sequences.
Unequal crossing over is only one of a few mechanisms that help to
generate non-coding DNA in eukaryotes.
>
> > Concerning some junk DNA in mitochondria, this could have occurred by
> > DNA transfer from the nuclear genome to the mitochondrial genome. I am
> > not sure if I have heard of cases of DNA transfer from the nuclear
> > genome to the mitochondrial genome, but I know that I heard of several
> > examples of gene transfer from the mitochondrial genome to the the
> > nuclear genome. So I would not be surprised to see if the reverse ever
> > happened.
>
> I don't know of any such case. Like I said, the only mt junk I know of
> involves a duplication of a mitochondrial region.
I missed that you said it was a duplication of a mitochondrial region,
so scratch what I said about DNA transfer from the nuclear genome to
the mitochondrial genome.
In general, mutational insertions/duplications are more likely to occur
in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes. And as someone said earlier in
this topic, many eukaryotes are not harmed by an accumulation of DNA in
the genome. So many insertions/duplications are neutral in terms of
fitness in many eukaryotes, but in many prokaryotes a large increase in
genome size causes a decrease in fitness. So natural selection prevents
a large increase of "useless DNA"in many prokaryotes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- References:
- Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- From: rev.goetz
- Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- From: John Harshman
- Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: New Chick tract
- Next by Date: Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea-No Middle Ground
- Previous by thread: Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- Next by thread: Re: Why don't mitochondria have junk DNA?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading