Mogurnda--my apologies for not being clearer in my earlier post. I should have said that "no self-respecting biologist thinks that ALL junk DNA is junk." I was mostly responding to Joe's posts with that one. Also, I might argue that DNA that serves a structural role unrelated to it's primary sequence isn't really junk, but we're getting pretty far into semantics at that point.
Here's the link to the Nature article...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7044/abs/nature03663.html
Also, here's an excerpt from the accompanying News & Views...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7044/full/435890a.html
Here's the link to the Nature article...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7044/abs/nature03663.html
Also, here's an excerpt from the accompanying News & Views...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7044/full/435890a.html
Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for predicting the existence of mobile elements, pieces of DNA that move from one place in the genome to another. McClintock called them 'controlling elements' and proposed that they could account for developmental differences among individuals of a species — explaining, for example, the differences in maize-kernel colour that she observed1. Although her ideas were not well received at the time, they have proven to be remarkably prescient. On page 903 of this issue, Muotri et al.2 provide evidence that mammalian mobile elements may have a role in creating "the uniqueness of individuals within a population".
...
Time and further research will determine whether McClintock's hypothesis that mobile elements have a significant role in an organism's development can be extended from maize to humans, and specifically to the function of human neurons.