Jumping 'Junk' DNA May Fuel Mammalian Evolution

Thousands of newly identified junk DNA fragments may play a role in embryonic development

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Tiny, jumping bits of DNA are looking less like genomic junk and more like significant players in mammalian evolution, according to a new analysis.

Researchers have uncovered more than 10,000 short stretches of what may be functional DNA in parts of the human genome with no obvious role—the so-called junk DNA that makes up 95 percent of the genome. The segments appear to be fragments of transposons, pieces of DNA capable of copying themselves and inserting into new locations, up to millions of times.

"One of the big questions is: Where does novel functional DNA come about in the genome?" says evolutionary developmental biologist Gill Bejerano of Stanford University, a member of the team that performed the study. "We think we've hit on a force here that was underappreciated before."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Bejerano and his colleagues identified the transposon fragments by looking for sequences of junk DNA that were nearly identical across six mammalian species—human, chimp, rhesus monkey, dog, mouse and rat. Researchers consider such similarities a sign that evolution preserved DNA for some function, otherwise small errors would accumulate.

They compared the conserved sequences with those found in the chicken genome to weed out any that were present before mammals evolved. In a paper published online this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, they report that 5 percent of the uniquely mammalian elements were similar in sequence to transposons. Bejerano says the source of the remaining 95 percent is unclear.

Although found in so-called gene deserts, where genes are sparse, the conserved transposon elements lay within striking distance of genes active during embryonic development, including all known members of a biochemical pathway that helps cells stick to one another.

The actual functions of the conserved elements remain untested, but the proximity suggests that evolution may have harnessed the bits of junk DNA to control the activities of the nearby genes, Bejerano says.

In this way, genes might become active in new places or at new times, contributing to the differences between species. Researchers had turned up a few examples of conserved transposon elements before, but they were isolated cases, says Bejerano. "This is a genome-wide phenomenon that appears to play a significant role."

Nevertheless, 95 percent of the mysterious conserved junk DNA remains. Next up: figuring out where it comes from.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe