The other shock from the sequencing of the human genome was the realisation that the extraordinary complexities of human anatomy, physiology, intelligence and behaviour cannot be explained by referring to the classical model of genes. In terms of numbers of genes that code for proteins, humans contain pretty much the same quantity (around 20,000) as simple microscopic worms. Even more remarkably, most of the genes in the worms have directly equivalent genes in humans.
As researchers deepened their analyses of what differentiates humans from other organisms at the DNA level, it became apparent that genes could not provide the explanation. In fact, only one genetic factor generally scaled with complexity. The only genomic features that increased in number as animals became more complicated were the regions of junk DNA. The more sophisticated an organism, the higher the percentage of junk DNA it contains. Only now are scientists really exploring the controversial idea that junk DNA may hold the key to evolutionary complexity.
In some ways, the question raised by these data is pretty obvious. If junk DNA is so important, what is it actually doing? What is its role in a cell, if it isn’t coding for proteins? It’s becoming apparent that junk DNA actually has a multiplicity of different functions, perhaps unsurprisingly given how much of it there is.
Some of it forms specific structures in the chromosomes, the enormous molecules into which our DNA is packaged. This junk prevents our DNA from unravelling and becoming damaged. As we age, these regions decrease in size, finally declining below a critical minimum. After that, our genetic material becomes susceptible to potentially catastrophic rearrangements that can lead to cell death or cancers. Other structural regions of junk DNA act as anchor points when chromosomes are shared equally between different daughter cells during cell division. (The term ‘daughter cell’ means any cell created by division of a parental cell. It doesn’t imply that the cell is female.) Yet others act as insulation regions, restricting gene expression to specific regions of chromosomes.
But a great deal of our junk DNA is not simply structural. It doesn’t code for proteins, but it does code for a different type of molecule, called RNA. A large class of this junk DNA forms factories in the cell, helping to produce proteins. Other types of RNA molecules transport the raw material for protein production to the factory sites.
Other regions of junk DNA are genetic interlopers, derived from the genomes of viruses and other microorganisms that have integrated into human chromosomes, like genetic sleeper agents. These remnants of long-dead organisms carry potential dangers to the cell, the individual and sometimes even to wider populations. Mammalian cells have developed multiple mechanisms to keep these viral elements silent, but these systems can break down. When they do, the effects can range from relatively benign — changing the coat colour of a particular strain of mice — to much more dramatic, such as an increased risk of cancer.
A major role of junk DNA, only recognised in the main in the last few years, is to regulate gene expression. Sometimes this can have a huge and noticeable effect in an individual. One particular piece of junk DNA is absolutely vital for ensuring healthy gene expression patterns in female animals. Its effects are seen in a whole range of situations. A mundane example is the control of the colour patterns of tortoiseshell cats. At its most extreme, the same mechanism also explains why female identical twins may present with different symptoms of a genetically inherited disease. In some cases, this can be so extreme that one twin is severely affected with a life-threatening disorder while the other is completely healthy.
Thousands and thousands of regions of junk DNA are suspected to regulate networks of gene expression. They act like the stage directions for the genetic script, but directions of a complexity we could never envisage in the theatre. Forget about ‘Exit, pursued by a bear’. These would be more along the lines of ‘If performing Hamlet in Vancouver and The Tempest in Perth, then put the stress on the fourth syllable of this line of Macbeth. Unless there’s an amateur production of Richard III in Mombasa and it’s raining in Quito.’
Researchers are only just beginning to unravel the subtleties and interconnections in the vast networks of junk DNA. The field is controversial. At one extreme we have scientists claiming experimental proof is lacking to support sometimes sweeping claims. At the other are those who feel there is a whole generation of scientists (if not more) trapped in an outdated model and unable to see or understand the new world order.
Part of the problem is that the systems we can use to probe the functions of junk DNA are still relatively underdeveloped. This can sometimes make it hard for researchers to use experimental approaches to test their hypotheses. We have only been working on this for a relatively short space of time. But sometimes we need to remember to step back from the lab bench and the machines that go ping. Experiments surround us every day, because nature and evolution have had billions of years to try out all sorts of changes. Even the brief geological moment that represents the emergence and spread of our own species has been sufficient time to create a greater range of experiments than those of us who wear lab coats could ever dream of testing. Consequently, throughout much of this book we will explore the darkness by using the torch of human genetics.
There are many ways to begin shining a light on the dark matter of our genome, so let’s start with an odd but unassailable fact to anchor us. Some genetic diseases are caused by mutations in junk DNA, and there is probably no better starting point for our journey into the hidden genomic universe than this.
1. Why Dark Matter Matters
Sometimes life seems to be cruel in the troubles it piles onto a family. Consider this example. A baby boy was born; let’s call him Daniel. He was strangely floppy at birth, and had trouble breathing unassisted. With intensive medical care Daniel survived and his muscle tone improved, allowing him to breathe unaided and to develop mobility. But as he grew older it became apparent that Daniel had pronounced learning disabilities that would hold him back throughout life.
His mother Sarah loved Daniel and cared for him every day. As she entered her mid-30s this became more difficult because Sarah developed strange symptoms. Her muscles became very stiff, to the extent that she would have trouble releasing items after grasping them. She had to give up her highly skilled part-time job as a ceramics restorer. Her muscles also began to waste away noticeably. Yet she found ways to cope. But when she was only 42 years old Sarah died suddenly from a cardiac arrhythmia, a catastrophic disruption in the electrical signals that keep the heart beating in a coordinated way.
It fell to Sarah’s mother, Janet, to look after Daniel. This was challenging for her, and not just because of her grandson’s difficulties and the grief she was suffering over the early death of her daughter. Janet had developed cataracts in her early 50s and as a consequence her vision wasn’t that great.
It seemed as if the family had suffered a very unfortunate combination of unrelated medical problems. But specialists began to notice something rather unusual. This pattern — cataracts in one individual, muscle stiffness and cardiac defects in their daughter and floppy muscles and learning disabilities in the grandchildren — occurred in multiple families. These individual families lived all over the world and none of them were related to each other.
Scientists realised they were looking at a genetic disease. They named it myotonic dystrophy (myotonic means muscle tone, dystrophy means wasting). The condition occurred in every generation of an affected family. On average there was a one in two chance of a child being affected if their parent had the condition. Males and females were equally at risk and either could pass it on to their children.{1}