Extrapolating ENCODE data to the whole human genome

The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) project was launched three years ago with the purpose of identifying all of the functional elements in the human genome. ENCODE was started with 44 target sequences, which comprise 1% of the human genome. A crucial question about ENCODE is how representative it is of the human genome. Indeed, this is not a negligible problem if one considers that only 1% of the genome was selected for the project, and, more importantly, that the choice of the large DNA segments was based on two major criteria, namely the presence of extensively characterized genes and/or other functional elements, and the availability of a substantial amount of comparative sequence data. We found that the ENCODE data lead to an unbalanced representation of the compositional pattern of the human genome, especially for the GC-poorest and GC-richest regions. This unbalanced representativity of ENCODE can, however, be corrected by multiplying ENCODE data by a G/E factor (the ratio of whole genome data over ENCODE data), so amplifying the potential interest of ENCODE.     

Junk or functional DNA? ENCODE and the function controversy

In its last round of publications in September 2012, the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) assigned a biochemical function to most of the human genome, which was taken up by the media as meaning the end of ‘Junk DNA’. This provoked a heated reaction from evolutionary biologists, who among other things claimed that ENCODE adopted a wrong and much too inclusive notion of function, making its dismissal of junk DNA merely rhetorical. We argue that this criticism rests on misunderstandings concerning the nature of the ENCODE project, the relevant notion of function and the claim that most of our genome is junk. We argue that evolutionary accounts of function presuppose functions as ‘causal roles’, and that selection is but a useful proxy for relevant functions, which might well be unsuitable to biomedical research. Taking a closer look at the discovery process in which ENCODE participates, we argue that ENCODE’s strategy of biochemical signatures successfully identified activities of DNA elements with an eye towards causal roles of interest to biomedical research. We argue that ENCODE’s controversial claim of functionality should be interpreted as saying that 80 % of the genome is engaging in relevant biochemical activities and is very likely to have a causal role in phenomena deemed relevant to biomedical research. Finally, we discuss ambiguities in the meaning of junk DNA and in one of the main arguments raised for its prevalence, and we evaluate the impact of ENCODE’s results on the claim that most of our genome is junk.