ライフサイエンスコーパス: junk

1 enomic DNA that was previously thought of as junk.

2 lue paradox involves perhaps 15% of genomic 'junk,' and encompasses the bulk of the introns, thought

3 ements (ENCODE) project render the notion of junk DNA obsolete?

4 ults in the conceptual transfer of so-called junk DNA to the domain of functional DNA.

5 We explain known balanced distributions of junk DNA within genomes and between subgenomes in allopo

6 SINEs and LINEs, which have been considered "junk DNA", are among the repeat sequences that would app

7 Thus, the presence of "junk DNA", through co-determining the (higher or lower)

8 w insights into the function and dangers of 'junk DNA' in the human genome.

9 ons are not simply buffers of nonfunctional 'junk DNA' next to the molecular telomere, but are instea

10 sing from what was previously thought to be 'junk DNA'.

11 ms implicated are not proved to apply to all junk DNA, and the continuous nature of the centromeric a

12 Despite often being classified as selfish or junk DNA, transposable elements (TEs) are a group of abu

13 the genome that had heretofore been deemed "junk DNA," yet no one could answer the obvious question:

14 irs-the remaining sequence was classified as junk DNA.

15 CG/GC sites that are the major components of junk DNA.

16 uld be called genomic scrap yard rather than junk DNA.

17 enome, they are often quoted as a selfish or junk DNA.

18 mposition of isochores and large sections of junk DNA.

19 , it is a good candidate for a repository of junk DNA.

20 an short interspersed elements, prototypical junk DNA.

21 t thereby ascribes an important function to "junk DNA." This model arose from analysis of a serendipi

22 their initial characterization as selfish or junk DNA; however, it is now known that they may acquire

23 uch as mVL30 apparently evolved not only as "junk" DNA but also as transcriptionally active noncoding

24 tions that promote the formation of useless "junk" DNA sequences or multimeric sequences containing m

25 evidence for chromosome-wide regulation of "junk" DNA transcription.

26 s, while the remaining 98%, once considered "junk" DNA, codes for regulatory/epigenetic elements that

27 heterochromatin, while often considered as "junk" DNA, plays important functions in chromosome biolo

28 What is in the rest of the genome, or the "junk" DNA, that, in Homo sapiens, is estimated to be alm

29 removes all transposons and other so-called "junk" DNA, which comprise ~95% of the germline.

30 ackground or noisy transcripts derived from "junk" DNA, whose production may be inherent to the proce

31 ions for the way in which we view so-called 'junk' DNA and our understanding of eukaryotic gene regul

32 ryotic genomes containing much more of this 'junk' DNA than actual coding DNA.

33 ch was initially largely thought of as mere 'junk' DNA.

34 ed to a complete or near-complete removal of junk Env from many viral strains, leaving trimers and vi

35 he face of harsh conditions, suggesting that junk Env is unlikely to arise by trimer dissociation or

36 we sought to better understand the nature of junk Env with a view to devising strategies for its remo

37 We have shown previously that a maternal junk food diet during pregnancy and lactation plays a ro

38 o showed that offspring from mothers fed the junk food diet in pregnancy and lactation, and which wer

39 This study therefore shows that a maternal junk food diet promotes adiposity in offspring and the e

40 t rat offspring born to mothers fed the same junk food diet rich in fat, sugar and salt develop exace

41 ot Glut 4 mRNA expression in females fed the junk food diet throughout the study compared with female

42 and LPL being up-regulated in those fed the junk food diet throughout the study compared with males

43 th offspring which were never exposed to the junk food diet.

44 red with offspring also given free access to junk food from weaning but whose mothers were exclusivel

45 es of the food industry, such as engineering junk food to make it addictive and marketing it to young

46 compared with females never given access to junk food.

47 dy compared with males never given access to junk food.

48 In addition, after junk-food diet exposure, those rats that developed obesi

49 neurobiological consequences of exposure to junk-food diets and the potential contribution of incent

50 In contrast, prolonged exposure to junk-food resulted in cross-sensitization to amphetamine

51 occurred rapidly, persisted for weeks after 'junk-food' consumption ceased, and preceded the developm

52 ral 'read out' of mesolimbic function after 'junk-food' consumption.

53 PAR expression and function is increased by 'junk-food' diet consumption in obesity-susceptible vs -r

54 enhanced in obesity-susceptible rats after 'junk-food' diet consumption.

55 to cocaine in rats that gained weight on a 'junk-food' diet, consistent with greater responsivity of

56 In addition, eating 'junk-food' increased NAc calcium-permeable-AMPAR (CP-AMP

57 etabolic, cellular and molecular response to junk-food-diet-induced adiposity.

58 ems, and program an increased preference for junk foods in the offspring.

59 ternal intake of high-fat and/or high-sugar "junk foods" during pregnancy and lactation can alter the

60 tables, and fiber and high mean purchases of junk foods, saturated fat, and sodium.

61 Pavlovian cues associated with junk-foods (caloric, highly sweet, and/or fatty foods),

62 used a model of individual susceptibility to junk-foods diet-induced obesity to determine whether the

63 Further, overconsumption of junk-foods leading to the development of obesity may its

64 virus-like particles (VLPs) bear nonnative "junk" forms of envelope (Env) glycoprotein that may unde

65 Here, I review older arguments for junk grounded in the C-value paradox and propose a thoug

66 , in animals but not in plants, most of the "junk" is intron DNA.

67 Is it possible that much of this "junk" is intron DNA?

68 the rest of the DNA of larger genomes to be junk or, at least, assign it a different sort of role (s

69 e elements (TEs) as 'useless', 'selfish' or 'junk' pieces of DNA is not an accurate one.

70 While once thought of primarily as "junk," recent studies indicate that a large number of th

71 o one could answer the obvious question: if "junk," then why still around?

72 , and having done that, it discards what is "junk." To accomplish these many and varied tasks, the GI

73 unclear function that has been regarded as "junk." Yet, persistence of these tandem highly repetitiv