Forum: Encode Commentary From Dan Graur
14
gravatar for Damian Kao
8.0 years ago by
Damian Kao15k
USA
Damian Kao15k wrote:

This ENCODE commentary has been trending the bioinformatics twitter-verse this morning:

http://m.gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf

Some scientists find it well thought out, but unnecessarily harsh and snarky.

Here is Mick Watson's re-imagining of what the commentary should have been:

http://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/dear-encode/

What do you guys think?

forum encode • 8.3k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 8.0 years ago by Mary11k • written 8.0 years ago by Damian Kao15k
8
gravatar for Alex Reynolds
8.0 years ago by
Alex Reynolds31k
Seattle, WA USA
Alex Reynolds31k wrote:

ADD COMMENTlink modified 14 months ago by Ram32k • written 8.0 years ago by Alex Reynolds31k
4

While in his blog post I think Birney did a better job of qualifying his statements, there is simply no excuse for the way the 80% figure was handled in the actual publications and, more importantly, the press releases and commentary put out by ENCODE. I also wasn't very happy with the way Birney essentially dismissed the noise argument out of hand. We know that ENCODEs data is noisy and full of false positives, which is ok by ENCODEs job is to generate massive amounts of data to produce hypotheses that can be investigated in greater detail and combined with other data sources for different analyses. But that needs to be clear in their publications and it flat out isn't. Transcription factors will bind to random non-promoter sites. Those sites COULD become functional in the future, but currently aren't. Transcription is noisy, there are a lot of transcripts that get generated from pretty random portions of the genome. To call it functional is silly, plain and simple. I like the ENCODE project overall but I was pretty pissed with the sloppy usage of functional and the amount of false positives generated by the nature of their cutoffs and analyses.

ADD REPLYlink written 8.0 years ago by DG7.2k
1

I understand the issue with the false positives. But personally I'd rather have the data and be able to then filter for signal levels I think are appropriate. And it's not hard to ask for only signals over a certain value and proceed with your own analysis afterwards.

ADD REPLYlink written 8.0 years ago by Mary11k
2

I totally agree. I have no problem with the ENCODE data, I think it is a very valuable resource that I use all of the time. What I didn't like was the hype and commentary in the published papers surrounding the data release.

ADD REPLYlink written 8.0 years ago by DG7.2k
1

My problem is that the ENCODE concept of function shows a completely failed understanding of biochemistry, evolution and genetics. We know that enzymes are not "perfect". We can reliably predict that DNA binding proteins will bind in useless ways, that RNA transcription will occur in useless places. We also know how selection works. Knowing this, we know that lots of RNA will be transcribed that has no selective advantage with the only disadvantage being energy consumed. And we know that the totality of RNA transcription is less than 1% of the energy costs of the cell. So spandral transcription of even 10% of all RNA transcribed would have such a minimal selective pressure as to make it almost impossible to evolve away. The same goes to added DNA length. This is not some blinding insight. We teach it to undergrads. Graduate students should be able to figure it out for themselves.

ADD REPLYlink written 8.0 years ago by rog.shrubber10
7
gravatar for Ben
8.0 years ago by
Ben2.0k
Edinburgh, UK
Ben2.0k wrote:

I expressed my opinion in a twitter conversation yesterday that this article is getting attention for its (imo unnecessary) tone and some admittedly good quips. Without those it's just an overview of the conversations amongst bioinformaticians (and much wider) that happened everywhere in September.

ADD COMMENTlink written 8.0 years ago by Ben2.0k
7
gravatar for Istvan Albert
8.0 years ago by
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 86k
University Park, USA
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 86k wrote:

Thanks for the link - that makes for an interesting read.

My first instinct is it to disagree with the paper's criticism with regards of the hype and inconsistencies in communicating the summary of the ENCODE findings. I think that is just a byproduct of the way we produce/consume information in this age and we can't really fault any individual for that.

The paper also contains more objective and substantial criticism of the methodology and results. The validity of those still needs to be determined. I think that the conclusions of a project of this magnitude will be (or are already) treated as starting paradigm by a large number of life scientists. Therefore the burden of proof needs to be higher than for other papers - as it affects the direction an entire field of science takes.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 8.0 years ago • written 8.0 years ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 86k
6
gravatar for Mary
8.0 years ago by
Mary11k
Boston MA area
Mary11k wrote:

Wow, this science catfight has even made The Guardian. How bizarre. Scientists attacked over claim that 'junk DNA' is vital to life

And I have added some thoughts to the drama here: Spanking #ENCODE

ADD COMMENTlink written 8.0 years ago by Mary11k
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1027 users visited in the last hour
_