Talk:Non-coding DNA

Untranslated regions

I'm trying to cover all of the non-coding DNA so I added a short section on 5'-UTRs and 3'-UTRs. This is standard textbook stuff so I don't think it requires a lot of citations. This is an encyclopedia entry and the authors are expected to be authorities on the subject matter.

Nevertheless, I added citations to three textbooks. Unfortunately my most recent copy of the Alberts text is from 1994 and my latest copy of Genes is from 2004. I threw out all my old biochemistry textbooks when I retired but I kept a copy of my own book from 2012 so I cited it. If anyone has more recent copies of textbooks please check to see if they cover UTRs and cite them. Genome42 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bladderwort reference

The bladderwort section is wrong and needs to be fixed. Gimme a day or so. The current reference to a news item in ScienceShot [1] must be deleted since it spreads incorrect information. It says, "Only 3% of this aquatic plant's DNA is not part of a known gene, new research shows. In contrast, only 2% of human DNA is part of a gene." That's ridiculous. Genes occupy about 45% of the human genome.

It's really, really important that we use reliable citations - see the discussion above on "Appropriate references." Genome42 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think you made some WP:SYNTHESIS on the Ibarra 2013 source since you mention things not mentioned explicitly in the source. For instance, "It has roughly the same number of genes as other plants but the total amount of coding DNA comes to 35% of the genome - a much higher percentage than most complex eukaryotes. The remainder of the genome (65% non-coding DNA) consists largely of introns and functional elements. " is not found there, except the first part on it having a typical number of genes relative to other plants. "Eukaryotes", "35%", "65%" or even "65 noncoding-DNA" are not in the source. "Introns" is only mentioned once and "functional" is only found twice, but neither are used to enumerate how much of it constitutes noncoding DNA. Also, nothing ins the source states "strongly suggests that the missing DNA was non-functional, or junk DNA." The terms "non-functional" and "junk DNA" are not even found in the source and no claims in the sources resembles such a statement either. Perhaps what you wrote is true, but this is mostly wikieditor synthesizing and coming up with claims not made by the sources themselves.

The reason why the policy exists is because it prevents wikieditors from over or under interpreting sources and twisting out or extrapolating claims that the sources do not make. The expertise is in the sources, not us wikieditors, even if we think we "know" other details. The sources have to make the claims, arguments, connections, and points, not us. Readers cannot verify who makes particular edits on the wikipedia pages or the trustworthy of any wikieditor. We merely find and cite according to the limits of the sources since those are tracible to the readers. Otherwise, what is it to stop any wikieditor from twisting all sources claims to what they do not say? For instance, what if an editor used this same source and said the opposite of Ibarra 2013? It opens a pandora's box of misinformation and errors by anonymous wikieditor opinions - all of which are not considered reliable sources.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ramos1990

Thank-you for your comment. The original article said that 3% of the bladderwort genome was non-coding DNA and this was repeated in the figure legend. Why didn't you object to that claim since it is clearly wrong? I don't see any evidence that you carefully scrutinized the statements in this article until I started correcting it. Why the double standard?

The supplemental data in the Ibarra-Laclette article gives all the data necessary to calculate the amount of coding DNA then all you have to do is subtract that from the genome size to get the amount of non-coding DNA. I was under the impression that you and the other editors wanted to include that information (amount of non-coding DNA) in the article because you mentioned it twice. I'm happy to delete the entire section on the bladderwort genome if that's what you want but the whole point of the paragraph seems to be to show that there is considerable variation in the amount of non-coding DNA in different species so what's wrong with specifically mentioning that point? The entire section is an attempt to synthesize the information in the scientific literature in order tho make a point than no one article makes.

The expertise in writing encyclopedia articles comes from the expertise and authority of the authors and the role of editors is to make sure that information is accurate. That hasn't happened in this article (and many others on similar subjects) because it was full of misinformation. I don't know why the previous editors failed to live up to the standards on a good encyclopedia but let's put that behind us and concentrate on fixing the problem.

The whole point of an encyclopedia article is to synthesize the information so that it's readable and informative to the general audience. Check out the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Waterloo, for example. It is not littered with citations and it has not been chopped into pieces by editors who all want to have their say on some nitpicky point. The article on the Gene is a scientific example of an article that has a great deal of what you call "synthesis" and that's because it was written by someone who knows the subject and doesn't have to cite every little bit of common knowledge information. The article on Evolution is another example of the sort of article we should be writing - it has a lot of "synthesis" with only peripheral citations that don't really support every word and phrase in the article. Genome42 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Genome42, I checked that source a few years back when the original (now dead link) was active and believe the original wording was consistent with the source at that time. Otherwise I would have reworded so that the source is represented correctly. I looked at the supplementary data and believe that that that is where you got some of the numbers but the wikiedotorial calculating and extracting novel claims not in Ibarra 2013 is actually synthesis. The Science news report, on the other hand, was more consistent with your wording and there would have been no synthesis (just have to remove the Eukaryotes stuff or find a source for that point). The Science source did the "analysis" and came up with a conclusion actually similar to what you wrote. We could merely cite that and it would be following wikipedia rules. No sythn, reliable secondary source from Science, verifiable, etc. We are limited by what the sources say. I will adjust the wording per the source.

You can make any point you want, but specific claims or a number, have to be backed up by a source making such a number or claim. If no source can be found to make a claim you wish to include in the article, then it does not belong on wikipedia. Essentially. Otherwise who is to stop the pandoras box of the original research and synthesis (source manipulation)? It is a double edged sword but it is a form of quality control to prevent edit wars over wikiditor differences in opinion. The expertise comes from reliable sources as defined by wikipedia, not the actual wikieditors. Any "expertise" of any wikieditors comes in mainly in finding sources (knowledgeable people know where to look) that mention the claim you think is missing from the article and to cite the source making that claim on wikipedia.

I hear you on the quality of many articles you see on wikipedia. It certainly is true that many are choppy and part of that is that Wikiditors come and go and disappear and many just dump their original research or change what the sources claim and not enough editors have the time to read and double check new additions or old ones. All editors are volunteers so it is a time consuming and unpaid labor and the sheer number of edits being monitored is overwhelming. I try to clean up some of these articles, but I also am short on time. Nonetheless, the articles you mentioned have editors constantly removing or correcting inaccurate wording or content per the sources if you look at the history of those. Its not perfect, but it is being done - usually an editor will just correct the wording to better align with the source. I checked a few statements from one of the articles you linked and the ones I checked seem to align with the sources (some even provide quotes) so no synthesis from what I saw. Just extended extraction from the sources. If you find a case of synthesis, then please correct it per the source. A great article that is sprinkled with sources on almost every other sentence is Bacteria.

The point is that since you want to improve the numerous articles and since you are making lots of changes to this one for example, you should improve them while being consistent with Wikipedia rules to significantly reduce the chances of other editors reverting what you added and also because it will make you look like a good editor who follows the rules. Literally any original research or synthesis is extremely vulnerable to be removed without question by random editors. Properly sourced content on the other hand can be defended, restored, or corrected.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ramos1990 says,

"If you find a case of synthesis, then please correct it per the source. A great article that is sprinkled with sources on almost every other sentence is Bacteria."

Are you being sarcastic? The first three paragraphs of that article contain all kinds of 'facts' that are not cited. The only citation comes at the end and that's an obscure 2008 reference. You will have your hands full trying to make that article live up to your Wikipedia standards.

I don't have a big problem with the introduction to the Bacteria article. Most of the statements are correct and the information corresponds to what I think should be in an encyclopedia. I'm surprised that it measures up to the standards that you are trying to impose here. However, I do have serious problems with other parts of the article, especially the section on 'Origin and early evolution.' Some of the statements in that section (and the figure) correspond to statements made in the citations but they are wrong or misleading. The Three Domain Hypothesis is dead. Eukaryotes and Archaea do not form separate domains that are distinct from Bacteria. Eukaryotes arose from a fusion between a protoebacterium (within Bacteria) and (probably) a member of the Asgard family of Archaea (i.e. within Archaea). We've known for decades that the Three Domain Hypothesis is wrong and the article needs to be fixed to reflect this knowledge. (The correct 'circle of life' diagram is shown later on in the article under 'Classification' but the text is still wrong.)

With reference to the statement that the bladderworth genome had only 3% non-coding DNA ( = 97% coding), you said,

" I checked that source a few years back when the original (now dead link) was active and believe the original wording was consistent with the source at that time. Otherwise I would have reworded so that the source is represented correctly."

This is the problem. It's true that the statement in the article mirrored what was said in the citation but that doesn't make it factually correct. It's ridiculous to say that 97% of a eukaryotic genome is coding DNA and you should have recognized right away that this is wrong. We have an obligation to post correct scientific information in an encyclopedia and not to propagate misinformation just because it appears in what you define as a "reliable" source. You try to excuse your behavior by saying,

"The expertise comes from reliable sources as defined by wikipedia, not the actual wikieditors. Any "expertise" of any wikieditors comes in mainly in finding sources (knowledgeable people know where to look) that mention the claim you think is missing from the article and to cite the source making that claim on wikipedia."

The key to your statement is the phrase "knowledgeable people know where to look." That requires a large amount of expertise on the part of the authors of Wikipedia articles. Those experts have to figure out which sources defined by Wikipedia are "reliable" and which ones aren't. From my perspective, a great many wikieditors don't have this expertise.

We need to fix this article and many others. I value your experience in editing so we could work effectively together as a team as long as you are willing to recognize my experience and knowledge of the scientific content. Genome42 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. And the rules are not optional and if synthesis is seen or original research is seen then editors can remove such content. Restoring such content does not look good on the editor who does such a thing. You cannot use the general imperfection of wikipedia as a basis to introduce original research or synthesis. We do not have enough editors to constantly review articles comprehensively so they try to do it by little by little. Otherwise, anyone else can do the same and remove your stuff and replace it with their uncited original research or source manipulation (synthesis) because they think your edits are misinformation or whatever. Which is why WP:FORUM states "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information."

I think you have lots of knowledge, but you have to use it following wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not a blog or personal website or essay to say whatever you want. It is limited to what published sources have said on the topic (see my quote of the policy in the section above). Its pretty clear. I understand you wish to educate on wikipedia, but it has to be through finding reliable sources making the claims, not you stating what a source does not state.

It seems you are more focused on the contents of what sources themselves say and the truthfulness, so for that you may want to look at [1]. See under the No Original Research section there.

Your observations about the Bacteria article are understandable, and that type of complaint on inaccuracy of an article content applies to pretty much every article on wikipedia. It is not written by any one editor. It is written by many editors through many years little by little. No article lives up to the personal standard of any editor. It should be obvious that wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything because editors change this stuff all the time.

I will remove the Bladderwort reference seeing that you were okay with it being removed and that the way it is currently there is WP:SYNTHESIS.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I added back the bladderwort section including all the citations that I could find, especially the updated sequence results. I also added citations from the New York Times and from one of the best science writers in the world (Ed Yong). According to your criteria, the material can't be deleted unless you can prove that the citations don't match what I wrote.

I strongly recommend that you take your editorial skills over to the article on [Utricularia gibba]]. It gets the implications right (most non-coding DNA is junk) but it also contains the following sentences.

"The main difference between other plant genomes and that of U. gibba is a drastic reduction in non-coding DNA. Only 3% of the plant's DNA is not part of a gene or material that controls those genes, in contrast to human DNA which is 98.5% non-coding."

The citation is to the same popular press article in "Design and Trends" that used to be referenced in this article. You will want to edit that now that you know it is misinformation, right? Genome42 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Cool. News sources are usually ok because they have some editorial oversight, but blogs usually do not. If something a blog says is found in better sources, then those can be cited instead of the blog (without making claims or conclusions not found in them). Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a blog fest or a promoter of original thought. Rarely are they citable. Keep in mind that I do not have the time to look at all the articles and references or cross references or monitor who adds what to where since there are just quite a lot of editors and edits throughout many articles each day and I only do what I can. No editor can catch everything or do so much time consuming detective work. See WP:WINARS.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ed Yong is a Pulitzer Prize winning science journalist. He is ten times more reliable than the author of the New York Times article and 100 times more reliable than the author who wrote the stupid article in the design magazine that you allowed before. It is up to those who are knowledgeable about the subject to judge the reliability of citations and you have to exercise your judgement instead of blindly following some "rule." Look where that got you in the past.

Ed is quoting Ryan Gregory who is one of the world's leading authorities on genomes. Why in the world would you object to that? Is it because you don't like what he's saying? Genome42 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are the Wikipedia criteria for citing blogs. Turns out that you (Ramos1990) don't even know the rules you are trying to enforce.

"Being able to reasonably verify who wrote the blog is necessary to being able to source it as a primary source. The blog should meet one of the following criteria:

The blog is part of a credible site: a news agency, magazine, or other company; and the blog or postings are clearly identified as belonging to the named individual.

The blog is part of a notable and credible special interest site and the blog or postings are clearly identified as belonging to the named individual.

The blog is part of a site owned by the person(s) in question, and is established as their own words.

The blog is clearly identified on a credible site as belonging to that person(s). For example John Smith's biography on www.examplenewscompany.com identifies that he keeps a blog at livejournal and provides a link or other identifying method."

Relevance

Establishing relevance to the article in question is necessary for citation. The individual should meet one of the following criteria:

The individual is the subject of the article;

The individual is a verifiable employee of the company which is the subject of the article;

The individual is a prominent individual in the industry or field which is the subject of the article;

The individual is a widely-acknowledged expert on the subject of the article. Genome42 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The stuff you cited [2] is not the policy. It is an inactive page and only retained for historical purposes.

The policy actually states "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

Its his blog (no longer active since 2015 or so). There is no editorial oversight on what he says. I personally don't have any issues with what he says, but again you really need to understand the "reliable sources" policy. Reliability, in wikipedia terms, is not over the content of the source, whether what it says is true or false. Wikipedia does not vouch for the truth or falsehood of claims made in any source. Reliability is over editorial oversight of the source - does it have peer review or editorial oversight such as a degree of fact checking. The New York Times piece, and even the Science new piece you didn't like had such editorial oversight in place.

Please understand that this is all linked to original research, which is prohibited in wikipedia. If what he says is found in published sources like a news organization story, journal, book, reference work, etc then those can be used instead. if what he says is only found in his blog, then it does not belong on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I updated the bladdewort section using citations from university press releases. These press releases are edited and supervised so they must meet the Wikipedia criteria even though they are often as unreliable as newspaper articles.

I suggest you check out citation #47, which is a reference to Dan Graur's personal blog. You will want to expunge it because it doesn't measure up to the standards you are policing. I'm sure you don't want to be accused of preferential treatment where you treat some editors differently than others, although I suspect that ship has already sailed.Genome42 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Junk DNA section

This section is merely a placeholder until the Wikipedia article on junk DNA is published. Meanwhile, Praxidicae has seen fit to remove my recent edits so I guess I need to explain why they were necessary.

The term "junk DNA" did not become popular in the 1960s. Most of us never heard of it until 1972. You have to look really hard to find any mention of junk DNA in the 1960s. That's why I said that the term "was used" in the 1960s instead of "became popular." I was there.

I deleted Ryan Gregory's reference to David Comings because it's extremely misleading and the source is obscure. (I've never seen it.) Also, we have already established that the term "junk DNA" predates his 1972 description so he does not get priority. But, most importantly, the idea that all non-coding DNA is junk is absurd. It was absurd in 1972 and it's even more absurd today. There's no benefit to be gained by referring to some person who said something stupid.

I don't think that Susumu Ohno "formalized" the term 'junk DNA' in 1972. That's why I deleted that phrase. (I'm not even sure what it means.)

What's the point of saying that Ohno's hypothesis "remains robust with the human genome containing approximately (protein-coding) 20,000 genes"? There are plenty of other places where the total number of genes can be discussed. The current estimates range from about 25,000 genes to about 45,000 genes.

I said that "most of the DNA" comes from transposon and other selfish DNA elements. The old version, now restored, said "the majority of non-coding DNA." There's no particular reason to single out noncoding DNA. We could also say that the majority of 'non-centromeric DNA' comes from selfish elements or 'non-regulatory DNA.' I'm trying to get away from the misleading connection between junk DNA and noncoding DNA.

The sentences beginning with "The term occurs mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications" are incorrect and that's why I removed them. Junk DNA is alive and well in scientific publications. (See above.)

I will re-post my corrections unless Praxidae can come up with a good reason for deleting them and restoring the old, out-of-date material.

Genome42 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I support Genome42's statements here and I think his edit gives a more correct view of the history and concept of junk DNA and it's relationship to non-coding DNA. Incidentally Genome42 (Professor Larry Moran) is also an actual expert in the topic. It's really bad style for Praxidicae to just drop in and edit the article back to previous form without even giving an explanation, and I have to wonder if this person even has any relevant expertise or familiarity with the topic. Perhaps Praxidicae would like to explain her/himself? Rumraket38 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I re-posted my edits a few minutes ago and Praxidicae removed them two minutes later with the comment "this was sourced just fine." Note that what's in dispute is the relevance of the sources and whether they represent the scientific consensus. I'm not disputing the fact that misleading sources exist. It's not clear to me whether Praxidicae is knowledgeable enough about the topic to recognize the issues. I strongly suspect she has not read this discussion.

What do I do now? Should I undo her revert and challenge her to break the 3-revert rule (3RR) so I can report her?

Genome42 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No need. I have done it. Praxidicae is a good illustration of why it's not a good idea to allow editing to be done anonymously by people with no identifiable qualifications. Praxidicae's user page says absolutely nothing beyond indicating an interest in Black Lives Matter. Athel cb (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've yet to see a single explanation as to how the source and content being removed are inadequate and incorrect, you've only been denigrating other editors without recognizing Wikipedia policies, including adding personal attacks. So please, explain so us pea-brain non-experts understand why you're right and everyone else is wrong. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Genome42 already provided those explanations above in his first post. Why do those explanations fail? At no point did Professor Moran's explanations involve denigrating or personally attacking anyone. On the contrary he provided rational justification for each edit in the form of explaining why, historically and logically, certain statements and their references are inappropriate and why the ones he gives instead are superior.

He explained the difference between popularity and mere usage concerning the term junk DNA.

He explained why Ryan Gregory's reference to Comings is misleading due to it's obscurity in the field, and that the term predates Comings.

He explains why factual knowledge in the field with a considerable history makes the conflation of non-coding with junk DNA absurd.

He explains that it does not make sense to mention Ohno's hypothesis of 20K genes in the human genome in the article.

He explains that it is a false statement that the term junk DNA occurs mainly in popular science nad in a colloquial way in publications.

These are actual explanations that justify his edits. Nothing personal or denigrating about this. Rumraket38 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He hasn't provided a single reliable source to support any statements he's made, nor any that contradict what is in the article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you're moving the goalposts. You asked for explanations for why the source and content being removed were inadequate and incorrect, and you received them. It doesn't make sense to then turn around and say you want sources for the explanations.

Take the example of confusing popularity and mere usage. How does one "source" the statement that a term didn't become popular in the 1960's, but remained rather obscure until Ohno's 1972 paper? Well you'd have to go and look at all the various articles that use the term junk DNA and see what paper they reference (it's Ohnos 1972 paper btw). How many of such papers do you want? Here's one from 2020(DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.047) There isn't going to be a review of "which junk DNA paper do people who use the term junk reference?".

How about the mistaken conflation of junk DNA with non coding DNA being absurd? Why would that even have to be sourced, it's a statement about logical entailment. It IS absurd to imply that use of the term junk DNA means all non-coding DNA is nonfunctional when that isn't what proponents of the concept think. It's like asking for a source that people who don't like pineapple in their pizzas don't like pineapple on their pizzas.

Many places in the whole non-coding DNA article actually gives many recent(within the last 5-10 years) references to the primary literature that use the term junk DNA to refer to DNA without a function. Rumraket38 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not moving the goalposts. WP:V is a policy, it is not optional. Provide the sources or this entire discussion is pointless. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked the first two of the changes, and you are wrong in the first case.

• Version you reverted to: The term "junk DNA" became popular in the 1960s.
• Genome42's version: The term "junk DNA" was used in the 1960s

I cannot access one of the sources given, but it is from 1963. If it says that the term "junk DNA" became popular in the 1960s, that would be pretty weird. The other source [3] says, the term “junk DNA” was already in use as early as the 1960s. So, Genome's version is closer to the source than yours.

Second change:

• Version you reverted to: the nature of junk DNA was first discussed explicitly in 1972 by a genomic biologist, David Comings, who applied the term to all non-coding DNA.
• Genome42's version: No such sentence.

This time, the article does agree with the source, but the question is how relevant that is. For deleting a sentence, you do not need a source. Choosing which events in the history of the term to mention and which ones to omit is a matter of judgement and competence; guidelines cannot help a lot here. So, Comings has a short mention in some book. Genome42 says it is obscure. Is there anything telling us it is not? The source given is a hit from a Google search for not only is "junk dna" an inappropriate moniker, so, someone seems to have found the Comings sentence by accident while searching for something else. That says "obscure" to me.

This is not about providing sources, it is about reading the sources correctly and about selecting the right sources, and, judging from the first two items, it looks as if you are reverting good edits without any sound justification. Maybe it's different for the other items, but you'd need to show that. We do have WP:CIR, and resisting the edits of someone who is clearly competent without a good justification would be counterproductive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "someone who is clearly competent"? If you mean Genome42 then yes, definitely. If you mean Praxidicae, then where is the evidence? Athel cb (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Genome42, obviously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How does this policy apply to the paragraph that begins "The term occurs mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications..."? Where is the serious source to support this? All I can see is a popular article in a popular magazine (one that has fallen a long way since the 1970s: at that time every scientist read it; are there any who read it today?) by two people with no obvious qualifications in biochemistry. The first author has a grand total of six publications (of which this was the first), none of them indicating expertise in biochemistry. The other author has many publications, but I haven't found any that show expertise in biochemistry. Does this really outweigh Dan Graur's book? Or Sydney Brenner's various articles? Or Larry Moran's book? Athel cb (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Who is "everyone else"? At the moment it seems to be just one person, you. Ramos1990 was quite vocal in May, but seems to have withdrawn from the fray. Athel cb (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that getting bbb23 to block Genome42 is the best way forward? It makes you look like someone who can't tolerate any disagreement with what you have decided is The Truth. How about addressing the arguments instead of just censoring them? Athel cb (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reinstated the Scientific American article, but I've added two references to serious scientists to show that it is mistaken. Athel cb (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Karyotype image

Mikael Häggström has created a pretty image showing the G-band pattern of human chromosomes. He has inserted this image into a large number of articles including this one. The chromosome icons are from the Ensemble website (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikael_H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m#/media/File:Human_karyotype_with_bands_and_sub-bands.pngHuman karyogram).

This is an article about non-coding DNA. It is not restricted to non-coding DNA in humans even though the topic is relevant to discussions about the human genome. I don't think this karyotype image should be prominently displayed on the top page of this article because it has nothing to do with noncoding DNA or noncoding genes. Genome42 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)