Impact of Noncoding DNA on Phenotype Evolution


A major discovery in science was the central dogma: that the digital code of DNA was read and translated by RNA into proteins. The information carried by DNA is thus the genotype, which constitutes the phenotype. While the genotype–phenotype discussion primarily concerns the role of ‘real’ protein‐coding genes, the impact of non‐protein‐coding elements like transposons on the phenotype has been less recognised. Such noncoding elements constitute however a major share of most genomes, and genome size per se may display a tremendous variability even between closely related organisms. Whether noncoding elements are parasitic ‘junk DNA’ or are transcribed and thus affect the phenotype is a matter of heated debate. Whether seen as junk or not, noncoding DNA strongly boosts the share genome size, thereby affecting a range of fitness‐related phenotypic traits like mutation rate, genomic flexibility, cell size, body size, morphology, growth rate, behaviour, life cycle and potentially also speciation.

Key Concepts

  • The central dogma postulates that the blueprint of life is coded in the genes, which is read by RNA to produce protein. Thus the genotype constitutes the phenotype.
  • The genotype (the sum of all DNA) is in most organisms made up by non‐protein‐coding DNA, often dominated by virus‐like transposable elements, and whether this is ‘junk’ or ‘parasitic’ DNA of which has a clear function is a heated debate.
  • The C‐value paradox points to the striking variability in genome size even between related organisms, which do not reflect organism complexity.
  • Even if the noncoding DNA is seen as ‘junk’, it has however wide implications for a range of phenotypic traits such as cell size, growth rate, metabolism and life history and is an important yet often neglected part of the genotype–phenotype link.
  • The genome is far more flexible and dynamic than often recognised and is still full of surprises.

Keywords: genome size; genotype; phenotype; selfish DNA; transposable elements

Figure 1. Variation in genome size in some animal groups where the mean is given in red and the horizontal line represents the full range for species where genome size has been estimated.
Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of potential phenotypic impacts of genome size. Small genomes (left) are typically characterised by modest fractions of transposons (bold line) and other nonprotein‐coding elements, while a high degree of transposon proliferation causes large genomes. There may be several proximate and ultimate drivers for evolution of genome size, and large genomes may also simply reflect a genetic drift or weak counter‐selective forces. Some major potential phenotypic consequences are indicated below. Note that these are examples, and upward arrow indicates that the causal direction could work both ways. It should also be noted that assessment of phenotypic genome size effects is most relevant within clades or taxa. (Note that eukaryotes do not have circular genomes; hence the circle is just for illustrative purpose.) Reproduced with permission from Hessen © Springer.
Figure 3. Approximate composition of the human genome. 1 (red) is the protein‐coding genes, 2 are regulatory elements, 3 are repetitive elements and 4–7 are different classes of transposable elements.
Figure 4. Three common species of northern marine copepods where body size scales with genome size. Reproduced with permission from Hessen et al. © John Wiley and Sons Ltd.


Andrews CB and Gregory TR (2009) Genome size is inversely correlated with relative brain size in parrots and cockatoos. Genome 52: 261–267.

Baillie JK, Barnett MW and Upton KR (2011) Somatic retrotransposition alters the genetic landscape of the human brain. Nature 479: 534–537.

Beaton MJ and Hebert PDN (1997) The cellular basis of divergent head morphologies in Daphnia. Limnology and Oceanography 42: 346–356.

Bennett MD (1987) Variation in genome form in plants and its ecological implications. New Phytologist 196: 177–200.

Brochmann C, Brysting AK, Alsos IG, et al. (2004) Polyploidy in arctic plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82: 521–536.

Brookfield JFY (2005) The ecology of the genome ‐ mobile DNA elements and their hists. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 128–136.

Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, et al. (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771–1789.

Carbone L, Harris RA, Gnerre S, et al. (2014) Gibbon genome and the fast karyotype evolution in small apes. Nature 513: 195–201.

Cavalier‐Smith T (1978) Nuclear volume control by nucleoskeletal DNA, selections for cell volume and cell growth rate and the solution of the DNA C‐value paradox. Journal of Cell Science 34: 247–278.

Cavalier‐Smith T (1985) Cell volume and the evolution of eukaryotic genome size. In: Cavalier‐Smith T: The Evolution of Genome Size, pp. 104–184. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Chenais B, Caruso A, Hiard S, et al. (2012) The impact of transposable elements in eucaryotic genomes: from genome size increase to genetic adaptation to stressful environments. Gene 509: 7–15.

Crick FHC (1958) On protein synthesis. In: Sanders FK (ed) Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, Number XII: The Biological Replication of Macromolecules, pp. 138–163. Cambridge University Press.

Crick FHC (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature 227: 561–563.

Dawkins R (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eickbush TH and Eickbush DG (2006) Transposable elements: evolution. eLS DOI: 0.1038/npg.els.0005130.

Ferrari JA and Rai KS (1989) Phenotypic correlates of genome size variation in Aedes albopictus. Evolution 43: 895–899.

Finston TL, Hebert PDN and Footit B (1995) Genome size variation in aphids. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 25: 189–196.

Gambi MC, Ramella L, Sella G, et al. (1997) Variation in genome size of benthic polychaetes: systematic and ecological relationships. Journal of the Marine Biological Association 77: 1045–1057.

Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Brown JH, et al. (2005) The metabolic basis of whole‐organism RNA and phosphorus stoichiometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 11923–11927.

Graur D, Zheng Y, Price N, et al. (2013) On the immortality of television sets: ‘Function’ in the human genome according to the evolution‐free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution 5: 578–590.

Gregory TR (2001) Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size, and the C‐value enigma. Biological Reviews 76: 65–101.

Gregory TR (2005) The Evolution of the Genome. Elsevier Academic Press.

Gregory TR (2016) Animal Genome Size Database.

Gregory TR, Hebert PDN and Kolasa J (2000) Evolutionary implications of the relationship between genome size and body size in flatworms and copepods. Heredity 84: 201–208.

Gregory TR and Johnston JS (2008) Genome size diversity in the family Drosophilidae. Heredity 101: 228–238.

Hall MN, Raff M and Thomas G (eds) (2004) Cell Growth; Control of Cell Size. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Harbor Laboratory Press.

Hessen DO and Persson J (2009) Genome size as a determinant of growth and life‐history traits in crustaceans. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 393–399.

Hessen DO, Jeyasingh PD, Neiman M, et al. (2010) Genome streamlining and the elemental costs of growth. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 75–80.

Hessen DO, Daufresne M and Leinaas HP (2012) Temperature size relations from the cellular genomic perspective. Biological Reviews 88: 476–489.

Hessen DO (2015) Noncoding DNA as a phenotypic driver. Evolutionary Biology 42: 427–431.

Jalal M, Wojewodzic MW, Laane CMM, et al. (2013) Larger Daphnia at lower temperature; a role for cell size and genome configuration? Genome 56: 511–519.

Koonin EV (2016) Splendor and misery of adaptation, or the importance of neutral null for understanding evolution. BMC Biology 14: 114.

Kozlowski J, Konarzewski M and Gawelczyk AT (2003) Cell size as a link between noncoding DNA and metabolic rate scaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 14080–14085.

Kozlowski J, Czarnoeski M and Danko M (2004) Can optimal resource allocation models explain why ectotherms grow larger in the cold? International Journal of Computational Biology 44: 480–493.

Leinaas HP, Jalal M, Gabrielsen TM, et al. (2016) Inter‐ and intraspecific variation in body‐ and genome size in calanoid copepods from temperate and arctic waters. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2302.

Li W, Tucker AE, Sung W, et al. (2009) Extensive, recent intron gains in Daphnia populations. Science 326: 1260–1262.

Lynch M (2007) The Origins of Genome Architecture. Massachusetts: Sinauer Association.

Maciak S, Janko K, Kotusz J, et al. (2011) Standard Metabolic Rate SMRI is inversely related to erythrocyte and genome size in allopolyploid fish of the Cobitis taenia hybrid complex. Functional Ecology 25: 1072–1078.

McLaren IA, Sevigny JM and Corkett CJ (1988) Body sizes, development rates, and genome sizes among Calanus species. Hydrobiologia 167: 275–284.

Mousseau TA and Roff DA (1989) Adaptation to seasonality in a cricket: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation in body size and diapause expression along a cline in season length. Evolution 43: 1483–1496.

Neinman M, Beaton M, Hessen DO, et al. (2017) Endopolyploidy as a potential driver of animal ecology and evolution. Biological Reviews 92: 234–247.

Orgel LE and Crick FHC (1980) Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature 284: 604–607.

Otto SP and Whitton J (2000) Polyploid incidence and evolution. Annual Review of Genetics 34: 401–437.

Palazzo AF and Gregory TR (2014) The case for junk DNA. PLoS Genetics 10: e1004351. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351.

Parfrey LW, Lahr DJ and Katz LA (2008) The dynamic nature of eukaryotic genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25: 787–794.

Rasch EM and Wyngaard GA (2006) Genome sizes of cyclopoid copepods Crustacea: evidence of evolutionary constraint. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 87: 625–635.

Rees DJ, Belzile C, Glémet H, et al. (2008) Large genomes among caridean shrimp. Genome 51: 159–163.

Rinn JL and Chang HY (2012) Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs. Annual Review of Biochemistry 81: 145–166.

Roth G, Blanke J and Wake DB (1994) Cell size predicts morphological complexity in the brains of frogs and salamanders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91: 4796–4800.

Savage VM, Allen AP, Brown JH, et al. (2007) Scaling of number, size, and metabolic rate of cells with body size in mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 4718–4723.

Starostova Z, Kubicka L, Konarzewski M, Kozlowski J and Kratochvil L (2009) Cell size but not genome size affects scaling of metabolic rate in eyelid geckos. American Naturalist 174: E100–E105.

Stevenson RD, Hill MF and Bryant PJ (1995) Organ and cell allometry in Hawaiian Drosophila: how to make a big fly. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 259: 105–110.

Vieira C, Nardon C, Arpin C, et al. (2002) Evolution of genome size in Drosophila. Is the invader's genome being invaded by transposable elements? Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1154–1161.

Vinogradov AE (1997) Nucleotypic effect in homeotherms: Bodymass independent resting metabolic rate of passerine birds is related to genome size. Evolution 51: 220–225.

Wagner M, Durbin E and Buckley L (1998) RNA: DNA ratios as indicators of nutritional condition in the copepod Calanus finmarchicus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162: 737–738.

Watson JD and Crick FHC (1953) A structure for deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature 171: 737–738.

Weider LJ (1987) Life history variation among low‐arctic clones of obligately parthenogenetic Daphnia pulex ‐ a diploid‐polyploid complex. Oecologia 73: 251–256.

White MM and McLaren IA (2000) Copepod development rates in relation to genome size and 18S rDNA copy number. Genome 43: 750–755.

Wyngaard GA, Rasch EM, Manning NM, et al. (2005) The relationship between genome size, development rate, and body size in copepods. Hydrobiologia 532: 123–137.

Xia XH (1995) Body‐temperature, rate of biosynthesis, and evolution of genome size. Molecular Biology and Evolution 12: 834–842.

Zeh DW, Zeh JA and Ischida Y (2009) Transposable elements and an epigenetic basis for punctuated equilibria. BioEssays 3: 716–726.

Further Reading

Biémont C and Vieira C (2006) Genetics: junk DNA as an evolutionary force. Nature 443: 521–524.

Eddy SR (2012) The C‐value paradox, junk DNA and ENCODE. Current Biology 22: R898–R899.

Elliott TA and Gregtory TR (2015) What is a genome? The C‐value enigma and the evolution of eukaryotic genome content. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0331.

Kellis M, Wold B and Snyder MP (2014) Defining functional elements in the human genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 6131–6138.

Pennisi E (2012) ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA. Science 337: 1159–1161.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Hessen, Dag O(May 2017) Impact of Noncoding DNA on Phenotype Evolution. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027507]