'Junk' DNA could determine face shape, scientists say

New research suggests that so-called junk DNA might not be so worthless after all. It might actually help us tell each other apart.

Eric Gaillard/Reuters
Model Naomi Campbell poses during a photocall for the television format ;The Face' Cannes, France, earlier this month.

Face shape is largely determined by genetics, yet no two faces are entirely alike. How do genes bring about faces with subtle differences while avoiding dramatic disruptions and facial malformations such as cleft lip and palate? The answer may be in the "junk DNA," a new study has found.

Noncoding DNA, sometimes called junk DNA, refers to sequences in a genome that don't produce proteins, some of which are thought to have no known biological function.

Studying mice, researchers identified more than 4,000 small regions in the genome that are likely a type of noncoding DNA called enhancers, which amplify the expression of a gene. In this case, these regions were active while the face of a mouse embryo developed, according to the study, detailed in the Oct. 25 issue of the journal Science.

Most of these enhancer sequences are found in humans as well, so it is likely that they have similar face-shaping functions in humans, the researchers said. [5 Face-Shaping Genes Identified]

"Our results suggest it is likely there are thousands of enhancers in the human genome that are somehow involved in craniofacial development," study researcher Axel Visel, a geneticist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's genomics division, said in a statement. "We don't know yet what all of these enhancers do, but we do know that they are out there and they are important for craniofacial development."

To test whether these enhancers are indeed important in shaping the face, the researchers deleted three of the enhancers in mice and compared them with normal mice at 8 weeks of age. The results showed that each enhancer deletion caused a distinct set of differences in the shape of the face — for instance, causing an increase or decrease in facial length and an increase or decrease in the width of various parts of the face, such as the base of the skull or the palate.

In the study, to avoid the challenge of recognizing individual mouse faces, the researchers created 3D images using a process called microcomputed tomography to link changes in face shape with alterations in the function of each of the enhancers.

Identifying enhancers that regulate a gene's activity is challenging, because such enhancers aren't necessarily located next to their target gene; rather, they could be acting from "long-distance" locations in the genome.

Many of the genetic defects that cause facial flaws such as clefts of the lip or palate have been identified, but only a small number of genes have been implicated in normal variation of the face's shape, the researchers said.

Studying genes that drive normal facial variations would offer an opportunity for human geneticists to look for mutations specifically in enhancers that may play a role in birth defects, Visel said.

Email Bahar Gholipour or follow her @alterwired. Follow LiveScience @livescienceFacebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.