Onion test

The onion test is a way of assessing the validity of an argument for a functional role for junk DNA. It relates to the paradox that would emerge if the majority of eukaryotic non-coding DNA were assumed to be functional and the difficulty of reconciling that assumption with the diversity in genome sizes among species. The term "onion test" was originally proposed informally in a blog post by T. Ryan Gregory in order to help clarify the debate about junk DNA. The term has been mentioned in newspapers and online media, scientific journal articles, and a textbook. The test is defined as:

Onions and their relatives vary dramatically in their genome sizes, without changing their ploidy, and this gives an exceptionally valuable window on the genomic expansion junk DNA. Since the onion (Allium cepa) is a diploid organism having a haploid genome size of 15.9 Gb, it has 4.9x as much DNA as does a human genome (3.2 Gb). Other species in the genus Allium vary hugely in DNA content without changing their ploidy. Allium schoenoprasum (chives) for example has a haploid genome size of 7.5 Gb, less than half that of onions, yet Allium ursinum (wild garlic) has a haploid genome size of 30.9 Gb, nearly twice (1.94x) that of onion and over four times (4.1x) that of chives. This extreme size variation between closely related species in the genus Allium is also part of the extended onion test rationale as originally defined:

Some researchers argue that the onion test is related to wider issues involving the C-value paradox and is only valid if one can justify the presumption that genome size has no bearing on organismal physiology. According to Larry Moran, the onion test is not an argument for junk DNA, but an approach to assessing possible functional explanations for non-coding DNA. According to him, it asks why allium species need so much more of that proposed function than do humans, and why so much more (or less) than other closely related species of allium and does not address the variation in genome size (C-value) among organisms itself.

According to Jonathan McLatchie, the onion test is only valid if one can justify the presumption that genome size has no bearing on organismal physiology. Long sequences of repetitive DNA can be highly relevant to an organism and can contribute to transcription delays and developmental timing mechanisms for an organism. Furthermore, he argues that there is a positive correlation between genome size and cell volume for unicellular eukaryotes like plants and protozoa and so the larger amount of DNA thus provides a selective advantage by contributing to the skeleton and volume of the nucleus of these cells. Larry Moran who was actually addressed in McLatchie's post extensively replied :

Ewan Birney (then head of the ENCODE Project) explained the difference as a product of polyploidy, and therefore not relevant to the discussion of humans.

Similar claims were made by John Mattick in an article defending the ENCODE project against arguments disputing the main finding of the project:

Freeling et al. proposed a genome balance hypothesis that presumably accounts for the C-Value Paradox and passes the Onion Test.