This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, left)." to "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, right)." because the figures the article is indicating is to the right of the page, not to the left of the page.
Wvpspdude ( talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Folks. As the DNA page is being prevented from editing, and I am new to this, I thought it worth mentioning that the important information about Rosalind Franklin's part in the discovery of DNA, which is on her wikipedia page, is almost completely missing from the main DNA page. That seems like a pretty big omission, you know, one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I have to tell you that the women scientists where I work are pretty pissed off about it. Anyway, here is what it says on Rosalind Franklin's wikipedia page concerning her discovery of DNA. It would be more fair and correct to put it on the DNA page. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, was "the data we actually used"[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[4] Franklin's X-ray diffraction images confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[5]" Like I said, I would add this if I could but the DNA page is protected so I can not. Thank you for your time. You are welcome to contact me at eekley@efn.org. Peace. Anand E. E. Holtham-Keathley 163.41.136.11 ( talk) 21:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the negative charge of the phosphates, an extremely important attribute of DNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As I'm reading this page, its really a great introduction to the topic btw, the rotating DNA graphic on the right is distracting to me. Is there a way to give users the option to stop it? Or if not what about a time out after some reasonable period? After its been up for a while the continued rotating doesn't add anything and for visual people like me its just a little distracting. Also, in my experience its better web site design to not have things that the user can't control or that don't time out that flash, rotate, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebellis ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Damn, forgot to sign, see a bot beat me to it... Mdebellis ( talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I notice the Angstrom unit is used in this article. Should we not be using nanometres? Shadwell Munch ( talk) 10:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I mean use nm first with Angstroms in brackets. Would this be better? Shadwell Munch ( talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of DNA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nature":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I added material under the section "Chemical modifications and altered DNA packaging". The previous material noted that the expression of genes is influenced by how DNA is packaged in chromosomes, but only gave one of the 3 mechanisms by which DNA packaging in chromosomes is altered. I added the other 2 major mechanisms. In addition, previously, no mention was made of how the chemical modification (or other packaging alterations) came about. I added recent literature references for how these alterations may come about during repair of DNA damages. Under the subheading "Damage," the damages caused by mutagens were noted, but a large number of damages that occur in DNA per day are endogenous damages. I added two of the major internal cellular mechanisms by which these endogenous damages occur, and added a list of the the common endogenous damages with the frequencies with which they occur per day or per cell cycle. I also clarified a previous reference to "150,000 bases that have suffered oxidative damage" to note that this level of DNA damage is the steady-state level (due to the balance between newly occurring damages and ongoing DNA repair), and is different from the frequency with which this type of DNA damage occurs per day. Bernstein0275 ( talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png will be appearing as picture of the day on November 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
it'S IN HIS DNA D D D DNA AND HE JUST TAKE MY BREATH AWAY B B B BREATH AWAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.37.91 ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the reference to Nikolai Koltsov's 1927 paper needs to be more thoroughly investigated. We need to have a literal translation to assess whether his idea was really so strikingly similar to the result obtained in the 1950s. The wording in the text has the flavour of being massaged to fit modern knowledge. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some new versions of pictures:
I'm a lay person and not a molecular biologist. I was confused with the introduction of base J (a thing new to me) in the second paragraph under the "Nucleobase Classification" heading. The second sentence there reads
I propose an appropriate editor substitute the following:
I think this introduces the concept in a way less like a riddle. The way it reads now, one is forced to guess that "J" is the abbreviation for this modified uracil (if that's what it is- is it more correct to say that it's a modified form of the T nucleoside, deoxythymidine?). Also "genera" should take a period. There is a stubby page for "Base_J" that might deserve a hyperlink here. Rt3368 ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, one should mention that in nature only D-DNA occures. But one can sythetize L-DNA. http://nass.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/1/187.abstract -- Biggerj1 ( talk) 09:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that the lede (at least) include a mention that DNA typically is found in a right-handed double-helix structure. There is a mention buried deep in the article about an alternative structure of DNA being left-handed, but it is not explicitly stated in the article that its (typical DNA's) chirality is right-handed. A very common (overwhelmingly so — an overwhelmingly dominant) mistake in DNA depictions is showing DNA as left-handed (which I am sure irks the hell out of people who know it as right-handed). The images are correct on the handedness (but I notice you have to look closely to see it with these illustrations as the choice in depiction method lends to an easy optical illusion where it can appear either way; closer examination shows the depiction can only be right handed). The lay person may not find it important, but it may lend information to the casual lay reader to inadvertently know the difference. Those in chemistry not familiar with the genetics field will particularly take note of such information (they understand handedness and its significance). — al-Shimoni ( talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So, how many nucleotides are there? Do we just have A,G,C and T? Really? Are you sure? - kk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.5.205 ( talk) 04:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The author confessed that he wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals; see http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
Please update the Alternate DNA chemistry section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.104.174 ( talk) 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I will delete this subsection as it clearly falls into the category of original research. This has been deleted and undeleted before, but it should never have been added in the first place as it is way to specific and represents only a sub-sub selection on the extensive scientific literature on various type of vibration of DNA. If it belongs at all in Wikipedia it would be in a small part of a hypothetical article on DNA Dynamics. Somoza ( talk) 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I don't agree that this is original research, but it is certainly material that is quite obscure and of no interest to the vast majority of people who would access this article. I am inclined to delete this section again (Somoza's deletion was reverted), but I would appreciate comments first. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
A discovery about another function of DNA has been discovered. Article here. It seems that this code is written in binary. -- Artman40 ( talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get this diagram (as of March 20, 2014). It looks like A is paired with G, and C paired with T, which is wrong. 128.174.127.111 ( talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. I wanted to hyperlink the term "exobiologist" to the article "Astrobiology", but the article is unavailable to anonymous editing. So I made an account and the article is still not editable to me....
Can someone hyperlink "exobiologists"--I didn't know what it meant. And, explain why I still can't edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoedit ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
dna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana shahzaib ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Professor Raymond Gosling's, Erwin Chargaff's, as well as the photos of Herbert Wilson. F.R.S. and Alex Stokes should also be present; however, the latter two were unavailable at this point for Wikipedia use, and if made available it is important that they also should be added because of their very important role played in the X-ray+molecular modeling analysis of DNA saga. Bci2 ( talk) 4:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Dna is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.147.6 ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick suggested the first double-helical model of DNA structure in the journal Nature. [1] Their double-helix, molecular model of DNA was based on a single X-ray diffraction pattern image (labeled as " Photo 51") [2] taken by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling in May 1952, as well as the information on how DNA bases pair, better known as Chargaff's rules, also obtained through private communications from Erwin Chargaff in the previous years.
Jensberzelius ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The original W-C model is right on the fact of being a helix where A pairs to T and G pairs to C, but it's wrong in that the base-pairs are displaced from the helical axis, something which happens in A-DNA, but NOT B-DNA. In other words, the original cartoon and description in the Nature paper can be seen today as a mixture of a B-DNA conformation and an A-DNA conformation which is not right, so, saying that there is consensus in that this is the right model for B-DNA is awfully misleading.
Chargaff's rules do not affect in any way DNA conformations, that is, the base-pairing rules, A-T and G-C are not related with the numbers of base-pair per turn or major and minor groove widths that DNA will acquire under different ionic strenghts of the solutions they are in.
References
FWPUB
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Could someone add why the symbol "prime" is used in 5' and 3' ? Why not simply 5 and 3 ? Thanks in advance. -- 91.179.219.82 ( talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue of " arsenic instead of phosphorus in DNA" seem to pretty much proven wrong, at least for GFAJ-1, as described in < /info/en/?search=GFAJ-1>. I would argue its time to update this section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerchman ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
those of us who have some chemical knowledge wouldn't object to the word "molecule" applied to, say, a tRNA however, is it quite the right word for one strand of a mammalian chromosome ? aside from the connotation that DNA is free in vivo (which rarely occurs; dna is coated wiht protein) I'm not sure that technically it is known that each strand is continuous . that is, at anyone time, there are a lot of nicks and gaps and RNA primers and so forth; it maybe that in fact, there is always a nick present, just from natural degradative processes I can't find any evidence on this; the largest pulse field gels only go up to ~ 5Mbp,and I don't think zimm visco elastomety goes this high — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no credit given to Rosalind Franklin? 21:50, 5 July 2013 User:82.26.207.27
I agree - she has her own Wiki entry that acknowledges her contribution to the structure of DNA "According to Francis Crick, her data was key to determining the structure[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 model regarding the structure of DNA." but there is no mention of her work on the actual DNA site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 ( talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The history section suggests that Franklin and Gosling's work was merely in support of Watson and Crick, but from my "what's available on the web" based research suggests that this is not right -- Watson was shown Franklin's data, which Watson and Crick used as the basis for, at least the specifically described shape of the DNA structure. When presented to Franklin, she may have been lead to think that her work merely confirmed Watson and Crick's (which is reflected in her paper) model building approach, but she was basically looking at her own work, with a few addenda which encoded Chargaff's rules. The description in the history section appears to be written contrary to this. Qed ( talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
When mentioning Rosalind Franklin, it says that she didn't get the Nobel because they weren't awarded post-humously, however that rule wasn't made until 1974, 10 years after their prize was awarded. Furthermore, Gosling may have been an author in the paper, but Photograph 51 was taken by Franklin alone, not Franklin and Gosling. Jillymint 147.26.87.13 ( talk) 23:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the dispute about priority between Watson, Crick, and Franklin, but I'd just like to flag that the intro currently mentions Franklin but not Crick or Watson. The change was made on 27 October by an anonymous edit. My understanding is that it would be sensible to mention all three in the intro. Dylan Thurston ( talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As Dylan Thurston above mentions, there is currently a mismatch between the introduction and the body text. All three should be mentioned in the introduction as being historically important, with the body text stating that Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for publishing Franklin's and Wilkin's data. This is a fair way of describing the dispute historically without getting into it too much. 8.23.143.233 ( talk) 22:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
DNA →
Deoxyribonucleic acid – I feel like the full name should be used and the abbreviation redirected to it.
Rajiv Shah (
talk)
20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) -- Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)I feel that the explanation DNA was a bit to formal and the ideas need to be smoothened out for early learners and readers no one would join Wikipedia if there not able to read the text. Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
According to the current description,
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.
I feel like it is a definition of a genomic DNA, rather than DNA itself. I understand people would imagine genomic DNA for the term DNA, but strictly speaking it is imprecise.
Also if DNA is a genome, what is genomic DNA? I think it is a defect of the current definition. Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 10:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Under "Branched DNA", at the start of the first sentence, please insert a comma after "In DNA". Pgpotvin ( talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (not a registered editor but a stickler for useful punctuation)
Hello, please edit the following sentence which appears at the top of the article:
"DNA and RNA are nucleic acids; alongside proteins and complex carbohydrates, they comprise the three major types of macromolecule that are essential for all known forms of life."
"Comprise" is used here (as it is freakin' everywhere I look) incorrectly. Change it to either "they compose" or "they are comprised of." Not a registered user, as above. 12.40.148.10 ( talk) 21:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'of all known living organisms' in the very beginning of the article is not entirely correct. Bacteria are organisms and based on RNA. Replace the above with 'of all known eucariote organisms' and perhaps link to Eucariote.
82.12.246.216 ( talk) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The use of "most" seems to imply there are genetic instructions elsewhere, but where? aren't genetic instructions those in DNA by definition? Erikdsi ( talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix<---Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't most DNA circular, since bacteria's DNA is circular not helical? JPotter ( talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to, and reviewed for, FA‐status; the lead was shorter then it is now. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 13:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
the picture of shopping carts to "model" the DNA structure is lame and should be moved to a page of cheesy illustrations.
when limiting the content of pages, illustrations should be filtered based on utility and elegance of explanation. the comedy of the shopping cart tower does not fulfill any reasonable editorial objective. (not even that funny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8053:28F0:ED57:DE07:4EF9:518 ( talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The Naked DNA page is unnecessary and any worthwhile information should be merged with DNA. All that is really needed is for the DNA#Extracellular_nucleic_acids section to define what "naked" means in the context of DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.254 ( talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI - Controversial 3-parent baby technique produces a boy - [2]. Regards. 108.41.202.191 ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I have two suggestions to improve the DNA Wikipedia page. First, I think a different picture should be displayed as the first image on the page. The image that is shown now attempts to describe how atoms are arranged on a DNA strand, depicting the specific elements that DNA is composed of, and naming specific locations such as major grooves, minor grooves, pyrimidines and purines. I think this picture should be replaced with an imagine that displays how a sugar, a phosphate, and how the four nitrogen-containing nuclebases are arranged on human DNA since the context next to the picture illustrates that and nothing about the elements or grooves. Giving a visual representation that correlates with the reading helps to digest and understand the topics at hand. Second, in the subsection "properties," I think the directionality of DNA should be explained in more depth. Adding that the 5'-to-3' direction of DNA is important because this is the only direction nucleic acids can be synthesized when they are alive. The energy produced by breaking nucleoside triphosphate bonds is used to construct various types of new strands. With this energy, new nucleoside monophosphates can connect to the 3'-hydroxyl group. The direction of the DNA can also be described as going upstream, towards the 5'-end, or downstream, towards the 3'-end. With this additional information, links must be connected to words such as: nucleoside triphosphate, monophosphates, hydroxyl, upstream, and downstream.
ZeleenOndriezek ( talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Zeleen Ondriezek
lipids are not a biopolymer also this is incomprehensible The structure of DNA is non-static,[10] all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometre).[11] According to another stu
what the heck is non static ? i've earned a pay check working with dna for 30 years, and I don't think i've ever heard this term PS: angstroms are, as they say, a deprecated unit the strands are referred to in multiple ways; please be consistent matter of fact, the writing more or less sucks; you introduce the term backbone without any reference...
please delete the science fiction fantasy about arsenic
this article is why wiki is never gonna amount to much; DNA is surely in the top 0.1% of importantce, and this article sucks big time forgive me, but i'm really mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
50.82.140.156 ( talk) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Picture 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin. Gosling should not be whited out to suit someone's agenda even if that agenda is the (in my view merited) argument that Franklin's contribution was at some level under-appreciated. 50.82.140.156 ( talk) 23:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
My knowledge about it is very less, so there is huge possibility that I may make mistake, but I am not sure if DNA is a molecule. I mean does it fit the definition of molecule? Or we mean to say something different here when the word molecule is being used. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Scientists wondered how 6.5 feet of DNA could be packed into each cell. See https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-imaging-technique-overturns-longstanding-textbook-model-dna-folding to discover "New imaging technique overturns longstanding textbook model of DNA folding". Kreematismos ( talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DNA is also the title song for BTS' new album ' LOVE YOURSELF 承 Her ' Please purchase and continue supporting our boys Bangtanwhat ( talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Some students mix DNA with olive oil and tholin, they heat one part only of the liquid they extracted, and they put it back in. Then they extract only a part of the liquid and repeat some partial heating and apply also electric shocks (still partially) and mix again to the main mass of the liquid. Also they add other substances used in different experiments. Who DNA evolved? There's a specific page for it, but I prefer to practical people who study the classic fictional DNA. Functionalists are always closer to the truth, but might not have the fantasy. They just need a push... that I will certainly give! Add more links about simple self copying molecules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844D:800:DDD3:67A8:1F7A:1EF4 ( talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The text states "The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes.[4] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 trillion tons of carbon (TtC)". I really have no idea how to compare those values... does anybody?!! I am *guessing* the comparison is between "50 billion tonnes" and "4 trillion tonnes"... but this really needs to be clarified (no guessing) or completely eliminated. Hydradix ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
in the section Non canonical bases there's the sentence: 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil (hm5dU) is also known to replace thymidine, i believe (hm5dU) means 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuridine & not uracil, because (hm5dU) is a nucleoside with a deoxyribose witch makes the name correct, while 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil is a Thymine base that it's Methyl group was Hydroxylated and can not be Deoxygenated. also a base can not replace a nucleoside bcz thymidine is a nucleoside, I hope you correct that if I'm right. (excuse my weak english) -- Momas ( talk) 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is a date in Feb 1953 described as being "months" earlier than the previously discussed date in the same month, in the History section as it introduces Linus Pauling? There seems to have been some wear and tear through prior edits. DulcetTone ( talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a link or reference to Epigenome and genomics. Not a single mention of Epigenome on the whole page, it's like as if this page is modern anti-science, and is stuck in the past ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.144.221 ( talk) 21:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In the section "DNA profiling", shouldn't the use of DNA testing to prove the innocence of (possibly earlier convicted) suspects be mentioned too?-- Nø ( talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dna is a song by the Korean band bts 81.108.170.249 ( talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Should a section be added in regards to the i-motif and how its the subject of ongoing research? Gabefair ( talk) 00:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Cell division in meiosis creates daughter cells which have half a set of chromosomes. I can't think of a non-awkward way to fix this. Any ideas? JustOneMore ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In ===Non-canonical bases=== paragraph 6:
change 6N-methyadenine to 6N-methyladenine - it's clearly a typo
add a period (".") after the following sentence:
The complete replacement of cytosine by 5-glycosylhydroxymethylcytosine in T even phages (T2, T4 and T6) was observed in 1953 [1]
as I presume the capital letter in the following word signifies the beginning of a new sentence 94.78.183.18 ( talk) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Dna stays in chromosome. Human body has about 35.7 trillions cells. And every cell has 46 cromosome. Dna contains gene which is the the most important part of DNA. DNA has four materials. Such as : deoxiademino monophopate , deoxicytidine monophospate, deoxitymidine monophospate and deoxiganucine monophospate . They make nuecliotide. And that makes gene Himel das porag ( talk) 14:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "Complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine, and thymine, have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites." My impression from reading this was that long, complex segments of DNA/RNA had been formed in the laboratory. However, the source cited makes it clear that what was formed in the laboratory were amino acids (uracil, cytosine, and thymine) rather than strands of DNA/RNA. I would consider looking for an improved wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.227.0.240 ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC) #
The archaic equivalent of DNA
This was the only information it carried. (1 and 2 initially were one and the same, but evolved organisms differentiated most processes)
Initially that divicausal molecules (not infokeeping molecules, but according to
information theory everything is information or can be interpreted as so, but that has informational implications) were not one, but many, and gradually specific roles per component were established.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please mark all unsourced content (sentences, paragraphs) with citation needed tags, and please mark all book references that lack page numbers with the page needed tags, so that the students we train know that this is not how they should compose Wikipedia content. (If a subsection or section fails citation verification checks, please mark that section with the appropriate section tag.) This is supposed to be an exemplary article. We should not be finding unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY / WP:OR / WP:PSTS, nor find Stryer and other books being cited as a broad, 600-page sources. 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A ( talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A ( talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
{{replyto|
Can I Log In}}
(Talk)
05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)It's been over 13 years since this went through Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA/archive2, which was a few months after it regained FA status. I feel another reassessment might be warranted. From a glance, there's a bunch of unsourced text (with the "Transcription and translation" section having no citations at all), and many (but not all) of the used references are more than a decade old. Is nothing more up-to-date available for the claims those are attributed to? If things don't improve soon, then I might take this to FAR. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 20:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.212.98 ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
At some point the name changed from 'desoxy' to 'deoxy'. In the piece there is a reference to one paper (ref 192 today) from 1944 which uses the 'desoxy' name. Mr Google does not seem to know (or I am entering the wrong question) - does anyone know? Certainly by the time of W&C's 1953 paper the 'deoxy' name had become normal. Cross Reference ( talk) 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Dag Hammarskjöld won the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. ---- MountVic127 ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cubandrew.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Axiao12, Daisy.v.leon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since this is Deoxyribonucleic acid, something should be said under "Properties" about its quite strong acidity. It is a polymer of phosphate esters, and "Since a monophosphate ester of this kind is a strong acid (pKa of 1.0), it will be fully ionized at the usual physiological pH (ca.7.4)." I.e. it will be in its conjugate base form in the cell. And the negative charge repels many nucleophiles that would otherwise attack it, so reducing the rate of nucleophilic hydrolysis by several orders of magnitude (these points sourced on this Michigan State University page Nucleic Acids.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"a common way is the their
melting temperature"
81.103.38.4 (
talk)
09:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Concerns this section: DNA#Listing of non-canonical bases found in DNA.
If Adenosine is a building block for RNA and Adenine only one of its components (the other being some ribose), can you please clarify why it is listed here alongside the other bases? Frankly, I believe that this is a mistake and it should be Adenine, but I cannot really know. TIA anyway. –ꟼsycho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 ( talk) 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we give Rosalinda Franklin a more prominent place in this article?
I think she may be mentioned in the first paragraph.
Kind regards, SeemGyro1 SeemGyro1 ( talk) 09:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, left)." to "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, right)." because the figures the article is indicating is to the right of the page, not to the left of the page.
Wvpspdude ( talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Folks. As the DNA page is being prevented from editing, and I am new to this, I thought it worth mentioning that the important information about Rosalind Franklin's part in the discovery of DNA, which is on her wikipedia page, is almost completely missing from the main DNA page. That seems like a pretty big omission, you know, one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I have to tell you that the women scientists where I work are pretty pissed off about it. Anyway, here is what it says on Rosalind Franklin's wikipedia page concerning her discovery of DNA. It would be more fair and correct to put it on the DNA page. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, was "the data we actually used"[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[4] Franklin's X-ray diffraction images confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[5]" Like I said, I would add this if I could but the DNA page is protected so I can not. Thank you for your time. You are welcome to contact me at eekley@efn.org. Peace. Anand E. E. Holtham-Keathley 163.41.136.11 ( talk) 21:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the negative charge of the phosphates, an extremely important attribute of DNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As I'm reading this page, its really a great introduction to the topic btw, the rotating DNA graphic on the right is distracting to me. Is there a way to give users the option to stop it? Or if not what about a time out after some reasonable period? After its been up for a while the continued rotating doesn't add anything and for visual people like me its just a little distracting. Also, in my experience its better web site design to not have things that the user can't control or that don't time out that flash, rotate, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebellis ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Damn, forgot to sign, see a bot beat me to it... Mdebellis ( talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I notice the Angstrom unit is used in this article. Should we not be using nanometres? Shadwell Munch ( talk) 10:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I mean use nm first with Angstroms in brackets. Would this be better? Shadwell Munch ( talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of DNA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nature":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I added material under the section "Chemical modifications and altered DNA packaging". The previous material noted that the expression of genes is influenced by how DNA is packaged in chromosomes, but only gave one of the 3 mechanisms by which DNA packaging in chromosomes is altered. I added the other 2 major mechanisms. In addition, previously, no mention was made of how the chemical modification (or other packaging alterations) came about. I added recent literature references for how these alterations may come about during repair of DNA damages. Under the subheading "Damage," the damages caused by mutagens were noted, but a large number of damages that occur in DNA per day are endogenous damages. I added two of the major internal cellular mechanisms by which these endogenous damages occur, and added a list of the the common endogenous damages with the frequencies with which they occur per day or per cell cycle. I also clarified a previous reference to "150,000 bases that have suffered oxidative damage" to note that this level of DNA damage is the steady-state level (due to the balance between newly occurring damages and ongoing DNA repair), and is different from the frequency with which this type of DNA damage occurs per day. Bernstein0275 ( talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png will be appearing as picture of the day on November 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
it'S IN HIS DNA D D D DNA AND HE JUST TAKE MY BREATH AWAY B B B BREATH AWAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.37.91 ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the reference to Nikolai Koltsov's 1927 paper needs to be more thoroughly investigated. We need to have a literal translation to assess whether his idea was really so strikingly similar to the result obtained in the 1950s. The wording in the text has the flavour of being massaged to fit modern knowledge. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some new versions of pictures:
I'm a lay person and not a molecular biologist. I was confused with the introduction of base J (a thing new to me) in the second paragraph under the "Nucleobase Classification" heading. The second sentence there reads
I propose an appropriate editor substitute the following:
I think this introduces the concept in a way less like a riddle. The way it reads now, one is forced to guess that "J" is the abbreviation for this modified uracil (if that's what it is- is it more correct to say that it's a modified form of the T nucleoside, deoxythymidine?). Also "genera" should take a period. There is a stubby page for "Base_J" that might deserve a hyperlink here. Rt3368 ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, one should mention that in nature only D-DNA occures. But one can sythetize L-DNA. http://nass.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/1/187.abstract -- Biggerj1 ( talk) 09:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that the lede (at least) include a mention that DNA typically is found in a right-handed double-helix structure. There is a mention buried deep in the article about an alternative structure of DNA being left-handed, but it is not explicitly stated in the article that its (typical DNA's) chirality is right-handed. A very common (overwhelmingly so — an overwhelmingly dominant) mistake in DNA depictions is showing DNA as left-handed (which I am sure irks the hell out of people who know it as right-handed). The images are correct on the handedness (but I notice you have to look closely to see it with these illustrations as the choice in depiction method lends to an easy optical illusion where it can appear either way; closer examination shows the depiction can only be right handed). The lay person may not find it important, but it may lend information to the casual lay reader to inadvertently know the difference. Those in chemistry not familiar with the genetics field will particularly take note of such information (they understand handedness and its significance). — al-Shimoni ( talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So, how many nucleotides are there? Do we just have A,G,C and T? Really? Are you sure? - kk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.5.205 ( talk) 04:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The author confessed that he wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals; see http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
Please update the Alternate DNA chemistry section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.104.174 ( talk) 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I will delete this subsection as it clearly falls into the category of original research. This has been deleted and undeleted before, but it should never have been added in the first place as it is way to specific and represents only a sub-sub selection on the extensive scientific literature on various type of vibration of DNA. If it belongs at all in Wikipedia it would be in a small part of a hypothetical article on DNA Dynamics. Somoza ( talk) 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I don't agree that this is original research, but it is certainly material that is quite obscure and of no interest to the vast majority of people who would access this article. I am inclined to delete this section again (Somoza's deletion was reverted), but I would appreciate comments first. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
A discovery about another function of DNA has been discovered. Article here. It seems that this code is written in binary. -- Artman40 ( talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get this diagram (as of March 20, 2014). It looks like A is paired with G, and C paired with T, which is wrong. 128.174.127.111 ( talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. I wanted to hyperlink the term "exobiologist" to the article "Astrobiology", but the article is unavailable to anonymous editing. So I made an account and the article is still not editable to me....
Can someone hyperlink "exobiologists"--I didn't know what it meant. And, explain why I still can't edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoedit ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
dna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana shahzaib ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Professor Raymond Gosling's, Erwin Chargaff's, as well as the photos of Herbert Wilson. F.R.S. and Alex Stokes should also be present; however, the latter two were unavailable at this point for Wikipedia use, and if made available it is important that they also should be added because of their very important role played in the X-ray+molecular modeling analysis of DNA saga. Bci2 ( talk) 4:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Dna is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.147.6 ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick suggested the first double-helical model of DNA structure in the journal Nature. [1] Their double-helix, molecular model of DNA was based on a single X-ray diffraction pattern image (labeled as " Photo 51") [2] taken by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling in May 1952, as well as the information on how DNA bases pair, better known as Chargaff's rules, also obtained through private communications from Erwin Chargaff in the previous years.
Jensberzelius ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The original W-C model is right on the fact of being a helix where A pairs to T and G pairs to C, but it's wrong in that the base-pairs are displaced from the helical axis, something which happens in A-DNA, but NOT B-DNA. In other words, the original cartoon and description in the Nature paper can be seen today as a mixture of a B-DNA conformation and an A-DNA conformation which is not right, so, saying that there is consensus in that this is the right model for B-DNA is awfully misleading.
Chargaff's rules do not affect in any way DNA conformations, that is, the base-pairing rules, A-T and G-C are not related with the numbers of base-pair per turn or major and minor groove widths that DNA will acquire under different ionic strenghts of the solutions they are in.
References
FWPUB
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Could someone add why the symbol "prime" is used in 5' and 3' ? Why not simply 5 and 3 ? Thanks in advance. -- 91.179.219.82 ( talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue of " arsenic instead of phosphorus in DNA" seem to pretty much proven wrong, at least for GFAJ-1, as described in < /info/en/?search=GFAJ-1>. I would argue its time to update this section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerchman ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
those of us who have some chemical knowledge wouldn't object to the word "molecule" applied to, say, a tRNA however, is it quite the right word for one strand of a mammalian chromosome ? aside from the connotation that DNA is free in vivo (which rarely occurs; dna is coated wiht protein) I'm not sure that technically it is known that each strand is continuous . that is, at anyone time, there are a lot of nicks and gaps and RNA primers and so forth; it maybe that in fact, there is always a nick present, just from natural degradative processes I can't find any evidence on this; the largest pulse field gels only go up to ~ 5Mbp,and I don't think zimm visco elastomety goes this high — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no credit given to Rosalind Franklin? 21:50, 5 July 2013 User:82.26.207.27
I agree - she has her own Wiki entry that acknowledges her contribution to the structure of DNA "According to Francis Crick, her data was key to determining the structure[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 model regarding the structure of DNA." but there is no mention of her work on the actual DNA site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 ( talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The history section suggests that Franklin and Gosling's work was merely in support of Watson and Crick, but from my "what's available on the web" based research suggests that this is not right -- Watson was shown Franklin's data, which Watson and Crick used as the basis for, at least the specifically described shape of the DNA structure. When presented to Franklin, she may have been lead to think that her work merely confirmed Watson and Crick's (which is reflected in her paper) model building approach, but she was basically looking at her own work, with a few addenda which encoded Chargaff's rules. The description in the history section appears to be written contrary to this. Qed ( talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
When mentioning Rosalind Franklin, it says that she didn't get the Nobel because they weren't awarded post-humously, however that rule wasn't made until 1974, 10 years after their prize was awarded. Furthermore, Gosling may have been an author in the paper, but Photograph 51 was taken by Franklin alone, not Franklin and Gosling. Jillymint 147.26.87.13 ( talk) 23:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the dispute about priority between Watson, Crick, and Franklin, but I'd just like to flag that the intro currently mentions Franklin but not Crick or Watson. The change was made on 27 October by an anonymous edit. My understanding is that it would be sensible to mention all three in the intro. Dylan Thurston ( talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As Dylan Thurston above mentions, there is currently a mismatch between the introduction and the body text. All three should be mentioned in the introduction as being historically important, with the body text stating that Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for publishing Franklin's and Wilkin's data. This is a fair way of describing the dispute historically without getting into it too much. 8.23.143.233 ( talk) 22:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
DNA →
Deoxyribonucleic acid – I feel like the full name should be used and the abbreviation redirected to it.
Rajiv Shah (
talk)
20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) -- Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)I feel that the explanation DNA was a bit to formal and the ideas need to be smoothened out for early learners and readers no one would join Wikipedia if there not able to read the text. Fredo300 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
According to the current description,
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.
I feel like it is a definition of a genomic DNA, rather than DNA itself. I understand people would imagine genomic DNA for the term DNA, but strictly speaking it is imprecise.
Also if DNA is a genome, what is genomic DNA? I think it is a defect of the current definition. Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 10:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Under "Branched DNA", at the start of the first sentence, please insert a comma after "In DNA". Pgpotvin ( talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (not a registered editor but a stickler for useful punctuation)
Hello, please edit the following sentence which appears at the top of the article:
"DNA and RNA are nucleic acids; alongside proteins and complex carbohydrates, they comprise the three major types of macromolecule that are essential for all known forms of life."
"Comprise" is used here (as it is freakin' everywhere I look) incorrectly. Change it to either "they compose" or "they are comprised of." Not a registered user, as above. 12.40.148.10 ( talk) 21:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'of all known living organisms' in the very beginning of the article is not entirely correct. Bacteria are organisms and based on RNA. Replace the above with 'of all known eucariote organisms' and perhaps link to Eucariote.
82.12.246.216 ( talk) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The use of "most" seems to imply there are genetic instructions elsewhere, but where? aren't genetic instructions those in DNA by definition? Erikdsi ( talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix<---Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't most DNA circular, since bacteria's DNA is circular not helical? JPotter ( talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to, and reviewed for, FA‐status; the lead was shorter then it is now. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 13:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
the picture of shopping carts to "model" the DNA structure is lame and should be moved to a page of cheesy illustrations.
when limiting the content of pages, illustrations should be filtered based on utility and elegance of explanation. the comedy of the shopping cart tower does not fulfill any reasonable editorial objective. (not even that funny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8053:28F0:ED57:DE07:4EF9:518 ( talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The Naked DNA page is unnecessary and any worthwhile information should be merged with DNA. All that is really needed is for the DNA#Extracellular_nucleic_acids section to define what "naked" means in the context of DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.254 ( talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI - Controversial 3-parent baby technique produces a boy - [2]. Regards. 108.41.202.191 ( talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I have two suggestions to improve the DNA Wikipedia page. First, I think a different picture should be displayed as the first image on the page. The image that is shown now attempts to describe how atoms are arranged on a DNA strand, depicting the specific elements that DNA is composed of, and naming specific locations such as major grooves, minor grooves, pyrimidines and purines. I think this picture should be replaced with an imagine that displays how a sugar, a phosphate, and how the four nitrogen-containing nuclebases are arranged on human DNA since the context next to the picture illustrates that and nothing about the elements or grooves. Giving a visual representation that correlates with the reading helps to digest and understand the topics at hand. Second, in the subsection "properties," I think the directionality of DNA should be explained in more depth. Adding that the 5'-to-3' direction of DNA is important because this is the only direction nucleic acids can be synthesized when they are alive. The energy produced by breaking nucleoside triphosphate bonds is used to construct various types of new strands. With this energy, new nucleoside monophosphates can connect to the 3'-hydroxyl group. The direction of the DNA can also be described as going upstream, towards the 5'-end, or downstream, towards the 3'-end. With this additional information, links must be connected to words such as: nucleoside triphosphate, monophosphates, hydroxyl, upstream, and downstream.
ZeleenOndriezek ( talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Zeleen Ondriezek
lipids are not a biopolymer also this is incomprehensible The structure of DNA is non-static,[10] all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometre).[11] According to another stu
what the heck is non static ? i've earned a pay check working with dna for 30 years, and I don't think i've ever heard this term PS: angstroms are, as they say, a deprecated unit the strands are referred to in multiple ways; please be consistent matter of fact, the writing more or less sucks; you introduce the term backbone without any reference...
please delete the science fiction fantasy about arsenic
this article is why wiki is never gonna amount to much; DNA is surely in the top 0.1% of importantce, and this article sucks big time forgive me, but i'm really mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
50.82.140.156 ( talk) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Picture 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin. Gosling should not be whited out to suit someone's agenda even if that agenda is the (in my view merited) argument that Franklin's contribution was at some level under-appreciated. 50.82.140.156 ( talk) 23:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
My knowledge about it is very less, so there is huge possibility that I may make mistake, but I am not sure if DNA is a molecule. I mean does it fit the definition of molecule? Or we mean to say something different here when the word molecule is being used. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Scientists wondered how 6.5 feet of DNA could be packed into each cell. See https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-imaging-technique-overturns-longstanding-textbook-model-dna-folding to discover "New imaging technique overturns longstanding textbook model of DNA folding". Kreematismos ( talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DNA is also the title song for BTS' new album ' LOVE YOURSELF 承 Her ' Please purchase and continue supporting our boys Bangtanwhat ( talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Some students mix DNA with olive oil and tholin, they heat one part only of the liquid they extracted, and they put it back in. Then they extract only a part of the liquid and repeat some partial heating and apply also electric shocks (still partially) and mix again to the main mass of the liquid. Also they add other substances used in different experiments. Who DNA evolved? There's a specific page for it, but I prefer to practical people who study the classic fictional DNA. Functionalists are always closer to the truth, but might not have the fantasy. They just need a push... that I will certainly give! Add more links about simple self copying molecules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844D:800:DDD3:67A8:1F7A:1EF4 ( talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The text states "The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes.[4] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 trillion tons of carbon (TtC)". I really have no idea how to compare those values... does anybody?!! I am *guessing* the comparison is between "50 billion tonnes" and "4 trillion tonnes"... but this really needs to be clarified (no guessing) or completely eliminated. Hydradix ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
in the section Non canonical bases there's the sentence: 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil (hm5dU) is also known to replace thymidine, i believe (hm5dU) means 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuridine & not uracil, because (hm5dU) is a nucleoside with a deoxyribose witch makes the name correct, while 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil is a Thymine base that it's Methyl group was Hydroxylated and can not be Deoxygenated. also a base can not replace a nucleoside bcz thymidine is a nucleoside, I hope you correct that if I'm right. (excuse my weak english) -- Momas ( talk) 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is a date in Feb 1953 described as being "months" earlier than the previously discussed date in the same month, in the History section as it introduces Linus Pauling? There seems to have been some wear and tear through prior edits. DulcetTone ( talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a link or reference to Epigenome and genomics. Not a single mention of Epigenome on the whole page, it's like as if this page is modern anti-science, and is stuck in the past ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.144.221 ( talk) 21:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In the section "DNA profiling", shouldn't the use of DNA testing to prove the innocence of (possibly earlier convicted) suspects be mentioned too?-- Nø ( talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dna is a song by the Korean band bts 81.108.170.249 ( talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Should a section be added in regards to the i-motif and how its the subject of ongoing research? Gabefair ( talk) 00:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Cell division in meiosis creates daughter cells which have half a set of chromosomes. I can't think of a non-awkward way to fix this. Any ideas? JustOneMore ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In ===Non-canonical bases=== paragraph 6:
change 6N-methyadenine to 6N-methyladenine - it's clearly a typo
add a period (".") after the following sentence:
The complete replacement of cytosine by 5-glycosylhydroxymethylcytosine in T even phages (T2, T4 and T6) was observed in 1953 [1]
as I presume the capital letter in the following word signifies the beginning of a new sentence 94.78.183.18 ( talk) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Dna stays in chromosome. Human body has about 35.7 trillions cells. And every cell has 46 cromosome. Dna contains gene which is the the most important part of DNA. DNA has four materials. Such as : deoxiademino monophopate , deoxicytidine monophospate, deoxitymidine monophospate and deoxiganucine monophospate . They make nuecliotide. And that makes gene Himel das porag ( talk) 14:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "Complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine, and thymine, have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites." My impression from reading this was that long, complex segments of DNA/RNA had been formed in the laboratory. However, the source cited makes it clear that what was formed in the laboratory were amino acids (uracil, cytosine, and thymine) rather than strands of DNA/RNA. I would consider looking for an improved wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.227.0.240 ( talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC) #
The archaic equivalent of DNA
This was the only information it carried. (1 and 2 initially were one and the same, but evolved organisms differentiated most processes)
Initially that divicausal molecules (not infokeeping molecules, but according to
information theory everything is information or can be interpreted as so, but that has informational implications) were not one, but many, and gradually specific roles per component were established.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please mark all unsourced content (sentences, paragraphs) with citation needed tags, and please mark all book references that lack page numbers with the page needed tags, so that the students we train know that this is not how they should compose Wikipedia content. (If a subsection or section fails citation verification checks, please mark that section with the appropriate section tag.) This is supposed to be an exemplary article. We should not be finding unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY / WP:OR / WP:PSTS, nor find Stryer and other books being cited as a broad, 600-page sources. 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A ( talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A ( talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
{{replyto|
Can I Log In}}
(Talk)
05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)It's been over 13 years since this went through Wikipedia:Featured article review/DNA/archive2, which was a few months after it regained FA status. I feel another reassessment might be warranted. From a glance, there's a bunch of unsourced text (with the "Transcription and translation" section having no citations at all), and many (but not all) of the used references are more than a decade old. Is nothing more up-to-date available for the claims those are attributed to? If things don't improve soon, then I might take this to FAR. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 20:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.212.98 ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
At some point the name changed from 'desoxy' to 'deoxy'. In the piece there is a reference to one paper (ref 192 today) from 1944 which uses the 'desoxy' name. Mr Google does not seem to know (or I am entering the wrong question) - does anyone know? Certainly by the time of W&C's 1953 paper the 'deoxy' name had become normal. Cross Reference ( talk) 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Dag Hammarskjöld won the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. ---- MountVic127 ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cubandrew.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Axiao12, Daisy.v.leon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since this is Deoxyribonucleic acid, something should be said under "Properties" about its quite strong acidity. It is a polymer of phosphate esters, and "Since a monophosphate ester of this kind is a strong acid (pKa of 1.0), it will be fully ionized at the usual physiological pH (ca.7.4)." I.e. it will be in its conjugate base form in the cell. And the negative charge repels many nucleophiles that would otherwise attack it, so reducing the rate of nucleophilic hydrolysis by several orders of magnitude (these points sourced on this Michigan State University page Nucleic Acids.
This
edit request to
DNA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"a common way is the their
melting temperature"
81.103.38.4 (
talk)
09:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Concerns this section: DNA#Listing of non-canonical bases found in DNA.
If Adenosine is a building block for RNA and Adenine only one of its components (the other being some ribose), can you please clarify why it is listed here alongside the other bases? Frankly, I believe that this is a mistake and it should be Adenine, but I cannot really know. TIA anyway. –ꟼsycho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 ( talk) 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we give Rosalinda Franklin a more prominent place in this article?
I think she may be mentioned in the first paragraph.
Kind regards, SeemGyro1 SeemGyro1 ( talk) 09:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)