![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
I've tried my best merging the info contained in monocistronic and polycistronic into a new subsection in this article, but it still reads as an enumeration of facts and should be reworked to read more smoothly. Could any native speaker please improve grammar and style? Thank you. I havent removed the source articles yet in case anybody want to check the merging. I've also added the link to endosymbiotic theory in this context, since this interpretation seems te be consensus nowadays. -- Axeloide 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not need to be merged mRNA mentions it already and it does not need to be as in depth.
This article is getting long enough as it is, not to mention that all of the articles being considered for merging into it have enormous potential to be filled with information as soon as someone knowledgeable has that time. The appropriate action would be to summarise the information in the mRNA article and provide a link using the 'details' template to the individual article. -- Username132 ( talk) 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be merged as it provides more detail. However, it does need some improvement. TransControl 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO transfering the info contained in the mono-/ polycistronic mRNA articles into the main article is apropriate, since this info wasn't mentioned in the main mRNA page, not even in summarized form. I agree, that this sub-articles have potential to be filled with information in future and therefore shouldn't be deleted, but left as stubs to be adopted by an expert. We should wait for those sub-articles to become something more than a stub, before thinking about how to summarize this main article's section. I'm adding the details and main templates in order to avoid parallel work being done one main and sub-topic, as noted in Wikipedia:Summary_style. -- Axeloide 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Instead of just discussing I dared to be bold and tried my best in summarizing the m/p-cistronic section and moving the details to the subarticles. Sorry for merging and then spliting again, but I now agree with Username132 in that a mere definition of those terms is sufficient in the main article, with the subarticles providing the right framework for detailed info; the trend is "growing articles" not "shrinking them", so let's begin right away with the right structure. -- Axeloide 13:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree no fusion. "Jack BSc" 2008
Does anybody know what the dynamic range of mRNA is in a typical human cell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob A ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I do not concur that this is a wholly bad article, I feel some basic components are missing. Detail is always needed, but some help for those learning to walk in this area would be appreciated.
--I do not agree with the comment that mRNA is transcribed from sense DNA. you can do that, but that is not what nature does. Nature transcribes mRNA from anti-sense DNA, to yield sense mRNA. Please check this, as I think this is a serious error.
i do agree —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.80.188 (
talk)
22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Wikipedia has not yet decided on a guideline regarding abbreviations that start with letters such as "M" or "F", which when pronounced out loud would require "an" preceding them even though when said fully, "a messenger RNA."
This is the talk page on the style guidelines.
[1]
No clear conclusion.
However, regardless of what is decided in the future, I think there should at least be consistency within an article.
Because all the style guidelines I've looked through dictate that it should be written in the way it would be read aloud,
[2]
[3]I think it is most appropriate to change all references to "an mRNA," since that would be the way one would read it (e.g. an em-arr-en-ay molecule).
As of now there are 3 references to "a mRNA" and 8 to "an mRNA," supporting my view that this is the more common form.
I will make the changes shortly, unless anyone has any objections.
Ibenami (
talk)
17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
References
The statement "mRNA is also being studied as a source of therapeutic gene products and protein replacement therapies in vivo." and the source "BioWorld Today" don't match very well. The article is about a licensing deal, and the statement needs a solid reference. It appears to be buzzword future research looking for credibility. I suggest it be removed. -- Nitsuaeekcm ( talk) 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "Moderate anemia was result." is unclear and not grammatically correct. (Does this mutation cause anemia? That seems odd given that we are not talking about a specific mRNA molecule.) I do not know enough about the subject to feel comfortable fixing this issue. If no one knows a way to fix that sentence, I suggest that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.90.201 ( talk) 19:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Messenger RNA. 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) 13:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Messenger RNA/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article only includes information relevant for eukaryotes, which is a major hinderance. The article is long enough already, but should include links to information on prokaryotic mRNA transcription, processing and decay. If that article does not exist, I'll try to write it later. |
Last edited at 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I liked the information you have post and I find it interesting and valuable. I just hoped that you included some resources about prokaryotic mRNA as the previous comment mention. otherwise I do like the post and I had that chance to learn some new information about mRNA. Muruj Kadi Muruj Qadi ( talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Malik.albahlani ( talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Please forgive me if I'm missing something (still new here), but I've noticed a significant lack of citations in the Transcription and Eukaryotic pre-mRNA processing subheadings. Should I be placing this there --> citation needed?
Malik.albahlani ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I realised that these sections are linked to other articles so citations aren't needed. Just added some updates to the links for clarity.
Is there a place I can go to learn about Messenger RNA? I would need a PhD to understand this article, and I was just trying to get a handle on what Messenger RNA actually is and does. I was hoping to find that here. 73.6.96.168 ( talk) 18:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This line: "mRNA is created during the process of transcription, where an enzyme (RNA polymerase) converts the gene into primary transcript mRNA (also known as pre-mRNA)."
Is plain wrong and very misleading. RNA polymerase does not convert genes to mRNA. The nuclear DNA on which genes are coded is not altered at all. A section of it is copied - transcribed - as a piece of mRNA by RNA polymerase.
This article has much clearer wording: /info/en/?search=RNA_polymerase
I suggest that it is used to improve this article. John2o2o2o ( talk) 10:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the current sentence in the article on the history of mRNA is derived from these edits in 2014 and 2015 by users LilyKitty, Graehare, and Johnrayphd.
Unfortunately, the cited article (which was added later) indicates that the actual history was rather different. I propose to reword the sentence on the history of mRNA to the following:
The possibility of the existence of mRNA first came to Sydney Brenner and Francis Crick on 15 April 1960 at King's College, Cambridge, while François Jacob was telling them about recent findings of an experiment conducted by Arthur Pardee, himself, and Jacques Monod (later known as the PaJaMo experiment). That summer, the existence of mRNA was demonstrated in an experiment conducted by Brenner, Jacob, and Matthew Meselson at the California Institute of Technology, and that fall, Jacob and Monod coined the name "messenger RNA" and developed the first theoretical framework. In February 1961, James Watson revealed that his research group was just behind them with an experiment in the same general direction and asked them to delay publication of their research. As a result, the Brenner and Watson articles were published simultaneously in Nature in May 1961, while that same month, Jacob and Monod published their theoretical framework for mRNA in the Journal of Molecular Biology.
If no one objects, I plan to insert this text in a few weeks. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I'm going ahead. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I want to add this to the Applications section. Placing here for discussion:
Overcoming these challenges, mRNA as a therapeutic was first put forward in 1989 - “after the development of a broadly applicable in vitro transfection technique” [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.187.109 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Why was Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, removed from the article? Does it have anything to do with him coming out publicly saying he had grave concerns about it, 5 days before his name was removed? Is he the inventor or not? Internet searches seem to indicate that he is. Why are facts being removed from WikiPedia? I would be happy to discuss with the person who claims that Mr Malone didn't invent mRNA technology, maybe we can have a good discussion. The sentence that was removed: "mRNA was invented by Dr. Robert Malone."
139.216.142.156 ( talk) 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
I've tried my best merging the info contained in monocistronic and polycistronic into a new subsection in this article, but it still reads as an enumeration of facts and should be reworked to read more smoothly. Could any native speaker please improve grammar and style? Thank you. I havent removed the source articles yet in case anybody want to check the merging. I've also added the link to endosymbiotic theory in this context, since this interpretation seems te be consensus nowadays. -- Axeloide 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not need to be merged mRNA mentions it already and it does not need to be as in depth.
This article is getting long enough as it is, not to mention that all of the articles being considered for merging into it have enormous potential to be filled with information as soon as someone knowledgeable has that time. The appropriate action would be to summarise the information in the mRNA article and provide a link using the 'details' template to the individual article. -- Username132 ( talk) 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be merged as it provides more detail. However, it does need some improvement. TransControl 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO transfering the info contained in the mono-/ polycistronic mRNA articles into the main article is apropriate, since this info wasn't mentioned in the main mRNA page, not even in summarized form. I agree, that this sub-articles have potential to be filled with information in future and therefore shouldn't be deleted, but left as stubs to be adopted by an expert. We should wait for those sub-articles to become something more than a stub, before thinking about how to summarize this main article's section. I'm adding the details and main templates in order to avoid parallel work being done one main and sub-topic, as noted in Wikipedia:Summary_style. -- Axeloide 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Instead of just discussing I dared to be bold and tried my best in summarizing the m/p-cistronic section and moving the details to the subarticles. Sorry for merging and then spliting again, but I now agree with Username132 in that a mere definition of those terms is sufficient in the main article, with the subarticles providing the right framework for detailed info; the trend is "growing articles" not "shrinking them", so let's begin right away with the right structure. -- Axeloide 13:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree no fusion. "Jack BSc" 2008
Does anybody know what the dynamic range of mRNA is in a typical human cell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob A ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I do not concur that this is a wholly bad article, I feel some basic components are missing. Detail is always needed, but some help for those learning to walk in this area would be appreciated.
--I do not agree with the comment that mRNA is transcribed from sense DNA. you can do that, but that is not what nature does. Nature transcribes mRNA from anti-sense DNA, to yield sense mRNA. Please check this, as I think this is a serious error.
i do agree —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.80.188 (
talk)
22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Wikipedia has not yet decided on a guideline regarding abbreviations that start with letters such as "M" or "F", which when pronounced out loud would require "an" preceding them even though when said fully, "a messenger RNA."
This is the talk page on the style guidelines.
[1]
No clear conclusion.
However, regardless of what is decided in the future, I think there should at least be consistency within an article.
Because all the style guidelines I've looked through dictate that it should be written in the way it would be read aloud,
[2]
[3]I think it is most appropriate to change all references to "an mRNA," since that would be the way one would read it (e.g. an em-arr-en-ay molecule).
As of now there are 3 references to "a mRNA" and 8 to "an mRNA," supporting my view that this is the more common form.
I will make the changes shortly, unless anyone has any objections.
Ibenami (
talk)
17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
References
The statement "mRNA is also being studied as a source of therapeutic gene products and protein replacement therapies in vivo." and the source "BioWorld Today" don't match very well. The article is about a licensing deal, and the statement needs a solid reference. It appears to be buzzword future research looking for credibility. I suggest it be removed. -- Nitsuaeekcm ( talk) 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "Moderate anemia was result." is unclear and not grammatically correct. (Does this mutation cause anemia? That seems odd given that we are not talking about a specific mRNA molecule.) I do not know enough about the subject to feel comfortable fixing this issue. If no one knows a way to fix that sentence, I suggest that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.90.201 ( talk) 19:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Messenger RNA. 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) 13:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Messenger RNA/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article only includes information relevant for eukaryotes, which is a major hinderance. The article is long enough already, but should include links to information on prokaryotic mRNA transcription, processing and decay. If that article does not exist, I'll try to write it later. |
Last edited at 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I liked the information you have post and I find it interesting and valuable. I just hoped that you included some resources about prokaryotic mRNA as the previous comment mention. otherwise I do like the post and I had that chance to learn some new information about mRNA. Muruj Kadi Muruj Qadi ( talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Malik.albahlani ( talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Please forgive me if I'm missing something (still new here), but I've noticed a significant lack of citations in the Transcription and Eukaryotic pre-mRNA processing subheadings. Should I be placing this there --> citation needed?
Malik.albahlani ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I realised that these sections are linked to other articles so citations aren't needed. Just added some updates to the links for clarity.
Is there a place I can go to learn about Messenger RNA? I would need a PhD to understand this article, and I was just trying to get a handle on what Messenger RNA actually is and does. I was hoping to find that here. 73.6.96.168 ( talk) 18:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This line: "mRNA is created during the process of transcription, where an enzyme (RNA polymerase) converts the gene into primary transcript mRNA (also known as pre-mRNA)."
Is plain wrong and very misleading. RNA polymerase does not convert genes to mRNA. The nuclear DNA on which genes are coded is not altered at all. A section of it is copied - transcribed - as a piece of mRNA by RNA polymerase.
This article has much clearer wording: /info/en/?search=RNA_polymerase
I suggest that it is used to improve this article. John2o2o2o ( talk) 10:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the current sentence in the article on the history of mRNA is derived from these edits in 2014 and 2015 by users LilyKitty, Graehare, and Johnrayphd.
Unfortunately, the cited article (which was added later) indicates that the actual history was rather different. I propose to reword the sentence on the history of mRNA to the following:
The possibility of the existence of mRNA first came to Sydney Brenner and Francis Crick on 15 April 1960 at King's College, Cambridge, while François Jacob was telling them about recent findings of an experiment conducted by Arthur Pardee, himself, and Jacques Monod (later known as the PaJaMo experiment). That summer, the existence of mRNA was demonstrated in an experiment conducted by Brenner, Jacob, and Matthew Meselson at the California Institute of Technology, and that fall, Jacob and Monod coined the name "messenger RNA" and developed the first theoretical framework. In February 1961, James Watson revealed that his research group was just behind them with an experiment in the same general direction and asked them to delay publication of their research. As a result, the Brenner and Watson articles were published simultaneously in Nature in May 1961, while that same month, Jacob and Monod published their theoretical framework for mRNA in the Journal of Molecular Biology.
If no one objects, I plan to insert this text in a few weeks. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I'm going ahead. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I want to add this to the Applications section. Placing here for discussion:
Overcoming these challenges, mRNA as a therapeutic was first put forward in 1989 - “after the development of a broadly applicable in vitro transfection technique” [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.187.109 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Why was Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, removed from the article? Does it have anything to do with him coming out publicly saying he had grave concerns about it, 5 days before his name was removed? Is he the inventor or not? Internet searches seem to indicate that he is. Why are facts being removed from WikiPedia? I would be happy to discuss with the person who claims that Mr Malone didn't invent mRNA technology, maybe we can have a good discussion. The sentence that was removed: "mRNA was invented by Dr. Robert Malone."
139.216.142.156 ( talk) 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)