This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Obsolete models of DNA structure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Non-helical models of DNA structure was copied or moved into DNA supercoil with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
So, the reason that mainstream scientists lost interest in the non-helical structure was the discovery of topoisomerases, and the implications for unwinding in bacterial chromosome replication. We need to have a section about that. These topics definitely have to be areas of intense ongoing research right now; any sources or background from anyone familiar with these topics would be greatly appreciated. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to start collecting some sources below; please feel free to add more. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 07:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)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) 02:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
So I've been looking up the history of this area and doing some updates to the organisation of the article to focus a bit more on the historical context of why the theories were initially proposed in the '70s. I think it's probably worthwhile separating which elements are obsolete models before the evidence in favour of in vivo B-DNA became overwhelming, and which are modern day fringe theories (though there's probably no hard boundary between the two). As well as how to structure the History section, it will also affect whether the article is just in Category:Obsolete scientific theories, or also in Category:Fringe science. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just made this edit to copy edit and tidy references added by Ycxu2019 and Catslash. Ycxu2019 had asked for help at the Help Desk and the Science Reference Desk. Catslash obliged but noted the apparent SELFCITE issue. In correcting the refs, I noticed that reference 36, on which Xu has commented (reference 37), is from F1000Research, which is new to me as a publisher doing peer review after publication. Two reviewers raised issues needing change with that paper and the third rejected it outright. The book chapter by Xu is published by IntechOpen (which redirects to predatory publishing) and the paper in Symmetry is published by MDPI, who were on Beall's List, and is dated 25 November 2019. My concerns include:
I will cross-post requesting help from the Science RD thread, and the Chemistry, Genetics, and Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProjects. EdChem ( talk) 04:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, I note that you have recently edited to remove a predatory source and citing WP:UNDUE. Both of these edits relate directly to the topic in this thread, so I wonder if you would like to make any comments on the various issues raised here? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Obsolete models of DNA structure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Non-helical models of DNA structure was copied or moved into DNA supercoil with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
So, the reason that mainstream scientists lost interest in the non-helical structure was the discovery of topoisomerases, and the implications for unwinding in bacterial chromosome replication. We need to have a section about that. These topics definitely have to be areas of intense ongoing research right now; any sources or background from anyone familiar with these topics would be greatly appreciated. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to start collecting some sources below; please feel free to add more. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 07:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)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) 02:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
So I've been looking up the history of this area and doing some updates to the organisation of the article to focus a bit more on the historical context of why the theories were initially proposed in the '70s. I think it's probably worthwhile separating which elements are obsolete models before the evidence in favour of in vivo B-DNA became overwhelming, and which are modern day fringe theories (though there's probably no hard boundary between the two). As well as how to structure the History section, it will also affect whether the article is just in Category:Obsolete scientific theories, or also in Category:Fringe science. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just made this edit to copy edit and tidy references added by Ycxu2019 and Catslash. Ycxu2019 had asked for help at the Help Desk and the Science Reference Desk. Catslash obliged but noted the apparent SELFCITE issue. In correcting the refs, I noticed that reference 36, on which Xu has commented (reference 37), is from F1000Research, which is new to me as a publisher doing peer review after publication. Two reviewers raised issues needing change with that paper and the third rejected it outright. The book chapter by Xu is published by IntechOpen (which redirects to predatory publishing) and the paper in Symmetry is published by MDPI, who were on Beall's List, and is dated 25 November 2019. My concerns include:
I will cross-post requesting help from the Science RD thread, and the Chemistry, Genetics, and Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProjects. EdChem ( talk) 04:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, I note that you have recently edited to remove a predatory source and citing WP:UNDUE. Both of these edits relate directly to the topic in this thread, so I wonder if you would like to make any comments on the various issues raised here? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)