Talk:DNA/Archive 13

message: In DNA Damage thalidomide is listed as a mutagen. Not to my knowledge it isn't! Does anyone have a source for this statement or shall I remove it? Fantastic article, by the way! Ewen 06:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional ref added. TimVickers 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean , there is nothing noted about thalidomide as a mutagen.  The thalidomide article states that it is not a mutagen and references .  So, we have two articles with conflicting statements. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thalidomide by my reading is tetragenic - which means it interferes with normal embryo development; it does not necessarily mean that it is a DNA mutagen.--Peta 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: However these guy showed it intercolates with DNA (T. D. Stephens, C. J. Bunde and B. J. Fillmore, Biochem. Pharmacol., 2000, 59, 1489. )--Peta 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Reword to make clear that thalidomide is mentioned as an intercalator, but not necessarily a mutagen. TimVickers 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd cut it from the section all together, it's just one of several examples.--Peta 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I put it in as it is a drug many people have heard of, while most people are unlikely to have come across the other examples in the newspapers. This drug does intercalate with DNA, what is the problem? TimVickers 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Thalidomide is a well known human teratogen, and possibly not mutagenic at all.  Even if it could cause mutations, it confuses the point to use a teratogen as an example of a mutagen.  There are a few references in the following link that may be of interest (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1124708) Dr d12 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I can see that argument. You're right. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thalidomide a mutagen? 

message: I have a problem with the audio vesion of this article seems to imply that viruses are alive. and it does this in the very paragraph! the written article does a better job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adenosine (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The audio version 

message: the last external link is to a jehovah's witness website, which starts off sounding scientific, and then begins to explain how the Creator made the genetic code.. is that appropriate? 131.111.8.99 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam addition, I've removed it. TimVickers 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jehovah's witness link? 

message: Namely, retroviruses only contain RNA, which they use to produce DNA inside the host cell. --132.69.234.73 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viruses are typically not considered to be alive. Raul654 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, sometimes they are. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry. As you can see, I didn't do my homework. --132.69.234.73 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To sum up viruses are generally classified as not "living organisms" but "quasi-living organisms" ie. half-living organisms.-ArazZeynilitalkcontrib19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget red blood cells and platelets. ;) Wnt (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All living things DO NOT contain DNA. 

message: In the Physical and Chemical Properties section, there is some egregious text: "The common knowledge is that gays love dna and cause dna to swirl." It probably doesn't add anything to the article, and can be removed.  :) 72.164.10.151 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no such text in the current version, try clearing your cache. TimVickers 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been defaced 

message: In the introduction DNA is said to never act directly on molecules (unlike enzymes).  Unfortunately this is not always true.  It is believed that DNA may act on molecules in some situations (e.g. siDNA, although in that case it is DNA acting on DNA).  Perhaps this section could be edited to read "in most cases..." or "coding DNA..."
69.255.38.193 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly you mean siRNA, which is not DNA. There are several examples of RNA acting on molecules. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Suggestion 

message: The second sentence of this section is incorrect.  The sense strand is not the one copied by RNA polymerase (template strand).  I edited the section in Sense (molecular biology).  Maybe you can look there and see how you want to change this. Telliott 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, good catch. TimVickers 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More compact storage of information, therefore more information per unit size. TimVickers 04:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough; upon reading some of the information article, i see what you mean.. the data is the same but the information is different. 131.111.8.102 10:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense and antisense 

message: Well, the stuff of life made the Main Page :) (my, that sounded cheesy) Congrats to Tim who made the push for FA and all the editors who valiantly fought vandalism to this article today, and, in spite of and due to 260 edits, here we have in my humble opinion a rare instance of an FA which came out of its Maindate even better. Fvasconcellos 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief congratulations 

message: reproduction, a process in biological DNA that dates back 3.5 - 4.6 billion years. (  )
I have removed this as it is inaccurate, early life may not have used DNA as its genome, RNA is a possibility but we have no evidence. Similarly, we have no evidence when sexual reproduction evolved. Most of the history of life on earth is bacterial and archaeal, and these organisms reproduce asexually. TimVickers 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some material on the evolutionary history of DNA to the "Overview of biological functions" introduction. TimVickers 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The formation of atoms is indeed a very interesting area. However, a problem I see in adding information to this article on the formation of matter is that this material would have to be repeated in every article that deals with mater-based objects. It might be better to simply add this once to the specific article on matter. TimVickers 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same agument you put forward on matter could be used for adding a time frame as to when DNA and RNA started replicating. I agree with you that Matter formation does not have to be included in the DNA page due to its generally accepted understanding. However to not include a date for the formation for DNA in the DNA page is missing an important element in the wiki. RoddyYoung 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can find a reliable high-quality source that deals with this, then please by all means add it to the section on "Evolution of DNA-based metabolism". However, I have not been able to find this information, since, as I explain in this section, I don't think anybody really knows. TimVickers 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In that document it states "We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared." It also does not state when this might have occurred. I don't see how I can use that document to write about how and when DNA originated. TimVickers 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out above, 3-4 billion years ago life may have been based on RNA. To say that it was DNA-based is supposition. If we have no references to support a statement, then it has to be removed as it is not attributed to a reliable source. If you can find a reference that says when DNA evolved, then I will be happy to add that date. I have been unable to find any such references. TimVickers 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AGE OF DNA 

message: Just looking for confirmation of the number of DNA structures known so far - this article states A,B,C,D,E,H,L & Z DNA. However, the article on Mechanical properties of DNA is missing H & L, as well as adding P-DNA.  Is P-DNA a structure or a description of the DNA's function (as I'm guessing rDNA (ribosomal) DNA is).  This page seems to indicate P-DNA as a new structure: [DNA Structure: Yet another avatar?] I also found this page: [Boehringer Ingelheim Biopharmaceuticals - pDNA Production]. Zarius 07:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one of the refs seems pretty comprehensive. Ghosh A, Bansal M. A glossary of DNA structures from A to Z. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2003 Apr;59(Pt 4):620-6. 25. I've not heard of ribosomal DNA, are you sure you don't mean rRNA? TimVickers 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA Structures 

message: I just realised that I used thymidine in the base modification section to replace thymine.  I have always used thymidine and have rarely heard thymine.  Is this a chemist vs biologist nomenclature difference?  Or is it a historical difference and, if so, which is the current standard for publications? David D. (Talk) 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thymidine is the base-sugar unit, thymine is the base alone. TimVickers 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, thanks for breaking it gently :) David D. (Talk) 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I got it wrong once when I was giving a seminar, my boss wasn't gentle! TimVickers 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thymine or thymidine 

message: Is the article meant to say "nucleotide repeats"? - "The nucleotide repeats contain both the backbone of the molecule, which holds the chain together, and a base, which interacts with the other DNA strand in the helix." If so, what does it mean? --Seans Potato Business 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict: I think, taking a step back, I see that it just means a bunch of nucleotides... I don't know if anyone else would get confused the way that I did, but maybe "each nucleotide contains" would avoid such a thing. --Seans Potato Business 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your adjustment better. :) --Seans Potato Business 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nucleotide repeats" 

message: This sentence implies that telomeres contain genes; Telomeres and centromeres typically contain few genes, but are important for the function and stability of chromosomes. Is this true? --Seans Potato Business 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define them, authors differ on if they only designate the telomeric repeat sequences as telomeres, or if they include the larger region of sequence involved in telomeric structures such as loops. In the larger definition, "sub-telomeric" genes such as the VAR genes in Plasmodium fall within the telomere region. I decided that in David's excellent terminology that it was "better to be vague than wrong" and skim over the top of this controversy. TimVickers 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. :) --Seans Potato Business 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree here, of course ;). Centromeres certainly have functional genes and they are required to maintain the heterochromatin structure of the centromere in a negative feed back type interaction involving RNAi. Telomeres, as Tim mentioned above are less clear since it depends on the definition. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genes In Telomeres? 

message: I recently changed the opening section's mention of chromatin to specifically only apply to eukaryotes, but this was reverted by TimVickers. According to the Wiki article, "Chromatin is the complex of DNA and protein found inside the nuclei of eukaryotic cells." Personally I can't remember seeing the term chromatin ever being used about prokaryotic DNA-protein complexes, although I can't rule it out (it would be logical to use the term in prokaryotes since the term chromosome is also used there). My trusty old textbooks didn't have any final word on it but only mentioned eukaryotic chromatin (for example, Stryer 5th Ed. page 875). I then checked my dictionary of biological terms (Henderson, 12th Ed.), which defined chromatin as "the complex of DNA and histone proteins that makes up the basic material of eukaryotic chromosomes." But that's just a dictionary of course.
In any case, either this article should be changed to say that chromatin is in eukaryotes only, or the chromatin article should be changed to say that chromatin is both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Right now they contradict each other. Sakkura 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bacterial chromosomes are not free DNA but are found in association with chromatin proteins homologous to the proteins found in eukaryotes. link 1 link 2 This isn't covered much in textbooks, but I added some references to this in the protein-DNA interactions section. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy in the chromatin page, I've changed that lead a little and added a reference. TimVickers 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the DNA doesn't just float about freely in prokaryotes, but never heard of the DNA-protein complexes in bacteria or archaea described as chromatin. I guess the literature tends to gloss over it since the importance of chromatin and histones is more established in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes. Thanks for clearing this up Sakkura 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromatin and prokaryotes 

message: After the last sentence of the third paragraph of the "Physical and Chemical Properties" section:
"One of the major differences between DNA and RNA is the sugar, with 2-deoxyribose being replaced by the alternative pentose sugar ribose in RNA.[6]"
Can you put "(hence the nomenclature Deoxyrido(in italics)nucleic Acid and Ribonucleic Acid)" or something to this effect which gives further clarity to the names DNA and RNA.
Thanks 
Anna —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.25.174 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small change 

message: Is it possible that to geneticaly mutate humans using animal DNA e.g Spider Man put comments on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.209.61.246 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See genetically modified organism. TimVickers 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tim!!! 15:26, 02 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic mutation : Is it possible? 

message: This isn't psychobabble, I read it on Yahoo so it must be true - remember, you're spos'ta trust everything you read!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/politicalpreferenceishalfgenetic;_ylt=AsbP0KuvHdTuU3YFsO9d446s0NUE
:You have grossly misrepresented the actual study. There was no gene sequencing involved; the study was done by a psychologist. Genetics was brought in by looking at families and identical twins. This really doesn't belong in the DNA article.—WAvegetarian (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientists isolate the gene for political party votes! 

message: This is a very comprehensive page on DNA, but I did miss a part on triple helix formation, using Hoogsteen and reverse Hoogsteen base-pairing. I've been in the field in the '90 (elucidating their crystal structure, see this and this scientific article), and from then I remember their biological role was unclear, but that triple helix formation might have some important applications, since it allows for the base-specific blocking of the major groove. --D-rex 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment, I'll try to add this to the article somewhere. TimVickers 13:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx, I didn't want to imply that you have to use the references to my articles though, it was just to prove my credibility. Anyway, there is a article on Triple-stranded DNA that deserves a link to from here. --D-rex 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple helix DNA 

message: Hi! I would like to comment to this DNA page only, that I found a mistake! By the bases, you wrote, that the uracil is only in the DNA, but in small mass in bacterial DNA too... So this not right, you should write, that in oly RNA, and in small mass in bacterial DNA too!:)
Only this! This page is very good, thank you for it!
Christian from Hungary
::I can't see that statement, where in the article do you mean? TimVickers 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is under the "Physical and chemical properties" section in the sentence, "Uracil is normally only found in DNA as a breakdown product of cytosine, but a very rare exception to this rule is a bacterial virus called PBS1 that contains uracil in its DNA". Christian is correct. --Thorwald 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that sentence could be read in that manner, I've reworded it to try to make its meaning unambiguous. "Uracil is not usually found in DNA, occurring only as a breakdown product of cytosine,..." TimVickers 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bases have to pain with one another, A with T and G with C, so there an only be an even number of types of bases in DNA. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uracil query 

message: Hi there, I've been reading the Citizendium version of our article and notice it is based on an old copy that contained several errors. Most seriously, it retains the incorrect definition of the sense and antisense strands that we fixed in February. If anybody with access to this page can correct this error that would be great. Tim Vickers 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium version of this article 

message: I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong location or something but I am working on a bit of fiction and would like a bit of clearification in regards to base pairs. I was reading the base pair section and, I think I am right but to be safe: In a nutshell, can DNA be viewed as a biological form of Binary or did I miss read? I mean I know DNA is so much more but I'm looking for this particular aspect. Any info would be great to help me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalSaber (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about binary numbers, but DNA has 4 states C,G,A or T. These are coded in triplets to read one of twenty amino acids, eg ATG = methionine. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You could imagine that it is like binary machine code, but that the machine it runs on is a cell. and as Tim says DNA is quaternary. Graeme Bartlett 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA: Biological Binary? 

message: This is in reference to the history section of the main article. O. Avery did not find transforming principle . It was Fedrick Griffith who discovered that a transforming principle ( as coined by him)transforms rough strains of pneumococcus into smooth strains. Avery and his co-workers found out that the transforming principle was DNA. pp Pahini  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.8.84 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that was a major error. It has been corrected. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformation : Discovery 

message: Quote:
:In a double helix, the two strands are also held together via forces generated by the hydrophobic effect and pi stacking, which are not influenced by the sequence of the DNA. (DNA#Base pairing)
This sentence suggests that pi stacking contributes to basepairing. I doubt whether this is correct. As far as I know, pi stacking stabilizes the overall structure of the double helix, but does not contribute significantly to base pairing. Josq (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi stacking and base pairing 

message: I've been thinking a while on the suggestion to make an introduction to DNA-article for laymen.  But I don't think that is a good idea, it would be an indication that we have missed the goal to write this article for a broad audience.
After reviewing this article and the modifications Tim made, I acknowledge that this article is not too detailed and specialistic. Most things are well explained now. 
However, the amount of new concepts will be overwhelming for people with little or no background in biology and chemistry. I think that is a serious problem. 
My proposal is to make a "simple" section which explains the most important concepts. One should be able to get an idea what a nucleotide is, without worrying what 3' and 5' means, or roughly understand how replication works, without getting confused by the details of the replication machinery. 
I made a list of the concepts that should be understandable for every reader. Maybe I missed something, or the order has to be adjusted.
*Structure:
**Nucleotides, bases, base pairs
**strands, sequences
**double helix, complementary strands
**chromatine, chromosome
*Function:
**genes, transcription, genetic code, translation
**replication, heredity 
**mutation
*Context:
**Location of DNA in cell
**Differences between DNA and RNA
Off course, most of these concepts are now already mentioned in the introduction. However, with a very brief explaining and without pictures, these concepts will remain unclear to the unprepared reader. When a "simple" section is added at the beginning of the article, the introduction can be shortened. Also, this main concepts don't have to be explained anymore in the rest of the article.
I hope this idea will help making this article more accessible for a broader audience. Josq (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is similar to what I did for enzyme kinetics, it seems a very good idea to me. Go ahead, but try to keep it to a few paragraphs so we can keep repetition to a minimum - this article is already quite large, as noted above. We could work on it at Talk:DNA/More_simple#General_principles - I copied across the most recent version of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This simpler introduction is now part of Introduction to genetics. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a "simple" section? 

message: Hi people! I am blitox, from spannish wikipedia. I am writing this message in order to ask the administrators to take out the semi-protection advertisement. The problem is that I am working  with a translation of this article and I can not  copy the last edits with the references included. For this reason, I am really looking forward to hearing from someone here!!!
Waiting for an answear, click here as the link here does not work: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Blitox; this is my talk ok.
See you!
:Done. David D. (Talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I had already copied the article into a subpage of this user's account on the Spanish Wikipedia, so if vandalism appears again we can reinstate semi-protection without worrying about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I didn't notice that. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection 

message: It would be great to see quantitative information about nucleotides amount. Couldn't find it in article, also googling can hardly help. Seems like it should be manually estimated to get the value.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.138.160 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: okay. found it as '3 billion base pairs' => like 6 billion nucleotides?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.138.160 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right, see genome or this website for more details.  Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many nucleotides are in human DNA? 

message: Isn't there a Hydrogenbond between the lowest O and the H which is attachet to the C and therefore not marked? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, C-H bonds are not polar, since these atoms do not differ enough in electronegativity, so the C and H will not differ significantly in charge and no hydrogen bond will be formed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also notice that that H and the O are further apart than the others.  Hydrogen has a very small atomic radius, so even though the hydrogen only fits in the N-H .. O line because it is bound to the nitrogen, you might just about slip an extra unbound hydrogen into that space in the H .. .. O line from the water in which the DNA is dissolved.  So the strands really aren't in direct contact there. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydrogen bond between the lowest O and H 

message: The last line of the third paragraph of this section: "However, debate continues on who should receive credit for the discovery, as the Watson and Crick article in Nature was based on Franklin's data without either acknowledgment or her knowledge.[129]" is a little strong, and slightly gossipy in tone. In fact, the part concerning Franklin's acknowledgment is factually wrong. 
Franklin was in fact acknowledged in the original Watson-Crick article, in the penultimate paragraph: "We are much indebted to Dr. Jerry Donohue for constant advice and criticism, especially on inter-atomic distances.We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr M.H.F Wilkins, Dr R.E Franklin and their workers at King's College, London."
It would probably be better just to make note of the debate, and leave any reasons out. Something like: "However, debate continues on who should receive credit for the discovery.[129]". 
87.102.65.129 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, thank you. Yes, I see they were in the acknowledgments, so I have rearranged the sentence as you suggested. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of DNA research 

message: Article page is crashing Firefox 3.6. Something to with the images?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.183.121 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox Crash 

message: *I have moved 36 discussion sections to Talk:DNA/Archive 12. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARCHIVING 

message: See the text of the book here  and read the new Wikipedia article at Filiquarian Publishing LLC--Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, glad somebody found it useful! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: thats why i no longer contribute to wikipedia; it is bad enough having amateurs trash your stuff, and having to go back and undo mistakes that are at the level of 2+2=3, but that someone takes my hardwork and makes a profit is repulsive.
Untill wiki put out some sort of no charging money rule, i won't be doing muchCinnamon colbert (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The whole point of wikipedia is to collect and share information for re-use any way that people want, without the restrictions of "non-commercial" and such.  Note that the "book" in question is also available as a free download.  I wouldn't assume they're making a profit; but a sucker is born every minute, so I guess it's possible. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you know someone is selling this article on Amazon for $9.99/£6.99? 

message: Might it be a good idea to add a paragraph to the Physical and Chemical Properties section about the macroscopic physical appearance of DNA?  This would help clarify the lay conception of DNA as little twisted ladders floating and interacting in empty, environmentless space as it is usually illustrated, and present it as something more concrete.  I am suggesting this here because I have almost zero expertise on the subject and would feel irresponsible adding it myself.  --Joseph 75.4.60.216 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion, thank you. FYI, DNA is a white fluffy and fibrous solid (a bit like cotton wool) and a clear solution (that gets a bit gloopy at high concentrations). I'll think about how that might fit in. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance 

message: The first image gives the measurements of DNA as 3.4nm/bp.  In reality it is 3.4 _Angstroms_ per bp (nm=10^-9, A=10^-10).  The "width" is correct (2nm = 20A).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.119.87 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the image is correct since it says that one turn (10 bp) are 3.4 nm. --hroest 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  _HUGE_ problem with image