Talk:Nucleic acid double helix

message: This section is wrong in many ways. I have already gone through this in the main DNA article. There are not only three types of double-helical DNA (there are A-, B-, D-, C-, E-, G-, H-, and Z-forms, just to name a few) and they do not differ "modestly". Z-DNA differs so much from B-DNA (e.g. it winds to the left and in a zig-zag pattern) that it is used precisely as a form to show just how much DNA can differ from the commonly understood right-handed, smooth backbone form. I have changed this many times, but over and over again people continue to change it back to say "they only differ modestly". --Thorwald 02:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different helix geometries 

message: I have carried out a massive rewrite of this article, and all the info which used to be there should still be there... plus more! I realise it is essentially unreferenced and when i have more time it will collect some references. I ask ppl to read it and correct my appalling grammar and spelling! :) - Zephyris Talk 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This article is quite long and has kind of lost purpose, any suggestions from anyone on what should be done with it? - Zephyris Talk 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest concern is the overlap of DNA with mechanical properties of DNA and the 'isolatedness' of this article - it only has 5 pages linking to it! But im definately not in favour of getting rid of any information :) - Zephyris Talk 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of the article

message: Can anybody find some sort of source for this comment? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed a similar statement which was recently added: "(The main problem with the equation L = W + T is that it is dimensionally flawed.  L is an integer and W & T are real numbers.  Real numbers cannot be added together to produce an integer.  This problem has never been addressed even though several authors, like Schleif, and Delmonte, for example, have commented upon it.  Any topological deductions drawn by mixing up real numbers and integers are flawed and are of doubtful use.)"  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Integers discussion

message: This article was moved from DNA structure to Nucleic acid secondary structure as a result of a proposal at WT:MCB.  DNA structure now redirects to Nucleic acid structure instead.  Antony-22 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive reorganization of biomolecular structure articles

message: This article was moved from Nucleic acid secondary structure to Nucleic acid double helix, and then the article was split with some material moved back to create a new article at Nucleic acid secondary structure.  The split was done this way to keep the edit history at the article containing the larger portion of the split.  Then, Double helix was merged into this article.  Antony-22 (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase II

message: Double helix is a geometrical structure outside of nucleic acid. Why isn't there an article simply about The Double Helix as well? Why should "double helix" direct me the the structure of nucleic acid, something which just so happens to be in the shape of a double helix?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.167.220 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a disambiguation page at Double helix (disambiguation), which in linked in the hatnote at the top of this article.  The truth is, almost all of the incoming links to Double helix mention it in the context of DNA, so it would seem more appropriate to send those links here rather than the disambiguation page. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 03:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Helix

message: There's no reference for such statement and it is very imprecise. What does most organisms stand for? in biomass? in number of species?, it means most prokaryotes? (at least I would agree with that). From the way in which the DNA is 'twisted' around nucleosome cores, solenoids  and the higher levels of DNA packaging it follows that nuclear eukaryotic DNA is most likely positively supercoiled. Nucleosomic DNA has 10.17 base pairs per twist whereas the relaxed B-DNA double helix has 10.5bp. The tension generated is partially released by generating positive supercoils while decreasing the number of twists. Thus, negative supercoiling, i.e.,  with fewer twists than the relaxed B-DNA double helix, would be restricted to prokaryotes with the exception of extreme thermophils (with positively supercoiled DNA to to prevent dsDNA denaturation).Heathmoor (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is really chromosomic DNA negatively supercoiled in most organisms?

message: "Image of a DNA chain which shows the double helix replicating itself" is misleading, because DNA can't actually replicate itself, but requires a bevy of enzymes and cofactors to perform this function.  
How about "Image of a DNA chain showing the basis for replication of the sequence". 96.54.32.44 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading caption on the lead image. 

message: The animated picture of the common B form of DNA 
File:DNA orbit animated static thumb.png
fails to rotate, unlike the nice animations on the separate Z-DNA and A-DNA articles.  Perhaps it is a browser-dependent problem (I use Mozilla) and the animation rotates for most users.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Png fails to move 

message: I really like it - it's a helpful illustration, but it would be nice if it were darker and not hand-drawn.  I was originally wondering (due to the handwritten quality) if this was from a famous scientist's personal notes/diary.  So it's fine, and can stay in my opinion, but darker and clearer would be nice.--Varkman (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Base Pair Parameters Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nucleic acid double helix. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621054514/http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/DNA_structure.php to http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/DNA_structure.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526105110/http://rutchem.rutgers.edu/~xiangjun/3DNA/misc/fiber_model.txt to http://rutchem.rutgers.edu/~xiangjun/3DNA/misc/fiber_model.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lead image appears to be two helices one stacked on top of the other. They do not constitute a double helix, which are intertwined. The connecting base-pairing are thus very distorted from the true picture. This image should be replaced with a proper 3D image - Martin
Vcpmartin (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  Actually, there used to be a better lead image that got removed by an IP user in March 2018.  I just restored that one while keeping the one you added; I think it's useful to have a simplified representation there too. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image is not a double helix 

message: I Am Boom of God 107.126.28.3 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbas on the main line