Talk:Central dogma of molecular biology

message: Question: Can we use a better example to cite the 'special' case of DNA to protein directly? I've checked the cited source and Googled for neomycin and I'm not convinced. A cell-free extract can still contain ribosomes and mRNA. How about this one? "" I believe the keyword to google for more info should be "messenger DNA". 218.186.9.1 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative splicing has been known for YEARS, decades, and absolutely does NOT disprove the Central Dogma. All the genome paper showed was that (1) complexity is encoded more in gene networks rather than in genes, and (2) alternative splicing plays more of a role than previously imagined in mammals. The difficulties for genetic engineering do not stem from failures in the Central Dogma. Graft 18:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure Francis Crick knows what the word dogma means. He just didn't mean it literally, that's all. Richard001 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: this makes more sense in that Crick did not intend it to mean "one considered to be absolutely true".  I'm still surprised he made that error since scientific dogmas especially in geology have long been a stumbling block for progress. I would have thought he had heard it used in that context. Indded it is ironic that it has turned into a true dogma. I'd say this is a good piece of information for the article. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The rendering of the Central Dogma found in most standard texts, thus promulgated by many supposedly well-educated molecular biologists, and reproduced in Wikipedia, is a bowdlerization of what Crick actually had to say on the topic. Crick's own version of the Central Dogma can be summarized very simply: sequence information is not transmitted from proteins to either nucleic acids or other proteins. As of February 2005, no exceptions to this rule are known. However, once we understand how prions function, there might, perhaps, be a known exception. Original sources for Crick's version of the Central Dogma are:
Crick, F.H.C. (1958) On Protein Synthesis. in Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. XII, 139-163.
Crick, F. (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563.
*Prions do not change the sequence of their target proteins, they change the conformation (folding).  So even prions will not change the central domga.David D. 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconceptions

message: This article is impossible to read, as it contradicts itself, saying in the beginning there are no exceptions to the dogma, and then in a section titled "Exceptions to the Dogma", it says that it is not really a dogma and lists exceptions. We need to clean this up and come to a consensus on what the real story is. James 00:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I can't remember where I heard it, so don't want to put it in the article, but I read that it's not a dogma - Crick didn't actually know what dogma meant and wouldn't have called it a dogma if he had. I probably read it either in The Search for DNA or the book that one of Watson & Crick wrote. Or maybe Godel Escher Bach. That doesn't answer whether there are exceptions or not though.  84.203.6.162 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Francis Crick knows what the word dogma means. He just didn't mean it literally, that's all. Richard001 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions

message: I read that the term 'central dogma' arose from Francis not knowing what the word 'dogma' meant. Hasn't it got something to do with religion? --Username132 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this makes more sense in that Crick did not intend it to mean "one considered to be absolutely true".  I'm still surprised he made that error since scientific dogmas especially in geology have long been a stumbling block for progress. I would have thought he had heard it used in that context. Indded it is ironic that it has turned into a true dogma. I'd say this is a good piece of information for the article. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term 'central dogma'

message: I don't unhderstand why she is mentioned in the last section.  How do transposons break the central dogma?  I think the sentence relating to her work should probably be cut from the article. David D. (Talk) 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McClintock

message: While working on lectures for the upcoming semester I came across these statements in the Wikipedia listing for the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology)"
1.  "The central dogma is occasionally misunderstood as being a statement of absolute fact. If taken as such, it can be criticised, as there are well-described exceptions. It is also criticised by some systems biologists as being too reductionist."
2.  "There have been researchers who have found problems with the Central Dogma, like Barbara McClintock in the 1940s. [1] She won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her experiments with maize and discovering so called 'jumping genes' that turned out to need activators and controlling elements."
The central dogma represents the flow of information in the cell and is based on solid scientific evidence, and any exceptions are just modifications that occur after protein synthesis.  Molecular biology IS reductionist since it describes processes at the molecular level.  The second statement is entirely false.  First, how could McClintock find problems with the central dogma when her research was done before the discovery of DNA structure? Second "Jumping Genes" are activators and controlling elements (they don't need them); these are terms used to describe the pattern of genetic expression she observed.  Again, these terms were coined before the central dogma was described.  Her data are in complete agreement with the Central Dogma and are not an exception.
There are some other problems with this entry but I don't have the time to go in and edit, and I suspect that it is a losing battle.  It is obvious that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for scientific definitions.  
129.138.14.52 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading definition 

message: The supposed "German version" of this article is actually about the "one gene, one enzyme" hypothesis developed in 1940 by Beadle and Tatum. I am too unfamiliar with the subject to know how closely this is related with the Central Dogma developed in 1970 by Crick, but they're clearly distinct.
The proper title of the German version would be "Zentrales Dogma der Molekularbiologie". As can be seen in the German Startcodon article, this title is in fact referenced but does not exist.
Until a German version of this article has been written (or moved if it was misplaced), the incorrect locale link should probably be removed.
The same note will be posted to the talk page of the German article. 212.121.153.12 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed, at last. --Tinz (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect German localization link 

message: Some of these citations are leading to nowhere, not to mention the data presented has already been questioned above.
Also, if something is an absolute as can be found in dogmas, there is no scientific questioning left, now is there? 
The definitions, the two main ones, I know of for dogma are as follows: 
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.
--AmandaEP (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ....As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth....Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however, plausible, had little direct experimental support" from What Mad Pursuit, Crick's scientific memoir.
I'm not sure what you mean by there is no scientific questioning?  In this case it was clearly a starting hypothesis, one that Crick probably expected to be tested thoroughly and probably modified. David D. (Talk) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly a non-issue for myself, but as Crick pointed out in his own words, the use of such terminology is more trouble than it is worth. Also, thank you for the quote, as well as the citation! Kudos!--AmandaEP (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cheated, I copied it from one of the talk sections above ;) David D. (Talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: My local Sainsbury is selling "organic seeds". Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysenko lives! 

message: The :Image:CDMB2.png says there is only RNA->RNA in "lower lifeforms", a term that usually isn't applied to plants and animals, which both have RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (see RNA interference). Narayanese (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: I suggest that the link to "Death of the Central Dogma" be removed: this is an unsigned, unreferenced and opinionated piece of questionable value.--Nasorenga (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External References 

message: Echoing adenosine's comment in the protein->protein section above, aren't Nonribosomal peptides and example of the "unknown" protein->protein transfer?
Martin.Budden (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say so, though it obviously depends much on definition. One thing is the protein/peptide distiction that Adenosine mentioned. But if I understand it correctly, some specific nonribosomal peptide synthetases exist that can produce one specific nonribosomal peptide, each. These proteins don't copy their own sequence but produce a relatively short peptide (so that information is lost). In the other cases there is usually one machinery that facilitates the conversion for many different input sequences. If there existed a protein duplication machine that worked for many different input proteins it would be different, but this way... --Tinz (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "If there existed a protein duplication machine that worked for many different input proteins it would be different" -Indeed - and now you can do just that. Take your protein to the lab, reverse engineer it get a DNA sequence for it and make copies. Bye bye central dogma. TylerTim (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonribosomal peptides

message: James A. Shapiro, a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in the University of Chicago, presents in his most recent article called Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century as much as 32 discoveries of molecular biology and genomics which, according to him, "violate the Central Dogma at multiple points" summarizing on the last page that the actual information flow is closer to the following:
DNA + Protein + ncRNA + signals + other molecules <==> Genome Structure & Phenotype
The thing is, although I haven't, as of yet, seen this article or its conclusions falsified, I always hesitate to edit articles on complex issues myself, so...I'd just like someone to analyze these discoveries and Shapiro's conclusions and whether or not they are accurate and appropriate for this article.
, thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauri Hirvisalo (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with the science he bases his conclusions on. Narayanese (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just asking for sure if this has been discussed about... 

message: This section is on an important topic, but it is useless as it stands. If no-one makes any serious moves towards building any encyclopaedic substance into it pretty soon, I'll delete it. Consider:
"It is becoming increasingly clear that in reality, the concept of the central dogma of molecular biology is not entirely accurate insofar as it puts emphasis on proteins as the mediator of biological function." This is pure handwaving, and with undefined terms.
"We know that 80% of the human genome is transcribed even though only 1% codes for proteins. While it is possible this may be simple transcriptional noise, it seems to be an unlikely waste of cellular energy resources, and considering the major role played by RNA in regulation of gene expression, it may well have a role." Possibly true, but what does it have to do with the CD? The bald fact that there are as yet unsolved puzzles in our cells may seem very sad, but non-specific speculation is no  contribution to the topic in an encyclopaedia. 
"Current research focuses on investigating the function of non-coding RNA, that is, RNA that does not follow the dogma trend and does not code for polypeptides." There is nothing in this sentence to say what non-coding RNA has to do with the dogma, either pro or con. Nothing in the dogma says that all RNA (or DNA FTM) has to code for proteins. This is not only synthesis (which does not bother ME, no matter what the pillars say) but it is both POV and meaningless in context.
"Moreover, the precise meaning of "information" in this framework is often overlooked." Plaintive no doubt, but vacuous as stated. It contributes not a thing to the article.
All that text I am sure most of us will agree to be dispensable in the article. As for the citation given, maybe it is a good source and tells its readers all about it, but since its content is not visible to the public it is useless in the article unless the material it conveys is comprehensibly, relevantly and cogently summarised in context, the reference has not a scrap of merit. And it is not. JonRichfield (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Emerging handwaving

message: I do not believe that anyone needing to read this article could make a scrap of sense out of the prion section as it stood. I have altered the opening paragraph, not at all to my satisfaction, but at least more or less making sense. The subsequent paragraph was at once so oversimplified and incoherent that I don't even accept it made sense. The topic needs someone who really has a perspective of what has by now become a complex subject, in fact someone who also can convey it to a moderately biologically literate reader. If he can do it readably and in less than a full page, good luck to him/her! Till then we are better off without the text at all. In fact, I am not sure I should have left the remaining paragraph either, but the topic is so important that I lacked the nerve to remove it entirely. 
In fact I increasingly suspect that its function in this article is doubtful at best. Perhaps I  have removed the whole section after all... JonRichfield (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Prion incoherence

message: Can somebody fix it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.127.101 (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  5' UTR in 2nd svg is incorrectly labelled 

message: In the intro we read about the "lexicological meaning" of the word "dogma". What is a "lexicological meaning" if not just "the meaning". Perhaps the author meant simply "the conventional meaning"?  At any rate,, I think the word "lexicological" is needlessly confusing, as it suggests that the word "dogma" has some special meaning in lexicology. Gwideman (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction's use of the word lexicological 

message: Perhaps this news item qualifies? "a protein playing a role normally filled by mRNA" --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of an  exception to Central dogma? 

message: Hey everyone. I just read the article (looking for a reference regarding the "Central Dogma", and thought about the last section "this is rubbish, I'll point out that I'll remove it if its not changed". Then I came here on the talk page, and a couple paragraphs above someone has already said the same thing (a year ago, mind...). So I'm removing it now. 37.209.42.230 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the final section "Emerging ideas" 

message: I was thinking about either adding a link to the Wikipedia page germ cell or gametocyte to the word "reproductive" under DNA Replication since somatic has one. I am leaning more towards germ cell since its more of a general term by not focusing on Eukaryota solely. I am just checking to see if it would beneficial to do so. Thanks!CDOcean (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Possible Wikipedia Link to Reproductive 

message: In the Biological Sequence Information section the article states, "The biopolymers that comprise DNA, FNA, RNA and (poly)peptides are linear polymers...". Maybe I'm woefully ignorant, but I've never heard of FNA and can't find anything about FNA on other Wikipedia pages, PubMed, or Google Scholar. I think it was a typo and should be removed. Kmbdjh911319 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FNA text has gone. Maybe they meant TNA. TylerTim (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA, FNA, and RNA? 

message: I have taught the central dogma to gen ed university student, and taught advanced molecular genetics at the graduate school level. IMHO, it is ABSURD that the central dogma article is rated "Start-class". I think it should be rated GA.
In the FAQs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Assessment page at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genetics/Assessment
you find:
:How can I get my article rated? 
    Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
There are 6 requests for ratings dating back to 2012! 
This is a broken system, IMHO!
Another FAQ:
:Who can assess articles? 
    Anybody is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
Yet, I cannot find how to actually do that! Maybe it takes more than a PhD. Can the collective wisdom of this group tell me how to change the rating of an article? Thanks. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratings are included in the WikiProject templates at the top of this page, . Look out for the code class= there. You can't unilaterally promote articles to GA status that way, though, as there is a more thorough process for that (see Wikipedia:Good articles). In any case, I don't think this article meets the criteria at present (due to poor referencing, amongst other things). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

text: By the way, I agree that the system is broken, but personally I think there are more important things to worry about. Only GA and FA status is noted on article pages, and these ratings on talk pages don't seem to count for much any more - most readers will never see them, for a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I just finished looking at the "good articles" page, and won't nominate it based on your initial review. Still, certainly "start class" is not appropriate. Is it easy to raise the class to something less than GA without going through (and increasing) the backlog in the formal GA review process? If so, do you know how to do that? Or, would you suggest that I just ignore those ratings and spend time improving articles? I suspect that you'll advise me to get on with my life, which is OK. Thanks, Dennis Drdfp (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See my first reply above for a basic account of what code you need to change, . More information is available at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. As far as I'm aware, you can change the article class as long as it's not to GA or FA. It might be a good idea to check out the pages of the relevant WikiProjects first, to see if they have any specific guidelines on rating articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I forgot the final parts of your question. Personally, I don't worry too much about article ratings, apart from GA and FA. I can see how they might be helpful in identifying articles that could do with expanding or otherwise improving, but only if they are kept updated. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link above, which led me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ that I found even more helpful. And yes, the reason for doing this is for guidance within a project for which articles are most in need of improvement. Drdfp (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment Dec 2016 

message: Per the discussion above, I am changing this assessment to A. There are some improvements that could be made, but there are so many other pages that need much more work that it shouldn't take work/focus away from those articles. Since I'm not signed up for the MCB or HoS projects, I didn't change those ratings, but I encourage members of those projects to follow my lead. Drdfp (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment change January 2017 

message: The reason I keep my hair so short is to prevent me from getting a good hold on it and ripping it out. Changing the status on the banner on this page caused no change to the table of "Genetics articles by quality and importance" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics. The info on THAT table is what needs to be updated to more accurately reflect which pages need the most work. Does anybody know how to make changes to that table? Thanks Drdfp (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics, but I imagine that the table only updates once a day. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Far out! The central dogma article is now the only page in the newly made A class! If success like this continues, I may be able to let my hair grow out! DennisPietras (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily time to rejoice yet.  A-class has special rules that require at least two editors from that particular WikiProject to agree that the article meets that group's standards for A-class.  Most WikiProjects don't use A-class because of the extra hassle.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: siiggghhh  re: Assessment change January 2017 

message: Why is Weismann not discussed in the article? His 1892 germ plasm theory strikingly anticipates the existence of DNA and the one-way flow of information, expressed of course in pre-DNA terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there is a section titled: "Comparison with the Weismann barrier". TylerTim (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Weismann's [[germ plasm]] theory

message: Doesn't the naturally-occurring CRISPR-Cas process contradict this? It seems to take bits of microbes that have infected the cell and insert them into the cell's own DNA, so that the cell (and presumably its descendents) become immune to those microbes. 184.0.143.99 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is DNA -> DNA transfer. It is not relevant to the central dogma. TylerTim (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't [[CRISPR]] contradict this?

message: “The dogma classes these into 3 groups of 3 (...)“
I may be nuts, but isn't here a verb missing?--109.190.55.91 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing verb..?