Talk:DNA/Archive 12

message: The introductory passage is unnecessarily protected. Bensaccount 23:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: State of affairs 04/29/04

message: From some who is actually reading this article to learn rather than a point of interest it's not very usefull. While there is a lot of foot work the discussion of DNA is shallow. In places quite wordy and in others completely superficial and giving no new information. Wolfmankurd 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How? This is written in a summary style, deeper subjects are covered in subarticles. Ie. how DNA is constructed, it's structure, it's translation, etc. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Learner's point of view

message: Since it would appear that the main agonists in the prior arguments have left wikipedia (or got bored with this article) I have taken the liberty to remove the HTML comments in the article warning people to not edit the first two paragraphs.  I've placed the particular versions into the article which we had an earlier vote on, but these should now be considered by all as open for editting. Stewart Adcock 22:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free editing again... 

message: I think this came up a while ago.  It was proposed at one point to split off the "The discovery of DNA and the double helix" section into its own article, so that it can be expanded.  It is a facinating story, and I'm wondering if we're doing it justice bunched in with the "science" content.  Any objections to moving forward with that?  Any suggestions for a name of the new page before we do it?   I'm partial to something simple like Discovery of DNA.  It's a slight misnomer, since the interesting part is the discovery of the helical structure, but a simple title like that has its benefits. -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
:I think that would be a good idea; go ahead and do it.  I'm not so sure about the title though.  Maybe something like Discovery of DNA structure? or, History of DNA research? Stewart Adcock 16:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off the history section 

message: While I see nothing wrong with the DNA in brief section, I'm afraid I do object to the HTML comment as a matter of principle. Wikipedia is all about anyone being able to change anything they want. When we intimidate people into not making changes with scary comments, it obstructs that. Perhaps better would be a brief reminder that that section is an overview and a reference to a section of the talk page. We all want to preserve content we think is good, but content can always be made better, and if someone makes a bad change and you don't catch it, someone else probably will. Deco 03:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a very, very late comment by the author of that (old-gone) notification. I wrote it out of fear of the "death by a thousand cuts", as Nunh-huh put it in a previous comment on this very page (at least it was the same page at the time of this writing, might've been archived in a different place by the time you read this.) Now that someone has removed that notification, it looks like my "warning" wasn't really called for, since the "in brief" section still stands, and still matches the original goal. Therefore I salute your pro-wiki attitude, Deco, and I'm mildly ashamed that I felt the need for that warning sign, in the Wikipedia context! :-) --Gutza 21:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Don't change'' comment 

message: *"Avery the medium of transfer of traits as the transforming principle; his identified DNA as the transforming principle, and not protein as previously thought."
Huh? Sentences without verbs cause of confusion for me. — Ливай | ☺ 14:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbless sentence 

message: The people at fr have an interesting approach to the organziation of the diaspora of DNA articles and pages.  The page in question is at fr: DNA, mRNA, and many others I suppose.  It's a big box with the research structure of DNA science organized into all the possible pages.  It certainly gets an A for Wikification.  It is so easy to use.--McDogm 16:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA au Francais

message: It has been a while since I've looked at this article. It used to make sense to me. Now just looking at it gives me a headache. I see about 50 separate sections each consisting of 3 or 4 lines. I suppose I will have to spend hours with the history of the article to see how it has evolved (?) to its current state, but do others really think this is a desirable configuration?  P0M 06:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  Gene Nygaard 10:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hash? What has become of this article? 

message: I don't really think that the page move is necessary? What are other peoples opinions?--nixie 05:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: Ok, so this page has been listed on :Wikipedia:Cleanup. Before attampting any changes 
I think it would be a good idea to sketch out what the article should look like here. :User:Jerzy listed the page and notes: "oversized article (30K, 11 main hdgs & 19 subordinate ones) should have most main sections reduced to summaries with no subordinate hdgs but links to 'Main articles'". I agree and sugest the following sections, each with its own main article:
*Molecular structure and mechanical properties - two subsections / two "main articles". Including information on "Direction of DNA strands". 
*DNA fingerprinting for crime and for identification of unknown people / parents etc. and also possibly in fiction.
*Replication - this has already been done, I think the section needs to be a little longer.
*History of DNA research.
*What I am less sure about is The role of the sequence - should this be included in a section called, e.g. DNA and [the encoding of] genes?
Comments are very welcome! Andreww 09:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are goign to go ahead with breaking the article up the Direction of DNA strands should probably go with the mechanical properties--nixie 08:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: At least that is what the opening section tells us here "every human cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes derived from both parents, together with one copy of the mother's mitochondrial DNA.". While this is a nice simplification it ignores specialized cells (gut epithelial, for one) that undergo endoreduplication and are polyploid.   I understand we need to keep the article simple but this should not be at the loss of accuracy. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "one copy of the mother's mitochondrial DNA" <-- this is also wrong. Many cells have more than one copy of the mitochondrial DNA. --JWSchmidt 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is also true. Many mitochondrial genomes are inherited from the mother.  These genomes can be different genotypes hence the term heteroplasmy.  This is why mitochondrial myopathies have a low penetrance since the mutant genomes are present in a cell with functional genomes. The disease symptoms become more severe when the mutant genomes start to predominate. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: JonMoulton is missing two main points: that some people just don't have 23 pairs (e.g. XXX); and that mature red blood cells lose mitochondria (see Red blood cell#Mammalian erythrocytes). I'll make changes accordingly. I'll also address the "one copy" issue. Peak 18:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: all cells have 23 chromosomes pairs?

message: This article repeats the usual error that Franklin did not authorise the handing over of photograph No51 by Wilkins to Watson . Also a key figure in the history of DNA is  Ray Gosling who, as a research student but a physics graduate and former medical physicist, was involved in taking the fist photographs of both the A form (with Wilkins) and the B form (with Franklin. Yet the article in Wikipedia does not mention him. This suggests a Ph D student is unimportant but Crick was such at the time. The book by Wilkins ‘The Third Man of the Double Helix‘ clearly states that Franklin (just before she moved to Bedford College) had authorised the transfer of he No 51 photograph to Wilkins by Gosling and for it then to be used by Wilkins as he thought fit. With the history of contact between Wilkins and the Cambridge group, which was well known to Franklin, this must have included the transfer of the photograph to Watson or Crick. Gosling, who is still living and was a research student and good friend of Franklin, has not denied this. There is no doubt that Gosling handed over the No. 51 photograph to Wilkins and yet he remained a friend and Ph D student of Franklin. This is unlikely if the use of the photograph by Gosling and Wilkins was unauthorised by Franklin. Wilkins was an honourable senior scientist and there is no reason to doubt his word and yet his version of events is now hardly ever mentioned; certainly not in this Wikapedia article. The article should be up dated accordingly.
The article does not mention that Franklin was a strong opponent of the double helix theory throughout most of 1952 eg The death of the helix meeting which hshe organised an rsulted in Wilkins withdrawing from the DNA resarch for 6 months..
A detailed account of these points with bibliography is contained in the book A Quartet of Unlikely Discoveries by Sylvia AS Tait and JF Tait. 
----
I removed the above from the article after it was added by 80.189.241.81. Some of this information can be added back to the article. --JWSchmidt 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not read Wilkins book so this is a hard call. It seems to all hinge on why did Frankin not want to collaborate with Watson?  And if she didn't would she want Watson to have access to her data? How do we interpret her comment to Wilkins for him to use the data  "as he thought fit".  Did she have in mind for him to use it for his own research only?  Since we will never know what Franklin was thinking we do not want to fall into the trap of overinterpreting her second hand comments. However, it is an interesting perspective.  David D. (Talk) 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA structure discovery information posted by 80.189.241.81 

message: Two users have been carrying on a discussion within the article.  The original plea to new editors not to mess with the beginning paragraphs without discussing it here seems reasonable, but any further discussion creates lots of "traffic" for people who are trying to keep an eye on the article to see that it is not being vandalized.  P0M 04:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexor and Guzta 

message: Based on the estimate of 3 billion nucleotides in human DNA, with nucleotides spaced every 0.34 nm and the DNA molecule 2 nm wide, I calculated that human DNA, if strung in one line, would be exactly 1.05 meters long. This is 1.05 billion times as long as it is wide. If each nucleotide were represented by a stack of 4 US pennies (because a penny is 12.333 times as wide as it is high), and 3 billion of these "nucleotides" stacked on top of each other would be 4.65 million kilometers long, or about 2.9 million miles, enough to wrap around the Earth's equator 730 times, enough to reach to the moon 12 times, enough to wrap around the Sun once. I didn't know where to put this, but I thought it was interesting, and gives an idea of the amount of DNA a single human cell has. Twilight Realm 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of human DNA 

message: Does this subsection conform to the "no original research" rule?  Can references to research articles be given (and not just a link to a pdf from "notahelix.com")?
:Please sign your postings.  "No original research" basically means that nobody can do his/her own research and then post it as a Wikipedia article, or include it in a Wikipedia article. It would no be any better if somebody got their own website and then quoted the website as though it were an authoritative source of information. As for websites, then,  the question would be: Whose website is it? What is the publication status of the materials on the website?  For instance, one of the most well known researchers dealing with human sexuality issues maintains his own website at his university and makes pdf copies of some of his published work there.  Both because of that individual's credentials and because of the publication status of the articles, a link to his site would not be problematical.  What is known about "notahelix"?  P0M 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If notahelix.com contained PDFs of peer-reviewed articles, that would be fine with me.  When I looked a couple of days ago, it didn't seem to me as if it did.  I think these paragraphs about non-helical forms give too much exposure to non-mainstream ideas, considering it is an encyclopedia.  A sentence with references to peer-reviewed articles would be fine, however.  216.154.205.203 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-helical forms 

message: A blind spot in the current article seems to be who first isolated and described DNA. My recollection is that it was 19th century, but I can't recall whom.. Anyone? Fawcett5 23:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you want the article Chimera (genetics)? Melchoir 23:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial discovery 

message: Is there a reference for the numbers in "Table of comparison of the properties of different helical forms"?  This would be quite useful. Clemens H 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for geometry table 

message: DNA is a double helix most if not all of the time, right? I'm supposed to check before changing the lead section of the article. I was going to change it to Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid in the form of a double helix that contains the genetic instructions specifying . . . (the bold is what I would have added). If there is a problem with this, tell me; if not, go ahead and change it (I think it could be worded better anyway). Twilight Realm 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At normal temperatures, yes. Depending on the size of the DNA molecule, temperatures typically ranging from about 72 degrees and above (~95 degrees in PCR reactions) break apart the hydrogen bonds, allowing single stranded DNA to exist in solution.  219.89.189.91 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: normally in the form of a double helix? Also, link to Helix — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think mention of DNA usually being a double stranded helix macromolecule (at normal temperatures sustainable for life) should be in the lead section somewhere. After all, It was discovered as a double stranded helix, see Watson & Cricks original nature publication (probably one of the most famous papers of all time). 219.89.189.91 09:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, in fact, most notable for being in the double helix shape. It should definately be in there. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we change "usually in the form of a double helix" to "in the shape of a double helix, at temperatures that sustain life"?  This makes the sentence accurate yet still simple enough. Saying that it is usually a double helix is so uninformative as to be misleading.  Among other things, it may suggest that some DNAs in nature are not in this shape.  Also, a double helix is not a form but a shape.  Form is a very general term, as in "form of life". -Pgan002 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Helix 

message: There needs to be more detail about the specific triple hydrogen bonds in G-C, and double (slightly weaker) hydrogen bonds in A-T pairing. There doesnt appear to be any mention of Tm values, and their simple (or more complicated) calculations for short strands of DNA
:219.89.189.91 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen bonding 

message: This section in the article originally read that these were the only "two other known forms of DNA" and that they differed only "modestly". Both of these claims are inaccurate; there are many other known forms (C-DNA, D-DNA, E-DNA, etc.). Some of these (e.g. Z-DNA) do not differ modestly at all. In fact, Z-DNA is strikingly different (left-handed, zig-zag, etc. See the Z-DNA article for illustrations of what I mean).--Thorwald 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A- and Z-DNA not the only "other" known forms 

message: y the big open space after dna pairing title?
MichaelHa 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: whats pi stacking?
MichaelHa 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Has there ever been an x-ray diffraction picture for this article? It would be nice to get one in the article if we have a copy. David D. (Talk) 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite what you wanted, but see :Image:ADN animation.gif P0M 22:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have one that I could scan; I don't know if such an image is subject to copyright, but we could probably claim fair use to illustrate this article. Schutz 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-ray diffraction

message: The section on supercoiling in this article is really lacking.  There's already a pretty good article on supercoiling, which covers just about everything. I think a merger of that article into this one (or at least a link to it) would be an improvement. More information about topoisomerases and the relevance of supercoiling is probably warranted as well. I'm not solid enough on the subject to write a good article on it as I'm worried about hitting that middle ground where the section would sound credible enough to not attract editing but still be wrong.
:I've made the link more prominent. I agree that the relevance of supercoiling should be explored here, but I don't think the section should be expanded too much. As in the Wikipedia:Summary style philosophy, it would be better to focus on improving the article Supercoil than to make DNA too much longer. Melchoir 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercoiling section needs expansion. 

message: There is currently no information on at what temperatures DNA becomes useless for DNA analysis, like in crime investigations etc. 
Knutars 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that is covered by the fact that it is a nucleic acid. Also, even at the boiling point of water, it does not become irreversibly useless, although it can get tampered through this way. Polymerase chain reaction heats the DNA up to 95 degrees to denature it and break the hydrogen bonds, but the covalent bonds are strong enough to withstand the heat. You could be looking at a pretty massive temperature in order to try to destroy the thing through heat, combustion is the most rational cause, through an incinerator. Denaturing the DNA does not irreversibly destroy it, you can just feed it back through PCR. It has a higher chance of decomposing or degrading in an investigation, through time, not temperature. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures 

message: Regarding the link to Rotten.com in the references. I don't think Rotten.com should be linked to as part of any scholarly article. Imagine a child, or anyone, researching DNA to find a "Faces of Death" link at the bottom of the link to page. This should be removed as I'm sure the other links adequately cover the material. Frankly, the material there is poor quality anyway.
:If this was a link, it seems to have been removed. I don't see it.  P0M 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article's history. Schutz 08:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Rotten.com 

message: Removed the following - needs sourcing:
:There have been rare cases reported of a person having 2 different DNAs in parts of his body. In one case, each side of the body had a different DNA.  In another case, a woman had her children taken from her because their DNAs did not match. Subsequnt testing showed that her internal organs had a DNA that matched that of her children. Tbis subject should be reviewed by a comptent authority.
Seems dubious to me. Vsmith 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person with 2 DNAs ?? 

message: I wonder if anyone noted, but it should say "dEoxyribo..." in stead of "dIoxyribo" at the very top of the article. Please could anyone change that, I was a bit scary after reading the comment at the top. --Lode 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one slipped in under the radar. Thanks - and don't be bothered too much by that warning, if it's obviously wrong fix it. Vsmith 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dioxy?? 

message: The Overviews and Molecular Structure sections are almost complete duplicates of each other. Can someone merge them... --Dtcdthingy 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate sections 

message: I appreciate notion that changes to the intro section need to be discussed on talk first, as I've come from numerous articles that represent months and months of compromise to arrive at a consensus version of the intro, only to see one shot users come in and make major changes after no discussion. What I find in this intro is that it doesn't say what DNA actually is. I was expecting for it to explain a paragraph of so of basic treatment of the topic. Is the impetus here that the intro is strong and shouldn't be changed? JPotter 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well something appears to have changed and the article is what I expected now. The first sentence is no longer about replciation and syntheisis. JPotter 18:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the first sentence should be more clear and straightforward about the importance of DNA to reproduction of living things.  -Pgan002 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done: modified to a lightly different version. -Pgan002 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done! -Pgan002 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done! -Pgan002 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done! -Pgan002
In sentence 2, I changed "twenty-three" to "23".  By convention, numbers higher than ten should be written as numerals, especially if they are so elsewhere in the text.  -Pgan002 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I propose the paragraph 1 to be changed from:
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid — usually in the form of a double helix — that contains the genetic instructions or genocode monitoring the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and many viruses. DNA is a long polymer of nucleotides (a polynucleotide) and encodes the sequence of the amino acid residues in proteins using the genetic code, a triplet code of nucleotides. DNA is thought to date back to between approximately 3.5 to 4.6 billion years ago.
to 
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the biological development of a cellular form of life or a virus. All known cellular organisms and some viruses have a DNA.  DNA is a long polymer of nucleotides (a polynucleotide), and is shaped as a double helix under temperatures that sustain life. It encodes the sequence of amino acid residues in proteins.  The code is the genetic code, in which each amino acid in the protein is represented by three consecutive nucleotides in the DNA (a triplet code). DNA is thought to have originated approximately 3.5 to 4.6 billion years ago.
First, the old version of the first sentence gives the impression that DNA is a thing that contains the instructions for the development of all these living things at the same time.  The new formulation corrects this.  Second, "monitoring" seems like the wrong word because DNA is an active part of biological development of the mentioned orgaisms. Next, the shape of DNA is less important than its function, so move it to the second sentence, which (like the shape) is about structure rather than function.  Next, "usually" is so ambiguous as to be misleading.  For example, it may suggest that some functioning DNA is not shaped as a double helix.  It is more informative and easier to read, although it is longer, to specify that it is a double helix under the conditions that it performs its biological function.  Also, a double helix is not a form but a shape.  Next, split the sentence about encoding into two to make it easier to read.  Next, "a triplet code of nucleotides" is confusing: explain in general terms what it is.  Finally, change "DNA is thought to date back to" to "DNA is thought to have originated", and "between approximately 3.5 to 4.6" to "approximately 3.5 to 4.6".  This is more grammatically correct and easier to read.
-Pgan002 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: modified to a lightly different version. -Pgan002 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 1

message: In the sentence 1 of paragraph 2, I propose to change: 
In complex eukaryotic cells such as"
to 
In eukaryotic cells (which are relatively complex) such as
The current formulation may be misunderstood to be talking about only the more complex eukaryotic cells. 
-Pgan002 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! -Pgan002 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 2

message: I propose sentence 2 of paragraph 3 to be changed from:
In humans, these traits can range from hair color to disease susceptibility.
to
In humans, these traits range from hair color to disease susceptibility.
The traints not only can be, but actually are hair color and so on.
-Pgan002 10:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! -Pgan002 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3

message: I propose sentence 1 of paragraph 4 to be changed from:
Every person's DNA, their genome, is inherited from both parents.
to
Every person's DNA, their genome, is a combination of the DNAs of his parents.
or 
Every person's DNA, their genome, is inherited from their parents; part of it is from the mother and part from the father.
The current formulation is ambiguous, and may be understood to mean that the DNA of the parents is the same.
-Pgan002
: Done! -Pgan002
In sentence 2, I changed "twenty-three" to "23".  By convention, numbers higher than ten should be written as numerals, especially if they are so elsewhere in the text.  -Pgan002 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 4

message: The opening sentences specify two properties of DNA: 
# Its function in living organisms ("... contains the genetic instructions for the biological development of a cellular form of life or a virus. All known cellular life and some viruses have DNAs. ...that encodes the sequence of amino acid residues in proteins")
# Its chemical structure ("... a long polymer of nucleotides ...").  
Which of these is/are a defining property, and which is/are an important fact of the world?  If some cellular life (say on Mars) had its genetic instructions encoded by some other kind of structure, would that be DNA?  Conversely, if a scientist artificially creates a polynucleotide of the same set of bases and similar length to some other DNA, but that does not encode the genetic instructions of any viable life form, would that be DNA?  Given a sequence of bases, can I decide whether it represents a DNA molecule?  -Pgan002 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the bolded phrase in the "Molecular structure" section. No, if it doesn't look like this, it isn't DNA. No, not all polynucleotides are DNA. Yes, scientists do work with meaningless sections of DNA for experiments. Yes, the answer is always yes: every sequence of bases can be realized by a molecule of DNA. Melchoir 08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, the defining property is the chemical structure, and not the biological function.  Thanks!  I will think about how to modify the intorduction to make that clear. -Pgan002 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining characteristics vs facts 

message: Comment "Watson was a Jjerk for steealing this DNA information." was removed as not NPOV.  Somehow has been in there a while statsone 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Under "Molecular Structure", which is under "Physical and Chemical properties", Dna_pairing_aa.gif blocks the last 3 words of the first sentence. Not particularly important, but annoying nonetheless.
:In my opinion the physical and chemical properties section images are very poorly organised. Perhaps they should be arranged into a table of thumbnails, like at the bottom of ramen. In the current state, they are too small to be read clearly, as they are highly information-loaded figures, but still so big that they make the rest of the page hard to read. I shrank a couple that were taking up almost half of my viewable area; I think it needs more work though. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image too big? 

message: "For reasons of chemical nomenclature, people who work with DNA refer to the asymmetric ends of ("five prime" and "three prime")."
This is not a sentence. Help? I'd fix it if I knew what the heck it meant. 68.215.226.236
:Fixed it. How's that? Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Nomenclature 

message: I've developed this horrible habit of skimming articles, then making comments without logging in. This comment may need to be deleted because of which, but there is this quote I heard from somewhere, and I don't remember where. It is very POV, however I think it is still worthy of including in this article, if someone can find the source. It goes something like this: "DNA is not the encyclopedia; it is the table of contents." (24.99.192.9 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I heard something like that recently, and since I was already familiar with the ideas behind it I was not particularly interested in writing down the source. (Probably it it was quoted on a TV program.)  Anyway, the idea is that by itself DNA does not do anything. Some other cellular mechanisms have to come in and "read" the information, and then they have to make use of it to carry out the directions that the DNA contains. The information surely is there in the DNA. There is no "text" to which the "table of contents" sends the user to get the "blueprint."  So the DNA is what you need to get changed if you want to change a characteristic of an organism such as its eye color. Having zapped a large number of fruit flies, the ones in the next generation with new characteristics will turn out to have changed DNA. What you won't find is new changes in fruit flies without changes in their DNA.  If the "encyclopedia" were somewhere else, then the DNA could stay the same and the index item for "eye color" could still point to page 38384 as before, but the organism would change if what was written on 38384 was changed. That kind of result isn't being reported. If it were then we'd all be hearing about it on Science Friday. Charlie Rose, and also from lots of people who would like to confound science. P0M 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some add and find the source 

message: I think this article contradicts itself a little bit. It says in "Inheritance of DNA":
:"(...) most of the DNA is located in the cell nucleus, and ***each DNA molecule is usually packed into a chromosome*** (...)"
But then it says in "Molecular structure":
:"(...) Although sometimes called "the molecule of heredity", DNA macromolecules as people typically think of them are not single molecules. Rather, they are pairs of molecules (...)"
Then in "Inheritance of DNA" it should read "each *pair* of DNA molecules is usually packed into a chromossome", shouldn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.164.220.194 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, i reworded it, see what you think. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's better now! Thanks, David! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.164.220.194 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecule vs. Molecules 

message: There's tons of graphics, this page takes a long time to download, even on broadband! I am on 8 mb/s broadband, and yet I was twiddling my thumb waiting for the images to load. At the moment I wouldnt have it as a Featured Article, with all the graphics. Kreb Dragonrider 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downloads of Graphics 

message: This article is truly magnificent. I'm not so sure how my opinion will weigh to you, but I have one suggestion. Correct me if I'm wrong but, besides in pictures, I didn't see any mention of how one side of the backbone goes in the opposite direction than the other. You know how one side goes from 5-3 and the other side goes from 3-5. I was going to edit it myself but seeing that it was restricted I have no other choice than writing it here. I just think that it is important and would make a great addition to the page. 
Thanks for listening
--Gotninja (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a suggestion

message: I'm hoping to move this page through the peer-review and FA processes over the next month or so. There is a great deal of excellent content here, so most of my edits will be concentrating on formatting and adding references. Any help in this process will be greatly appreciated. TimVickers 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tim, just seen your work here.  It looks great.  One issue is with the figure :Image:Nucleosome with spacefill DNA.jpg.  I wonder if it would look better with the histones as space-fill and the DNA as ribbon?  At present it is hard to make out the structure even for someone who knows what they are looking at, for those unfamiliar with histones it will be very hard to interpret.  David D. (Talk) 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside the title of the current figure should read ball-and-stick DNA, or similar, not spacefill DNA. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the new version an improvement? TimVickers 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defintiely an improvement. I added another picture I took from commons, see what you think.  i think having this top view might help a bit more as well as introducing the concept of the interactions that glue the histones and DNA together.  Possibly a theme that can be introduced into the text too? David D. (Talk) 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good, thank you. As you can see, I'm working my way down through the sections from the top. Much of the history section will need to be moved to a daughter article, but I haven't reached there yet. TimVickers 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA for DNA

message: Hey Tim and David, 
I'm so happy that you're tackling this article!  It's already looking good. :)
A few thoughts:
* The pictures of the nitrogenous bases and the base-pair pictures (thanks, guys! :)  don't quite agree.  The former don't have the connection to the sugar-phosphate backbone that is represented by the crazy wavy line in the base-pairs.    Should we amend that — maybe show the sugar or even the sugar/phosphate backbone explicitly in both?  Maybe that's not needed; it's probably clear enough from the context of the wonderful colored picture above them.
:::Yes, I suppose we could, or I could tweak the text to make it clearer what the images show.
* Are the lines in the base-pair picture thick enough?  I think I still have the ChemDraw file somewhere.
:::Yes, they could be a bit thicker, but that's a minor issue.
* Should we show the methyl group in thymine explicitly, rather than as an unlabeled line?  Some lay-readers might not know the conventions.  
:::Several of the images use that convention, we'd have to change them all. Groan.
* Personally, I'd enjoy seeing more on the biophysical/electrostatic properties of DNA, such as its extreme charge density, Manning condensation and its superficially paradoxical ability to condense (e.g., into toroidal forms) in the presence of trivalent cations.  But maybe that's too technical? :(
:::If you can put that in non-technical language making a clear link to biology then that would be great. I wouldn't know where to start!
* It'd be nice to reference that young fellow who did the pH titrations suggesting a two-stranded DNA back in the 1940's, the one who was killed in a train wreck?
:::The history section is getting smaller and will get smaller still. Maybe a daughter article?
* I suppose that the IUPAC definitions of the backbone dihedral angles and the numerical descriptions of the inter-base geometry are also too technical, right?  Drat. Probably ditto for concept of the "phosphate backbone". :(
:::We could put that in the mechanical properties of DNA article?
* What about mentioning helicases, primases, etc. by name?  It would give us a chance to link to that fine article, enzyme. ;)  I suppose this article does have links to articles with more details, e.g., DNA replication.
:::This section is under development, thanks for the suggestion.
* Perhaps include more about the connection between genes and DNA, possibly with some discussion of SNP's?  Please don't laugh — OK, I'll laugh ;) — but the January 2007 issue of Marie Claire has an article about the applications of DNA technology to cosmetics — umm, "cosmeceuticals".  It says something like "Thanks to the Human Genome Project and other skin-science advances,...SNPs for genes involved in the repair of DNA damage caused by chemical pollutants and UV radiation...for a mere $270, a scientific  DNA analysis by dermagenetics.com will allow us to formulate the optimal skin-care cream for you..." You see how it goes.  Despite its silliness, this example does suggest that we should also consider common misconceptions and how we might allay them in our science articles.  It's charming to think of Craig Venter and James D. Watson as skin scientists, don't you agree? ;)
:::Charming! That could go in the last section, which is still entirely unedited in this new revision.
Merrily, Willow 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, TimVickers 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeay! and random suggestions

message: The lead section seems a little short, as I'm sure you're aware.  I also noted the "Here be dragons;)" notice at the top, asking for a full discussion before we make any changes.  So perhaps this can be a special section for editors to discuss changes/emphases in the lead?
Speaking for myself, I think it might be helpful for lay-readers if we  discussed the qualitative function of DNA before delving into the molecular structure.  I'm worried that many casual readers won't even know what a polymer is.  Could we perhaps add a short paragraph after the first paragraph, something like this:
:The main role of DNA in the cell is the long-term storage of information.  It is often compared to a blueprint, since it contains the information to construct other components of the cell, such as proteins and RNA molecules.  The DNA segments that encode for proteins and RNA are called genes.  However, not all DNA belongs to a gene; some DNA serves a structural purpose or is involved in regulating the expression of genes.  Unlike proteins and RNA molecules, DNA is inert and does not act on other molecules; rather, various proteins and RNA molecules act on DNA, causing it to be unwound, copied (replicated), edited, rearranged, repaired or transcribed into RNA.
What do you think?  It's only a rough sketch, but such a paragraph might allow us to touch on some important themes of the article. Willow 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ignoring the dragons at the moment, go right ahead and edit. TimVickers 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Willow, you need to be careful how you define gene here. "However, not all DNA belongs to a gene; some DNA serves a structural purpose or is involved in regulating the expression of genes." I would consider sequences involved in regulating expression to be part of a gene. It sounds like you would consider a gene to be restricted to the transcribed region. This is definitely a debatable definition as well as a moving target depending on which genes are being discussed.  Here is one definition i found "a DNA segment that contributes to phenotype/function. In the absence of demonstrated function a gene may be characterized by sequence, transcription or homology."  David D. (Talk) 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Watson nor Crick mentioned Franklin in their Nobel Prize lectures, despite the key role of her experimental data in developing their model.
at the end of the next-to-last paragraph.  But that might provoke an edit-war, which I wouldn't wish on you for the world, especially before an FAC.  It's perhaps best to stick to the science and leave such historical details for another article.
Under technological applications, I remember hearing about DNA being used in nanotechnology as a means for making regular structures reliably.  I might be able to dig up a reference or two if I look hard, but I'm leaving tomorrow for the holidays and might not have the time.  I probably won't have access to a computer for a few weeks, so — happy holidays!  Warm and happy wishes to all, Willow 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the lead section

message: Why has the link of June 19 2006 as to the age of DNA been omitted subsiquiently. Is not a time frame important? RoddyYoung 11:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add some information on how DNA evolved. Of course the data are fragmentary and most of the proposed mechanisms purely hypothetical. However, I think there is some more solid stuff on the non-biotic origin of nucleobases. TimVickers 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We both agree that non-biotic origins of matter should not be included. The time between nucleobases and DNA replecation time scale would be what percentage. Very very small. So they become one and the same in a large time scale. Look at how many nucleobases are being produced 2007 in the world due to the exsistance of DNA. Do you see my point? RoddyYoung 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of DNA 4 billion years

message: I labeled a render I made of a DNA with Phosphate structure 3d model.  Let me know if it needs tweaking and I'll make the changes.  I wasn't sure if the double helix lines were too dark/strong.  3dscience 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA image

message: Allow me to add that just about anyone in the field of biophysics, biochemistry, bioinformatics, etc. uses Ångströms to describe distances in macromolecular structures (e.g DNA, RNA, proteins, etc). I have tried to reflect these conventions in the past. Unfortunately, people seem to think that SI units always apply to science and have reverted my changes. SI units are the rule, generally . . . however, the convention for these distances is always in Ångströms. Check any of the literature (see: PubMed); they will always be listed in Ångströms not nanometres. Please follow that convention. Thank you! --Thorwald 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the first figure uses nm and should be changed unless the text uses both Å and nm. Dr d12 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed the first figure to use Ångströms units instead of nm.  The nm version is still available in wiki commons. 3dscience 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the interested layman can easily work out the scale of a nanometer whereas only scientifically proficient readers will have any idea what an Ångström is. I personally thought it was the distance from the earth to the sun (but maybe that's an AU). Surely the point of encyclopaedic articles is to inform the uninformed rather than to dazzle them with unfamiliar terms that are specific to a particular discipline. Far Canal 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, there is a nice link to the Ångström article (first usage). Secondly, an encyclopaedia's first goal should always be accuracy, not making it easy for the layman to understand; the "interested layman" can always do a bit of research. Finally, there a literally thousands of examples were the professional terms are given prior usage. All units of macromolecules should stay in Ångströms, as is the convention. --Thorwald 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever Far Canal 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanometres ''vs.'' Ångströms

message: The article mechanical properties of DNA is quite long and has kind of lost purpose, any suggestions from anyone on what should be done with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zephyris (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs references, but apart from that it is an excellent article on a complex topic. TimVickers 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mechanical properties of DNA]]

message: Why is the title of this article 'DNA' and not 'Deoxyribonucleic acid'?
:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) Raul654 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a more detailed discussion, see Talk:DNA/Archive 6, where this exact move was proposed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: when Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase in the Hershey-Chase experiment showed that DNA is is the genetic material of the T2 phage.[105]
DNA is is--> double is
:Fixed, thank you. Fvasconcellos 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error found:  

message: Just asking, what was the reason to SP this article?? I know it is on the main page, but as per WP:NOPRO, they should only be protected under certain circumstances. Thanks!! -Hairchrm 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually hasn't been today. It was semi-protected from mid-January (see the log), but the editing restrictions were removed just before it was featured on the main page. However, the template that puts the semi-protected padlock icon in the corner was only noticed and removed later. I think there must have been some sort of caching going on, as the padlock seemed to stick around for a while even after that. — blobglob talk 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This page was getting vandalized once every couple minutes. It was becoming a revert storm, then the vandals started reverting the reverts. It was getting crazy. I guess some people really don't like DNA. (Spectrogram 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the semi-protection.  The vandalism to this page today more than warrants the step while it is on the main page. It will expire tomorrow. Johntex\talk 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protected??

message: Can someone please fix :Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif?  In Firefox, it renders only half of the final frame of the animation, and there should be a short pause between loops. —AySz88\^-^ 03:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further consideration, ideally, it should go back and forth instead of suddenly jumping back to the beginning of the loop. (Perhaps halve the number of frames to accommodate the file size?) —AySz88\^-^ 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated animation