Talk:Intron

message: The Intron article says that in prokaryotes, introns only occur in tRNA and rRNA. The group II intron article, however, says they occur in mRNA. I realize that this is not necessarily a contradiction, but could someone please clarify it? --aciel (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group II introns in prokaryotic mRNA 

message: Hi wikipedians, what is the key difference between introns and noncoding DNA... merge? --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not! Non-coding DNA includes intergenic regions and untranslated regions of mRNA. Narayanese (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, introns are not always non-coding... WKoets (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intron vs Noncoding DNA 

message: Introns may also contain "old code", or sections of a gene that were once translated into a protein, but have since become inactive. It was generally assumed that the sequence of any given intron is Junk DNA with no biological function. More recently, however, this is being disputed.
I don't think this is strong enough. That at least some introns are functional and adaptive as opposed to relics is now the mainstream view amongst geneticists.
For proof, a few recent journals:
*
*
Besides, the journal cited for the more recently ... this is being disputed was published almost 15 years ago. 
Jebus989</font>★ 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date 

message: About Intron#Simple_illustration_of_an_intron_and_RNA_splicing:  This seems a little too "instructional textbook" rather than "encyclopedia article" to me.  What do other people think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section has a weird style Richard☺Decal (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too find this rather... Childish. 81.164.243.42 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. This the first time all night that wikipedia has helped me understand something quickly and easily. Keep it. I don't care if it doesn't fit the style guide, it does its job well. 64.223.122.74 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say this. Keep this section and start making Wikipedia more like this. There's no point in making text physically accessible to people if the text still doesn't make the concepts "click" as this section did for me. 50.0.7.143 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs to stay. If a little simple, it's an elegant way of conveying the point. I also think that all of Wikipedia should attempt to incorporate this type of teaching tool. Since nucleic acids cannot be seen, many users have difficulty conceptualizing their structure and function. It's similar to the plumbing analogy commonly used to teach people about voltage and current.Kmcgregor123456 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple illustration 

message: Is it worth mentioning that some authors (such as Greg Bear) have fictionally hypothesised that introns are used to store memories in cells?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.51.92 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture? 

message: What is the reasoning behind the following statement?: "Since eukaryotes arose from a common ancestor (Common descent), there must have been extensive gain or loss of introns during evolutionary time.[23][24] This process is thought to be subject to selection, with a tendency towards intron gain in larger species due to their smaller population sizes, and the converse in smaller (particularly unicellular) species.[25]" ZFT (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological functions and evolution 

message: Introns are well known in bacterial and archaeal genes, but occur more rarely than in most eukaryotic genomes.[citation needed]
A particularly extreme case is the Drosophila dhc7 gene containing a ≥3.6 Mb intron, which takes roughly three days to transcribe.[9][10] 
This is ambiguous. The reference to cases found "more rarely" is then followed by what appears to be an example of "a particularly extreme case", but this turns out to be an example, not of the rarely found cases, but of a genome with particularly abundant introns referred to earlier. Myles325a (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  an ambiguity 

message: Substituted at 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article contains references to 14 and 15 year old textbooks. Are references to textbooks really necessary? A good Wikipedia article should be at least as authoritative as a textbook. (I say this as a textbook author.) I suggest replacing textbook references with references to recent reviews in primary literature. Genome42 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textbook references 

message: The introduction is confusing because the first part only refers to introns in protein-coding genes. It also contains references to 14 and 15 year old textbooks and other references that are inappropriate. 
I propose editing the introduction to make it more accurate and more relevant.Genome42 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: A good case can be made that introns are mostly junk DNA but that case isn't made in the article. That needs to be fixed.
I have proposed creating a separate Wikipedia entry on Junk DNA and I am actively working on it. The proposal is being discussed in the Talk section on the Noncoding DNA page. Please add your views on this proposal, which I think is long overdue.Genome42 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk DNA