Talk:RNA: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:00, 18 December 2007 edit67.161.12.97 (talk) →RNA secondary structure ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:28, 8 April 2024 edit undoBattyBot (talk \| contribs)Bots1,935,288 edits →top: Fixed WikiProject template(s) to remove page from Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters or a sub-category, plus general fixes Tag: AWB
(93 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	-------------------------------
			{{Article history
	{{Wikiproject MCB\|importance=Top\|class=B}}
			\| action1 = GAN
	{{MCBprev\|month=May 2007}}{{to do}}
			\| action1date = 18 January 2008
			\| action1link = Talk:RNA#GA Review
			\| action1result = listed
			\| action1oldid = 185297806
			\| currentstatus = GA
			\| topic = Natsci
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Molecular Biology\|MCB=yes\|MCB-importance=Top\|genetics=yes \|genetics-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Polymers}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{atnhead\|noredlinks=y}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(100d)
			\|archive = Talk:RNA/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			{{MCBprev\|month=May 2007}}

			== (comment from August 2005) ==

	I wanted sdto look up RNA in the wikipedia thinking that it would be able to give me a good starting point to understanding it. However, what I got was what's posted which tells me absolutely nothing as a newbie to genetics. Could someone please lay some ground rules about this kind of thing. It seems to me that since you can put lots of links in the definition of an entry, the entry loses it's coherence for someone like me. I think a good rule for wikipedia entries is that there should only be 3 links allowed in the opening general description paragraph of an article.		I wanted sdto look up RNA in the wikipedia thinking that it would be able to give me a good starting point to understanding it. However, what I got was what's posted which tells me absolutely nothing as a newbie to genetics. Could someone please lay some ground rules about this kind of thing. It seems to me that since you can put lots of links in the definition of an entry, the entry loses it's coherence for someone like me. I think a good rule for wikipedia entries is that there should only be 3 links allowed in the opening general description paragraph of an article.
Line 10:		Line 33:


			== Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way? ==
	---------------------------

	==RNAi and therapeutic RNA molecules==

	With recent emergence of research interest in the use of RNA for therapeutic purposes from academia, biotech and pharma alike, a joint effort is desirable to include a small introductory mention (one-line in the intro para) followed by a detailed description of this field

	]

	--------------------------

	Ribosomal RNA??

	--------

	"exploit this property by" removed (anthromorphic - people exploit things, molecules do not)

	", and so has fallen out of favour among complex organisms as the preferred genetic material" also removed - most organisms don't know what kinds of molecules they contain and couldn't desired to change them even if they knew.

	>>>Should use "naturally selected" or "eliminated by natural selection" ?

	--------
	It looks like we are quite pedant,isn't it?
	It's quite obvious that words like "exploit this property" referring to RNA molecules are just a convenient metaphor...
	Just have a look to every peer-reviewed scientific journal to find thousands of such metaphors.

	When giving a scientific explanation, many times euphemisms are utilized to make things easier to understand. Going through an article and removing metaphors because it does not suit your idea of the english langauge is not improving the article, it is merely being a langauge snob.
	----

	"RNA transmits information from DNA to proteins" is a form of a ] It might not be a good idea to mention it in an encyclopedic article in exactly that form, even though it's good enough for a school textbook. Technically only mRNA does transmission. Other kinds of RNA may or may not be involved.

	] 20:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

	== Who discovered dsRNA? ==

	I've seen references as old as from 1976 to dsRNA, but despite fairly aggressive searching, I have not been able to convince myself of who discovered it, how they did so, and when. Did dsRNA discovery coincide with DNA discovery?
	] 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	==Misc==
	OK, I read this article today and I found the following paragraph. I think someone is clearly yanking my chain here:

	In the late 1990s and early 2000, there has been persistent evidence of more complex sex occurring in mammalian cells (and possibly others). This could point towards a more widespread use of dildos in biology, particularly in gene regulation. A particular class of dildos, micro dildo, has been found in many metazoans (from Caenorhabditis elegans to Homo sapiens) and clearly plays an important role in regulating other horny people.


	] 12:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

	:That's called vandalism, feel free to revert it

	==]==

	Hi there. I wondered if the contributors to this page might have some input on this article. ] 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Relative amounts ==

			FWIW - (For being ''aware only'' of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of ]s, including for ], in the ] of the ].<ref name="SA-20220708">{{cite news \|last=Starr \|first=Michelle \|title=Loads of Precursors For RNA Have Been Detected in The Center of Our Galaxy \|url=https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-bunch-of-rna-precursors-in-the-galactic-center \|date=8 July 2022 \|work=] \|accessdate=9 July 2022 }}</ref><ref name=FASS-20220708">{{cite journal \|author=Rivilla, Victor M. \|display-authors=et al. \|title=Molecular Precursors of the RNA-World in Space: New Nitriles in the G+0.693−0.027 Molecular Cloud \|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.876870/full \|date=8 July 2022 \|journal=] \|doi=10.3389/fspas.2022.876870 \|accessdate=9 July 2022 }}</ref> - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
	I came to this article to find out what the relative amounts of the respective forms of RNA would be inside your average cell. The article doesn't even make any attempt to express this. I am going to be looking elsewhere, but if anyone has information handy and can add it into the articlebefore I do - that would be great.--] 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

			== double stranded molekul by default? ==
	:It depends on the type of cell, and on how you want to quantify the relative amounts. If you want to know on the basis of mass, I believe rRNA is the most abundant, however if you want to know molar amounts then it would likely be tRNA - also I haven't seen any numbers of the molar amounts of the more recently discovered small RNAs. ] 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

			Just looking superficially at the images in the article, one can think that RNA is a (mostly) double stranded molecule. however, that is not true as far I know. I think at least, first image should be a single stranded RNA image. ] (]) 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
	:I just removed something added about 4% of RNA being mRNA - something like this should probably be referenced and qualified - 4% by weight? 4% of the RNA molecules? Big difference! ] 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

			== Too technical first sentence ==
	::mRNA makes up about 2% of the transcription output in a cell (see Mattick JS, 2001, EMBO Reports). It's hard to quantify non-coding RNAs because a significant percentage of them simply hasn't been categorized yet. I believe I saw some rough figures before, I'll try to dig up the article. -Lp ] 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

			The first sentence leans on very specialized terms.
	] 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) i wonder,why there must be 3 bases in either RNA and DNA?why not they exist as 4 bases/pair since they have 4 bases?what is the rule or evidence that shows RNA and DNA must be in 3 bases?

			Abbreviated: ''RNA is essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation and expression of genes.''

			In the first sentence we should strive to convey the essentials in a way that many can understand. Here is a trial:
	::K-crash, do you mean why are codons made up of 3 bases? See the ] article ] 19:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

			RNA is essential for all biological functions, either by performing that function itself (]) or by forming a template for production of proteins (]). ] (]) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
	==RNA secondary structure==
	The secondary structure section looks pretty thin currently. It would be good to have a figure showing an RNA helix, links to the ] article. Describe covariation versus sequence conservation. ] 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
	zbmcm z

			== Better introductory picture ==
	==The diversity of RNA==
	I believe this article could do more to impress upon the reader the amazing diversity (and emerging importance) of RNA. Consider, for a moment, the following:
	*]s and ]s and known be involved in RNAi-related gene-silencing events in many eukaryotes:
	**]s: ~28nt siRNAs are specifically expressed during conjugation.
	*]s
	*endogenous ]s — can fall into different classes (based on their biogenesis and function) such as:
	**]s ('''t'''rans-'''a'''cting '''s'''hort '''i'''nterfering RNAs)
	**]s
	**heterochromatic siRNAs
	*]s
	*]s
	*]s ('''r'''epeat '''a'''ssociated '''siRNA''')
	*]s (discovered in 2006 and found to be abundant in developing sex cells. A male animal missing these would be infertile)
	*] / ] (turns off the second X chromosome in females; see ])
	*] ('''p'''regnancy-'''i'''nduced '''n'''on-'''c'''oding RNA)
	*] (aka RNA interference)
	*etc. --] 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

			is a good introductory picture for RNA. The site says that it is public domain. ] (]) 08:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
	On the issue of diversity, I don't think ncRNA should be at the same level as tRNA, mRNA, etc as it is now. It's either coding (mRNA) or non-coding (everything else). The list is also redundant (and in danger of becoming out of sync) with same list in the ncRNA page. -Lp ] 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:28, 8 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RNA article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

RNA has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

This

level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Polymers (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers

This article was the MCB Collaboration of the Month for the month of May 2007. For more details, see the MCB Collaboration of the Month history.

(comment from August 2005)

I wanted sdto look up RNA in the wikipedia thinking that it would be able to give me a good starting point to understanding it. However, what I got was what's posted which tells me absolutely nothing as a newbie to genetics. Could someone please lay some ground rules about this kind of thing. It seems to me that since you can put lots of links in the definition of an entry, the entry loses it's coherence for someone like me. I think a good rule for wikipedia entries is that there should only be 3 links allowed in the opening general description paragraph of an article.

basically DNA the instructions for are organisms is found in the nucleus. however it can not leave the nucleus so when "instructions" need to be send out, part of the DNA is unraveled and copied. dna is made of four base pairs. i shall use just the letters A, T, C ang G. amazing yes that all life is described in changing patterns of these. A always pairs with T and C with G. because DNA is two strands. when copying dna the two strands are unraveled and one side is copied because if know one side you know the other. RNA bases (the same as DNA bases except use U instead of T) go into the nucleus and bind to the complimentary DNA bases. They then polymerise into the RNA strand. This is transcription. If it is a mRNA then it is later translated into protein.

that is the most basic explaination without getting into virii and other things.

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Starr, Michelle (8 July 2022). "Loads of Precursors For RNA Have Been Detected in The Center of Our Galaxy". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
Rivilla, Victor M.; et al. (8 July 2022). "Molecular Precursors of the RNA-World in Space: New Nitriles in the G+0.693−0.027 Molecular Cloud". Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences. doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.876870. Retrieved 9 July 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

double stranded molekul by default?

Just looking superficially at the images in the article, one can think that RNA is a (mostly) double stranded molecule. however, that is not true as far I know. I think at least, first image should be a single stranded RNA image. Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Too technical first sentence

The first sentence leans on very specialized terms.

Abbreviated: RNA is essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation and expression of genes.

In the first sentence we should strive to convey the essentials in a way that many can understand. Here is a trial:

RNA is essential for all biological functions, either by performing that function itself (Non-coding RNA) or by forming a template for production of proteins (messenger RNA). Ettrig (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Better introductory picture

Here is a good introductory picture for RNA. The site says that it is public domain. Ettrig (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories: