This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 1 March 2011 (Signing comment by 24.203.4.38 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:37, 1 March 2011 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 24.203.4.38 - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:WikiProject RNA Template:Wikiproject MCB
 | 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.
RNA and DNA picture
I don't like File:NA-comparedto-DNA thymineAndUracilCorrected.png. The helical structure of RNA in the picture has nothing to do with reality, and I saw another Misplaced Pages article where an editor had assumed that RNA forms a single-sranded helix based on this picture... the result of its misleading nature. There are already the links to the purines and pyrimidines in the article for people to look at. Narayanese (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, maybe an image from Heroes, the NBC show. --203.171.199.105 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
RNA structure error
I believe the structure picture is incorrect. The bonds between the phosphate and the ribose are on the wrong oxygens of the phosophate. There is also the fact that RNA exists in double stranded form in viruses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.144.88 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the depiction of the phosphodiester bonds is accurate. Phosphate has a tetrahedral geometry, so any two of its oxygens (such as the two involved in these bonds) are adjacent to each other. When flattened into two dimensions, this looks just like the structure picture on this page. 97.113.147.245 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
RNA as a dietary supplement
Hello, at least one company to my knowledge makes a multivitamin/supplement type product containing between 10 and 150mg of RNA per day. Nothing in the article at all about this yet it reached good article status. 76.10.164.191 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given that the dietary supplement industry is largely unregulated this hardly seems noteworthy. Is there any published evidence that this supplement has any measurable effect over a control such as a mouthful of any animal or vegetable material (which also contains plenty of RNA)? My quick pubmed search turned up nothing.--Paul (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to advertise the supplement website unless asked for what it is, but when you click the ingredient RNA it tells you a bit about it, followed by the following: http://freetexthost.com/agz34isryy I'm not exactly sure what to do with this but I see some Pubmed, etc in there. Do veggies literally have hundreds of milligrams of RNA? That derails the requirement in a supplement.. I'd definitely like this outed and more written about it whether it's positive or just info on the use and uselessness in a supplement. 76.10.164.191 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all foods contain lots of RNA, but that doesn't matter, as you synthesize your own, so it's not necessary to consume it. I don't see much research on this, probably because it's considered obvious that you don't need it. Here's one undergraduate research paper that found that it didn't help in a specific case ].
- The digestive system secretes ribonuclease, so all you get out of dietary RNA is a bunch of nucleotides which your body could synthesize on its own. If intact foreign RNA did get into a cell, it would be more likely to wreak havoc than be of benefit. PubMed makes it easy to add lots of authoritative-looking references to claims, but they only count if you follow up the cited articles to see whether they really say anything relevant to the claims being made.96.54.32.44 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all foods contain lots of RNA, but that doesn't matter, as you synthesize your own, so it's not necessary to consume it. I don't see much research on this, probably because it's considered obvious that you don't need it. Here's one undergraduate research paper that found that it didn't help in a specific case ].
Comparison between RNA and DNA figure
I don't like the recently added figure. The main difference between RNA and DNA are the hydroxyl groups on RNA. The figure does not show them and implies the only differences are uracil <-> thymine, and that RNA is single-stranded, which is not universally true. Rotavirus like many other viruses has a genome of double-stranded RNA. True, it's a pretty picture, but it's wrong. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi GrahamColm! Thanks for the information. The pictures has already been removed by Narayanese. Best wishes, --Sponk (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
First sentence
"Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is one of the three major macromolecules (along with DNA and proteins) that are essential for all known forms of life." What about polysaccharides and lipids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.4.38 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories: