Talk:DNA
Copyright violation?
This looks like just a rip of a Wikipedia article... can someone fix it? Shanya Almafeta 15:28, 11 February 2007 (CST)
We should all edit it. Before the unfork, we had all the WP articles, and as they became different we made them CZ live. I see your concern, but it is legitimate to import articles and then work on them. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:33, 11 February 2007 (CST)
Proposition:
This article is far too big.
Lets identify 1. the corere sections for a coherent comprehesnive introduction to understanding the key biological roles of DNA
2. Packages that form the nuclues of other vitasl biology topics.
I'm talkin' RADICAL SURGERY HERE.
Che?
David Tribe 01:33, 12 February 2007 (CST)
Here is the current content:
- 1 Physical and chemical properties
- 1.1 Base pairing
- 1.2 Sense and antisense
- 1.3 Supercoiling
- 1.4 Alternative double-helical structures
- 1.5 Quadruplex structures
- 2 Chemical modifications
- 2.1 Regulatory base modifications
- 2.2 DNA damage
- 3 Overview of biological functions
- 3.1 Transcription and translation
- 3.2 Replication
- 4 Genes and genomes
- 5 Interactions with proteins
- 5.1 DNA-binding proteins
- 5.2 DNA-modifying enzymes
- 5.2.1 Nucleases and ligases
- 5.2.2 Topoisomerases and helicases
- 5.2.3 Polymerases
- 6 Genetic recombination
- 7 Uses in technology
- 7.1 Forensics
- 7.2 Bioinformatics
- 7.3 DNA and computation
- 7.4 History and anthropology
- 8 History
I have bolded what seem to be fundamental and should be kept at some level for a primer article. Feel free to add or subrtract from this initial cut. Chris Day (Talk) 01:44, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. Chris Day (Talk) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- Im not wanting to be dogmatic and don't want to throw anything out just (thinking of) putting some of it elsewhere. It might work if we concentrate on developing all the essentils first but keep it all in one place,
- I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. Chris Day (Talk) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST)
but my point remains that many of these sections are part of important bifgeer stories we also need to write Eg
- 3.1 Transcription and translation
- 6 Genetic recombination
- 7.1 Forensics
- 7.2 Bioinformatics
- 7.3 DNA and computation
- 7.4 History and anthropology'
all these are specialist fields each with a huge story to tell that cannot be done justly here. Why not get those jobs started>, and also do them well
DNA essentials?
Top priority is to find a way to create an article that novices will learn a lot of important stuff easily.
Lets keep talking to discover whats the best structure that achieves this and whether for instance thats with a primer plus a big article.
In important topics like DNA a separate primer maybe a good idea. Maybe we can start a tradition of primers, maybe not. Larry might have some argument that its bad.
One way is to have a little link at the top saying DNA primer for those who need the simplest essentials. Unfortunately DNA primer by itself has a special meaning so we could call it DNA for beginners. waadya think? David Tribe 03:47, 12 February 2007 (CST)
Again I put it as a proposition., not a firm judgment and I appreciate the courteous contrary opinion. Maybe we should wait for some others to say something? David Tribe 03:56, 12 February 2007 (CST)
The following analogies are well intentioned but I judge them to be deeply misleading and factually incorrect. DNA is NOT , emphatically NOT, analogous to an operating system. Its not used like a blueprint either- there is no overall physical correspondence between DNA and cellular morphology:
"All cellular organisms contain DNA. DNA, along with other organic molecules, provides a sort of operating system for an organism. It's also compared to a blueprint, since it contains the instructions to construct other components of the cell, namely proteins and RNA molecules. " David Tribe 14:20, 12 February 2007 (CST)