Talk:DNA

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DNA 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 21 days

DNA is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
February 18, 2004	Featured article review	Demoted
March 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 24, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 9, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 25, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 25, 2004, and April 25, 2005.
Current status: Featured article

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance 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).

Biology Top‑importance

	Biology portal DNA is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Base Pairing"

add: (or "Watson–Crick–Franklin") to "Watson-Crick base pair", to match current terminology in DNA science. Vecchionis (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers laud authors for updating the terminology of the base pair to "Watson-Crick-Franklin" in the ACS journal "Biochemistry".

https://twitter.com/chembioBryan/status/1116340311817629696

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.biochem.7b01101 Kerri9494 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing.

Hey. Can I edit this page. Because I want to make it simpler. 129.126.35.127 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"first sequencing of DNA from animal remains": seems to be wrong as stated.

Section "Evolution" says

In February 2021, scientists reported, for the first time, the sequencing of DNA from animal remains, a mammoth in this instance over a million years old, the oldest DNA sequenced to date.

Haven't scientists have been sequencing DNA from animal remains for quite a while before 2021?

Should this say something like "scientists reported, for the first time, the sequencing of DNA from subfossil animal remains" or "the sequencing of DNA from the remains of an extinct animal" or something along those lines?

- 189.60.49.251 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this should refer to the fact that DNA has been recovered from ancient organisms on a timescale where evolutionary change can be observed. At present it reads like random clickbait for the referenced studies. Would suggest changing:

" In February 2021, scientists reported, for the first time, the sequencing of DNA from animal remains, a mammoth in this instance over a million years old, the oldest DNA sequenced to date. "

to

" Ancient DNA has been recovered from ancient organisms at a timescale where genome evolution can be directly observed, including from extinct organisms up to millions of years old, such as the woolly mammoth^[1]. "

ping User:Rebestalic as the last editor of this article at the time of writing (given the other IP has not been answered for some time) 130.226.236.6 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also issues with first paragraph of the section (which relies on very outdated references for DNA degradation) but will see if any action happens with the above before taking more time to suggest re-drafts for this. 130.226.236.6 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support that, sounds like a good idea! Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 22:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?

A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled "How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering?^[2] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Callaway E (17 February 2021). "Million-year-old mammoth genomes shatter record for oldest ancient DNA – Permafrost-preserved teeth, up to 1.6 million years old, identify a new kind of mammoth in Siberia". Nature. 590 (7847): 537–538. Bibcode:2021Natur.590..537C. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00436-x. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 33597786.
^ Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

Compressed representation

Does anyone have information about the recent news that DNA is in a compressed form and that the "junk" is actually part of the decompression mechanics? (kind of like a zip file) That would be an important addition to this article. Actually, it makes sense that the genome would be in the most compressed state to make reproduction efficient.

How does that make more sense than about everything else?--–ꟼsyc^ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Sense” may need ist own disambiguation-page, before we discuss this further. –ꟼsyc^ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

Keeping it simple: Thoughts on a hatnote along the lines of "Not to be confused with the related RNA molecule"? Being extra scrupulous and seeking input first given it's an FA. Would advise usage of {{hatnote group}} to omit the newline. Thanks in advance for input. --Slowking Man (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[NAT-20210217-1] Callaway E (17 February 2021). "Million-year-old mammoth genomes shatter record for oldest ancient DNA – Permafrost-preserved teeth, up to 1.6 million years old, identify a new kind of mammoth in Siberia". Nature. 590 (7847): 537–538. Bibcode:2021Natur.590..537C. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00436-x. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 33597786.

[NAT-20240205-2] Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

[1]

[2]