This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.
- It's used in better methods of second strand synthesis than the ones described in the article. The article needs updating to discuss these methods since the description given is rather outdated and rarely used JackAidley (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not merge. The two are very different things, C-DNA is one of several possible helical shapes (a, b, c... etc.) that DNA can naturally take whilst cDNA refers to a 'complementary' strand of DNA often formed during experiments. SPWright (talk)
SPWright is right. C-DNA is a DNA conformation and cDNA is (basically) a coding DNA sequence. DO NOT merge these two articles. -- Nunø Agøstinhø • (Say It!) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The recent Supreme Court decision Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics had some discussion of cDNA and that article links to cDNA, so it likely that news of this case will bring more traffic to this page. The Supreme Court decision held, "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated." But the court ruled "cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring." That idea raises a question that this article could shed light on. While cDNA is not naturally occurring, is it in some sense deterministic?
If there is an identified naturally-occurring gene, is there a standard laboratory process to take that gene, get its mRNA template, remove the introns to generate an intron-free mRNA template, and reverse transcribe it to cDNA? If so, is the resulting cDNA totally determined by the starting DNA, so from any given sequence of original DNA, there is exactly one corresponding sequence of cDNA? It would be helpful if the article could discuss this, to help readers think about the Supreme Court's decision. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read the text of the actual Supreme Court decision, but the reporting appears to confuse the concept of "synthesized DNA", with the concept of "cDNA", which is one of many processes for synthesizing DNA, and a particularly non-versatile one at that. Assuming that the decision itself reflects the press, I'd like to see a small discussion of this in the article text. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)