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.
Why is there no credit given to Rosalind Franklin? 21:50, 5 July 2013 User:188.8.131.52
I agree - she has her own Wiki entry that acknowledges her contribution to the structure of DNA "According to Francis Crick, her data was key to determining the structure to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 model regarding the structure of DNA." but there is no mention of her work on the actual DNA site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
She is credited in the History section. But I don't know why her picture was removed. danielkueh (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The history section suggests that Franklin and Gosling's work was merely in support of Watson and Crick, but from my "what's available on the web" based research suggests that this is not right -- Watson was shown Franklin's data, which Watson and Crick used as the basis for, at least the specifically described shape of the DNA structure. When presented to Franklin, she may have been lead to think that her work merely confirmed Watson and Crick's (which is reflected in her paper) model building approach, but she was basically looking at her own work, with a few addenda which encoded Chargaff's rules. The description in the history section appears to be written contrary to this. Qed (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
When mentioning Rosalind Franklin, it says that she didn't get the Nobel because they weren't awarded post-humously, however that rule wasn't made until 1974, 10 years after their prize was awarded. Furthermore, Gosling may have been an author in the paper, but Photograph 51 was taken by Franklin alone, not Franklin and Gosling. Jillymint220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The original W-C model is right on the fact of being a helix where A pairs to T and G pairs to C, but it's wrong in that the base-pairs are displaced from the helical axis, something which happens in A-DNA, but NOT B-DNA. In other words, the original cartoon and description in the Nature paper can be seen today as a mixture of a B-DNA conformation and an A-DNA conformation which is not right, so, saying that there is consensus in that this is the right model for B-DNA is awfully misleading.
Chargaff's rules do not affect in any way DNA conformations, that is, the base-pairing rules, A-T and G-C are not related with the numbers of base-pair per turn or major and minor groove widths that DNA will acquire under different ionic strenghts of the solutions they are in.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. B E C K YS A Y L E S 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
those of us who have some chemical knowledge wouldn't object to the word "molecule" applied to, say, a tRNA however, is it quite the right word for one strand of a mammalian chromosome ? aside from the connotation that DNA is free in vivo (which rarely occurs; dna is coated wiht protein) I'm not sure that technically it is known that each strand is continuous . that is, at anyone time, there are a lot of nicks and gaps and RNA primers and so forth; it maybe that in fact, there is always a nick present, just from natural degradative processes
I can't find any evidence on this; the largest pulse field gels only go up to ~ 5Mbp,and I don't think zimm visco elastomety goes this high — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference FWPUB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).