Talk:Messenger RNA
All This Talk About Merging
This article does not need to be merged mRNA mentions it already and it does not need to be as in depth.
This article is getting long enough as it is, not to mention that all of the articles being considered for merging into it have enormous potential to be filled with information as soon as someone knowledgeable has that time. The appropriate action would be to summarise the information in the mRNA article and provide a link using the 'details' template to the individual article. --Username132 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be merged as it provides more detail. However, it does need some improvement. TransControl 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO transfering the info contained in the mono-/polycistronic mRNA articles into the main article is apropriate, since this info wasn't mentioned in the main mRNA page, not even in summarized form. I agree, that this sub-articles have potential to be filled with information in future and therefore shouldn't be deleted, but left as stubs to be adopted by an expert. We should wait for those sub-articles to become something more than a stub, before thinking about how to summarize this main article's section. I'm adding the details and main templates in order to avoid parallel work being done one main and sub-topic, as noted in Wikipedia:Summary_style. --Axeloide 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Instead of just discussing I dared to be bold and tried my best in summarizing the m/p-cistronic section and moving the details to the subarticles. Sorry for merging and then spliting again, but I now agree with Username132 in that a mere definition of those terms is sufficient in the main article, with the subarticles providing the right framework for detailed info; the trend is "growing articles" not "shrinking them", so let's begin right away with the right structure. --Axeloide 13:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Information merged in from other articles
- "5' cap" stub content was merged in with the stub being converted to a redirect pointing here. Courtland 12:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Additional merges needed
- "Polyadenylation" and "poly-A tail" should also be merged with this article (under Eukaryotic mRNA processing and mRNA structure, respectively).--Plociam 20:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Merging mono- and polycistronic articles into this
I've tried my best merging the info contained in monocistronic and polycistronic into a new subsection in this article, but it still reads as an enumeration of facts and should be reworked to read more smoothly. Could any native speaker please improve grammar and style? Thank you. I havent removed the source articles yet in case anybody want to check the merging. I've also added the link to endosymbiotic theory in this context, since this interpretation seems te be consensus nowadays. --Axeloide 10:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Problem with Coding Regions
- The "Coding Regions" section kept repeating itself many many times. Fixed that. --TO 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a horrible article
I consider this sort of writing an embarrassment for Wikipedia. The article is pretty much written for a microbiologist who already knows what mRNA is. I invite a qualified person (alas not me) to write an expanded introduction for someone who is not familiar with--for example--the "5'" nomenclature or what RNA polymerase is. Ask this question: What is the point of mRNA; why is it being built and transported to ribosomes? How much is built? How often? At the moment this function is being carried out by a wholly inadequate and illegible cartoon. If the article can't do this in some detail at the outset without jargon it might at least link to an article that does.
- Microbiologist? Try 'most any biologist. If you don't know what something is, you should click on the blue link and read up on that first. If I'm reading the article on jake brake for example, and don't understand what the intake manifold is, I don't complain that the article is written for auto-mechanics; I click on the blue link and read up. Have you seen [Simple English Wikipedia?] --Username132 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Polyadenylation step could be more detailed
It could be detailed, but the already existing article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyadenylation) must be partially corrected by the following indications :
The present description and the drawing of the reaction are wrong :
the poly(A) polymerase (PAP), the CSPF, and the poly(A) tail regulator PABPN1 (the first PABPN1 bound to the 11 AMP residues added), must be interacting as a tripartite complex during the entire reaction of polyadenylation, since the processivity (that is the ability to add an AMP per catalytic cycle without dissociating from the 3'OH of the RNA between each catalytic cycle) of mammalian PAP relies on this tripartite complex.
The current model of termination for the mammalian polyadenylation reaction suggests that the PAPBN1/poly(A)250-300 tail forms a globular shaped RNP (ribonucleoparticule) of about 20 nm in diameter, and that this could sterically disrupt the tripartite complex mentionned above, leading to a change from processive to distributive activity of PAP, and therefore termination.
The drawing should in fact show the CPSF/PAP/firstPABPN1 complex at the site of cleavage, and as the poly(A) tail grows, the number of AMP residues increase, but the 3'OH end of the RNA always stays in contact with PAP located near CPSF, leading to the formation of a buckle of poly(A), PABPN1 proteins bound to it.
The current drawing shows PAP at the end of the RNA, with no interaction with CPSF or PABPN1 : in this case, PAP couldn't be able to add the poly(A) tail with real efficiency.
For references, type Elmar Wahle in pubmed, or see :
Basics
Whilst I do not concur that this is a wholly bad article, I feel some basic components are missing. Detail is always needed, but some help for those learning to walk in this area would be appreciated.
--I do not agree with the comment that mRNA is transcribed from sense DNA. you can do that, but that is not what nature does. Nature transcribes mRNA from anti-sense DNA, to yield sense mRNA. Please check this, as I think this is a serious error.
Dynamic range
Does anybody know what the dynamic range of mRNA is in a typical human cell?