Talk:Base pair

A summary of this article appears in DNA.

New images

The previous image (below) contains errors (outlined on its talk page) but it would be very useful to have some diagram. Anyone with ChemDraw? Opabinia regalis 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, O. regalis, check out

and

Are they OK for your purposes? I can spruce them up if needed. The bonding should be checked, but I think they're OK. WillowW 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Did I mention that you're awesome? :) Only one minor thing - there's a double bond missing on the upper right of the cytosine (between carbons 5 and 6). I like not showing the sugar and phosphate the way the previous images did, which looked "busy" aside from being wrong. (That poor overburdened carbon atom...) Opabinia regalis 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :) I totally agree about the backbone -- it distracted from the Main Event; a student might not know what part of the Figure to look at. Sorry about the missing db, and thanks for catching it; I had a skulking feeling that something was wrong. Hope this helps and send along any other requests for ChemDraw; the program is good although I haven't learned all its tricks yet... WillowW 11:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Added both to the article. I've been using XDrawChem lately (partly for licensing reasons and partly out of a possibly-misguided attempt to stick with open-source) and it's just not as pretty or convenient to use. Still pretty good for a freebie though. I'll pass along any more ChemDraw-deficient articles I run into :) Opabinia regalis 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old image

substituted thumb|150px|the png for

File:DNAbasePairing.jpg

the jpg

because the former is only 1/4 the filesize of the latter with no apparent difference in quality.--Deelkar 21:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the png one under WP:CSD#4, as it had no source information and was tagged for speedy deletion. ElinorD (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were claims on the image page that it was factually inaccurate. ElinorD (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about uracil and adenine?

how many H bonds do they have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.151.172 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Base Stacking

What does this mean - quote: "GC stacking interactions with adjacent bases tend to be more favorable." ? Does it mean that GC base pairs form more bonds with other base pairs, be they GC or AT, or just among other GC base pairs? Do the base pairs have to be in a particular orientation, e.g. GpG with CpC vs CpG with GpC? --Seans Potato Business 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length

What is the length of 1 bp in nanometers?

Length II, numbers

Can anybody who knows please amend the sentence "The haploid human genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long .." (introduction) by an numeric expression? Is 3 billion 3E9 (UK) or 3E12 (US)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.1 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the US billion is 10^9, and the UK billion used to be 10^12, but common usage is tending to the 10^9 version.

The human genome is 3E9 base pairs; at 0.34 nm per base pair, that works out to 1 meter.96.54.53.165 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a base pair be denoted by a single letter?

I quote from a DNA-testing-company material:

"Your DNA is made up of a series of 'base pairs' that make up your genetic code. Each of these base pairs can have one of four designations: A, C, G, or T"

- isn't there some mistake? I thought that a pair should be designated by a pair of letters. Best regards, --CopperKettle 12:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]