Talk:Consensus sequence

first paragraph is unclear
As a chemistry undergraduate with above average knowledge of biology, I didn't understand the first paragraph, it feels like the article is only for those who already know what a consensus sequence is. As far as I understand a consensus sequence is a series of bases in which certain bases have a higher frequency than others, usually this sequence is a binding site for a protein, as explained in a later paragraph starting "A consensus sequence may be...". Whmice (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Better?
The introduction is very precise which gives it a lot of strength. Nevertheless, I agree that it isn't written for the lay-person and may an insufficient sufficient guide for understanding the concept. Perhaps something like this would be better:


 * I went ahead in changed it from: In molecular biology and bioinformatics, consensus sequence refers to the most common nucleotide or amino acid at a particular position after multiple sequences are aligned. A consensus sequence is a way of representing the results of a multiple sequence alignment, where related sequences are compared to each other, and similar functional sequence motifs are found. The consensus sequence shows which residues are most abundant in the alignment at each position.


 * to: In molecular biology and bioinformatics, consensus sequence refers to the common order of nucleotides or amino acids in a region. It represents the results of a multiple sequence alignment in which related sequences are compared to each other, and similar sequence motifs are calculated. The consensus sequence shows which residues, either nucleotide or amino acid, are most abundant at each position in the alignment. Such information is important when considering sequence dependent enzymes such as a promoter. --Dlpolanco (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed it again to reduce repetitiveness. "In molecular biology and bioinformatics, the consensus sequence is the calculated order of most frequent residues, either nucleotide or amino acid, found at each position in a sequence alignment. It represents the results of a multiple sequence alignment in which related sequences are compared to each other and similar sequence motifs are calculated. Such information is important when considering sequence dependent enzymes such as RNA polymerase. " I'm hoping it's getting better. Dlpolanco (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Something to Add
I think it would be beneficial to have a short sequence example. It might be beneficial to show several aligned sequences and then show the consensus sequence; nothing extravagant; something simple. Hopefully will do this weekend. Dlpolanco (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Biological significance should be first
I think the biological significance should be first in the article. The computational aspect doesn't have any meaning or context without the biology. If anyone has any further comment on this change or on the order of content in general, drop a line here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyfence (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify
"On the contrary, mutations that destroy [conserved] nucleotides in the consensus sequence are known as down mutations." Why do you say "conserved" nucleotides here? If it mutates, it's by definition not conserved, right? Why not just leave the word "conserved" out and not raise confusing questions in the reader's mind. This entry is jargony enough for even modestly non-expert readers as it is.

Also agree with rustyfence above.

Eperotao (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on example
It says that Y can stand for any pyrimidine; IIUC from the linked article (and I may well not!), a pyrimidine can be C, T, or U. Given that we're told this is a DNA sequence, U is out. Doesn't that make [CT] mean the same thing as Y?

I would suggest either an example that doesn't use both [CT] and Y, or an explanation of the difference (or simply a confirmation that they're equivalent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Maurer (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)