Talk:DNA/Archive 15

Edit request on 26 January 2012 to the section Base Pairing in the article titled DNA
Please change "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, left)." to "The two types of base pairs form different numbers of hydrogen bonds, AT forming two hydrogen bonds, and GC forming three hydrogen bonds (see figures, right)." because the figures the article is indicating is to the right of the page, not to the left of the page.

Wvpspdude (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this. Graham Colm (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing Rosalind Franklin references from other Wikipedia page
Hi Folks. As the DNA page is being prevented from editing, and I am new to this, I thought it worth mentioning that the important information about Rosalind Franklin's part in the discovery of DNA, which is on her wikipedia page, is almost completely missing from the main DNA page. That seems like a pretty big omission, you know, one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I have to tell you that the women scientists where I work are pretty pissed off about it. Anyway, here is what it says on Rosalind Franklin's wikipedia page concerning her discovery of DNA. It would be more fair and correct to put it on the DNA page. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, was "the data we actually used"[3] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[4] Franklin's X-ray diffraction images confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[5]" Like I said, I would add this if I could but the DNA page is protected so I can not. Thank you for your time. You are welcome to contact me at eekley@efn.org. Peace. Anand E. E. Holtham-Keathley163.41.136.11 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic, but that seems too big a chunk to add to the history section, and I don't feel able to judge what would be appropriate; perhaps you could suggest a suitable reformulation, and I or someone (I am not all that active) may add it for you. Alternatively, it is not that hard to become auto-confirmed, which is what you need to edit this semi-protected page: create an account, perform 10 edits and wait four days. Or one of the pissed off women could do the same — in either case doing something yourself would be more positive than complaining about others not doing things! Be bold (but not unreasonable)! Incidentally, the account under History of molecular biology gives her somewhat more credit. PJTraill (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arsenic instead of phosphorus

 * Please discuss this section which someone inserted and someone deleted and I restored:
 * In 2010, NASA research confirms discovery of bacterial DNA with arsenic instead of phosphorus at Mono Lake, California..
 * The article http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html looks genuine. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is genuine, but see (I must read those Science articles but couldn't make time for that yet). Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Negatively charged backbone not described
The article doesn't mention the negative charge of the phosphates, an extremely important attribute of DNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Control (or time out) Spinning DNA graphic?
As I'm reading this page, its really a great introduction to the topic btw, the rotating DNA graphic on the right is distracting to me. Is there a way to give users the option to stop it? Or if not what about a time out after some reasonable period? After its been up for a while the continued rotating doesn't add anything and for visual people like me its just a little distracting. Also, in my experience its better web site design to not have things that the user can't control or that don't time out that flash, rotate, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebellis (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)  Damn, forgot to sign, see a bot beat me to it... Mdebellis (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Units
I notice the Angstrom unit is used in this article. Should we not be using nanometres? Shadwell Munch (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I mean use nm first with Angstroms in brackets. Would this be better? Shadwell Munch (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in DNA
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of DNA's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Nature": From James D. Watson: " Watson's folly", Nature, October 24, 2007. Retrieved September 27, 2008. From Photo 51: Watson JD, Crick FHC (1953). "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". Nature 171: 737–738. Full text PDF From Rosalind Franklin: Watson JD, Crick FHC (1953). "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". Nature 171: 737–738. Full text PDF This article was immediately followed by the two King's submissions: M.H.F. Wilkins, A.R. Stokes, and H.R. Wilson. Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids, pp738–740 then by: Rosalind E. Franklin and R.G. Gosling. Molecular configuration of Sodium Thymonucleate pp 740–741. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Chemical modifications and altered DNA packaging
I added material under the section "Chemical modifications and altered DNA packaging". The previous material noted that the expression of genes is influenced by how DNA is packaged in chromosomes, but only gave one of the 3 mechanisms by which DNA packaging in chromosomes is altered. I added the other 2 major mechanisms. In addition, previously, no mention was made of how the chemical modification (or other packaging alterations) came about. I added recent literature references for how these alterations may come about during repair of DNA damages. Under the subheading "Damage," the damages caused by mutagens were noted, but a large number of damages that occur in DNA per day are endogenous damages. I added two of the major internal cellular mechanisms by which these endogenous damages occur, and added a list of the the common endogenous damages with the frequencies with which they occur per day or per cell cycle. I also clarified a previous reference to "150,000 bases that have suffered oxidative damage" to note that this level of DNA damage is the steady-state level (due to the balance between newly occurring damages and ongoing DNA repair), and is different from the frequency with which this type of DNA damage occurs per day. Bernstein0275 (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of newly added material is excessive, particularly the listings of the number of damaged cells per day in humans and other animals. I'm not sure all that is needed on an article on DNA. The new formatting is not an improvement as well. I am inclined to revert this addition. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? danielkueh (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the amount added was excessive. The comment made on removal was "Much of the newly added information is excessive and is better placed in another article, e.g., DNA damage."  Since there is no current article titled DNA damage, I plan to create an article, likely titled "DNA damage (naturally occurring)," and move the list of naturally occurring DNA damages there.  I also plan to move the material indicating how DNA damage can lead to chromatin remodeling to the article on epigenetics, where it may be more appropriate.Bernstein0275 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png will be appearing as picture of the day on November 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

it'S IN HIS DNA D D D DNA AND HE JUST TAKE MY BREATH AWAY B B B BREATH AWAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.37.91 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Koltsov reference
I think the reference to Nikolai Koltsov's 1927 paper needs to be more thoroughly investigated. We need to have a literal translation to assess whether his idea was really so strikingly similar to the result obtained in the 1950s. The wording in the text has the flavour of being massaged to fit modern knowledge. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New SVG available
There are some new versions of pictures:
 * Branch-dna.png -> Branch-dna-single.svg
 * Multi-branch-dna.png -> Branch-DNA-multiple.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterinfo (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Solved. I a now able to edit. --Otterinfo (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Slightly confusing introduction of base J concept
I'm a lay person and not a molecular biologist. I was confused with the introduction of base J (a thing new to me) in the second paragraph under the "Nucleobase Classification" heading. The second sentence there reads


 * "A modified form (beta-d-glucopyranosyloxymethyluracil) is also found in a number of organisms: the flagellates Diplonema and Euglena, and all the kinetoplastid genera[16] Biosynthesis of J occurs..."

I propose an appropriate editor substitute the following:


 * "'Base J', a modified form of uracil (beta-d-glucopyranosyloxymethyluracil), is also found in a number of organisms: the flagellates Diplonema and Euglena, and all the kinetoplastid genera.[16] Biosynthesis of J occurs..."

I think this introduces the concept in a way less like a riddle. The way it reads now, one is forced to guess that "J" is the abbreviation for this modified uracil (if that's what it is- is it more correct to say that it's a modified form of the T nucleoside, deoxythymidine?). Also "genera" should take a period. There is a stubby page for "Base_J" that might deserve a hyperlink here. Rt3368 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not being a molecular biologist myself, I agree. In the same vein, I am also unclear whether:


 * beta-d-glucopyranosyloxymethyluracil, as used in the DNA page here,
 * is the same as
 * Glucopyranosyloxymethyluracil, as used in the Base J page.


 * In the absence of any support, I will do a little research. If this can be confirmed then I will make the edits as you suggest, unless you wish to do that yourself. -- Jodon  |  Talk  10:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this. I would appreciate your making the change as I've suggested or with something similar, as you see fit.  Rt3368 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes. I also added a reference on the Base J page. Hope they won't get reverted too soon (I'm a pessimist). -- Jodon  |  Talk  12:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

enantiomeric DNA
Hi, one should mention that in nature only D-DNA occures. But one can sythetize L-DNA. http://nass.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/1/187.abstract --Biggerj1 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Chirality/Handedness of the DNA structure
I would suggest that the lede (at least) include a mention that DNA typically is found in a right-handed double-helix structure. There is a mention buried deep in the article about an alternative structure of DNA being left-handed, but it is not explicitly stated in the article that its (typical DNA's) chirality is right-handed. A very common (overwhelmingly so — an overwhelmingly dominant) mistake in DNA depictions is showing DNA as left-handed (which I am sure irks the hell out of people who know it as right-handed). The images are correct on the handedness (but I notice you have to look closely to see it with these illustrations as the choice in depiction method lends to an easy optical illusion where it can appear either way; closer examination shows the depiction can only be right handed). The lay person may not find it important, but it may lend information to the casual lay reader to inadvertently know the difference. Those in chemistry not familiar with the genetics field will particularly take note of such information (they understand handedness and its significance). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Type II errors
So, how many nucleotides are there? Do we just have A,G,C and T? Really? Are you sure? - kk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.5.205 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate DNA chemistry
The author confessed that he wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals; see http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

Please update the Alternate DNA chemistry section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.104.174 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I overlooked the third paragraph that makes it clear it was a real paper and he was not the author. Leaving the above here as the reference may be of some use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.104.174 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1.10 Vibration
I will delete this subsection as it clearly falls into the category of original research. This has been deleted and undeleted before, but it should never have been added in the first place as it is way to specific and represents only a sub-sub selection on the extensive scientific literature on various type of vibration of DNA. If it belongs at all in Wikipedia it would be in a small part of a hypothetical article on DNA Dynamics.Somoza (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't agree that this is original research, but it is certainly material that is quite obscure and of no interest to the vast majority of people who would access this article. I am inclined to delete this section again (Somoza's deletion was reverted), but I would appreciate comments first. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Stigmatella aurantiaca, unless your edits actually make changes to content its generally frowned upon by the community to use the edit summary only for discussion. Regarding your comment, I for one am interested, as it happens to link an important aspect of genetic engineering (i.e. mutations) to low-frequency radiation. This is key to a pet project I am currently working on, and the information is very useful. I'm neither a molecluar biologist nor a geneticist, just have a general interest in the subject. And your "beliefs" are hardly the point - WP:CONSENSUS is required to make changes to well sourced content. Please provide me with arguments as to why this should be removed. Your opinion of obscurity is noted, but is that a real argument? Does it violate policy, or does it just violate your opinion? Thanks. -- Jodon  |  Talk  18:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. It is not a dumping ground for anything and everything about a subject that appeals to an editor's fancy. An editor should assist in creating an article that is meaningful to and comprehensible by the target audience. "DNA" is an article that will be accessed by an extremely broad range of users. Filling it up with advanced, obscure material goes firmly against Wikipedia's purpose. If you want to appeal to WP:CONSENSUS, well, I don't think the material belongs here, and Somoza doesn't think the material belongs here. The count is 2 to 1, so I am deleting it. If you want this material in Wikipedia, follow Somoza's suggestion and create a new article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're still just stating your opinion on what constitutes "obscurity". For example, I could tell you that any mention of Base J is totally obscure and uninteresting to the lay person, however it remains in the main article. I re-phrased that content earlier in the year and never once considered deleting it just because I found it "obscure".


 * Material added on Wikipedia articles is based on the quality and quantity of verifiable and reliable sources and on notability. The more sources there exist, then the more material can be written about it, and the more it warrants inclusion, thus avoiding the problem of deletionism. The weight of its entry is proportional to the amount of sources that exist for it. I would object to a whole paragraph about it, not a single sentence. Deleting it simply because of your "fancy" is POV pushing. You're also presenting a different argument from the original reason for deleting it, i.e. original research, which I have shown it is not. Inclusion of the material does not violate no original research and neutral point of view. It is not even contentious material. It is not inherently unencyclopedic. All we're left with is your opinion on obscurity. That's an insufficient reason for deletionism. -- Jodon  |  Talk  11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the scientific literature on the topic of vibrations of DNA as I used to do research in this area. I think the topic is interesting and deserves to be covered in Wikipedia. However, the existing text on this topic is too specific to a subarea of this subtopic and should not be in the main article on DNA. I am guessing it was added by one of the authors of the referenced articles. I have published a handful of articles in good journals on another subarea of the topic of DNA vibrations, but they too would be inappropriate to cite in this article. If I had time, I would add an article on DNA dynamics, mentioning the various type of vibration and how they may affect biological function. In such an article the disputed text might have a place.Somoza (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the weight of its entry is proportional to the amount of sources that exist for it. This does not violate any WP policy, only an "opinion" on what constitutes "obscurity". So, as per consensus in your favour, and until another article is written, let's just consign any mention of it anywhere to oblivion. I guess its true that the deletionists always win in the end. -- Jodon  |  Talk  11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Following a parallel line of argument as Somoza's, I am familiar with the scientific literature on the topic of multicopy single-stranded DNA (msDNA), a fascinating extrachromosomal satellite DNA comprising a single-stranded DNA molecule covalently linked via a 2'-5'phosphodiester bond to an RNA molecule. I used to be a published researcher in this area, a (very!) few of my articles appearing in top ranked journals, before switching to software engineering. My very first Wikipedia edit was to delete an incorrect phrase from the article on msDNA; I eventually rewrote and expanded the article fourfold. Would it be appropriate for me to mention msDNA in DNA? The answer is no, not because of any original research issues, but because I need to follow exactly the same guidelines that I outlined to you. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for anything and everything about a subject that appeals to my personal fancy. As a responsible editor, I understand the importance in creating articles that are meaningful to and comprehensible by their target audiences. msDNA has its own article, which is written at a moderately technical level not accessible by a general audience; it has no place in a general article on DNA, which must be useful to middle schoolers on up. Likewise, I agree with Somoza that a well-written section on DNA vibrations would be an appropriate addition to the existing article on DNA dynamics. Would you, perhaps, take the initiative to start a section on DNA vibrations in that article rather than sulk about our supposed deletionism? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Gene control
A discovery about another function of DNA has been discovered. Article here. It seems that this code is written in binary. --Artman40 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Genetic recombination
I don't get this diagram (as of March 20, 2014). It looks like A is paired with G, and C paired with T, which is wrong. 128.174.127.111 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's showing different chromosomes, not the paired sequences in one chromosome. (Each chain shown would be paired with the complementary nucleobase.) Mind  matrix  16:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing and exobiologist
Hello all. I wanted to hyperlink the term "exobiologist" to the article "Astrobiology", but the article is unavailable to anonymous editing. So I made an account and the article is still not editable to me....

Can someone hyperlink "exobiologists"--I didn't know what it meant. And, explain why I still can't edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoedit (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I added the link. Semi-protected pages like this can only can be edited by new users who registered more than 4 days before and have made 10 other edits. Bever (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

dna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana shahzaib (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

M. F. Wilkins, Erwin Chargaff and Raymond Gosling's photos added

 * Not only Professor Wilkins's photo should be present but also

Professor Raymond Gosling's, Erwin Chargaff's, as well as the photos of Herbert Wilson. F.R.S. and Alex Stokes should also be present; however, the latter two were unavailable at this point for Wikipedia use, and if made available it is important that they also should be added because of their very important role played in the X-ray+molecular modeling analysis of DNA saga. Bci2 (talk) 4:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Dna is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.147.6 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick suggested the first double-helical model of DNA structure in the journal Nature. Their double-helix, molecular model of DNA was based on a single X-ray diffraction pattern image (labeled as "Photo 51") taken by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling in May 1952, as well as the information on how DNA bases pair, better known as Chargaff's rules, also obtained through private communications from Erwin Chargaff in the previous years.

Jensberzelius (talk) 22:29, 10 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.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 Y S A Y L E S  23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Prime
Could someone add why the symbol "prime" is used in 5' and 3' ? Why not simply 5 and 3 ? Thanks in advance. --91.179.219.82 (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ′ means prime. 5' for example means "5 prime". It's a naming convention. Hope this helps. Sam.gov (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative DNA chemistry
The issue of " arsenic instead of phosphorus in DNA" seem to pretty much proven wrong, at least for GFAJ-1, as described in . I would argue its time to update this section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerchman (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

use of the word molecule
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)


 * The word "molecule" does not necessarily refer to a covalently bonded assembly of atoms. For example, the hemoglobin "molecule" is an assembly of four globular protein subunits held together by non-covalent interactions. On the other hand, a gem diamond consists of a single covalently-bonded assembly of carbon atoms, but one rarely speaks of a diamond "molecule". By convention, one refers to a double-stranded DNA "molecule" held together by non-covalent interactions, but never to a Tobacco mosaic virus "molecule" held together by non-covalent interactions, even though one can obtain crystals of TMV but not of (large) DNA molecules. Most word definitions break down at some point or other; there is usually no need to be over-concerned about such things. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin
Why is there no credit given to Rosalind Franklin? 21:50, 5 July 2013‎ User:82.26.207.27

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[3] 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 194.60.106.5 (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. Jillymint147.26.87.13 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the dispute about priority between Watson, Crick, and Franklin, but I'd just like to flag that the intro currently mentions Franklin but not Crick or Watson. The change was made on 27 October by an anonymous edit. My understanding is that it would be sensible to mention all three in the intro. Dylan Thurston (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As Dylan Thurston above mentions, there is currently a mismatch between the introduction and the body text. All three should be mentioned in the introduction as being historically important, with the body text stating that Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for publishing Franklin's and Wilkin's data. This is a fair way of describing the dispute historically without getting into it too much. 8.23.143.233 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The anonymous editor mentioned by Dylan Thurston revised text that mentioned only Watson and Crick's contribution (ignoring Franklin), to text that mentioned only Franklin's contribution (ignoring Watson and Crick). I have hopefully provided a balanced presentation in the lede. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we want to be precisely technical about assigning credit, it was actually Franklin's graduate student, Raymond Gosling, who took the exceptionally clear diffraction image that was so crucial to Watson and Crick's model building. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving. Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DNA → Deoxyribonucleic acid – I feel like the full name should be used and the abbreviation redirected to it. Rajiv Shah (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The most common name is DNA, not deoxyribonucleic acid. Boghog (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."


 * Oppose DNA is the most common name, most likely search term, most common incoming link, etc. etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It also seems to be a clear case of WP:ACRONYMTITLE: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't be daft. Graham Beards (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously this undiscussed proposal fails WP:COMMONNAME so would someone please do a WP:SNOW close. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016
Fredo300 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) --Fredo300 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)I feel that the explanation DNA was a bit to formal and the ideas need to be smoothened out for early learners and readers no one would join Wikipedia if there not able to read the text. Fredo300 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Is any DNA a genome? How about genomic DNA?
According to the current description, Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

I feel like it is a definition of a genomic DNA, rather than DNA itself. I understand people would imagine genomic DNA for the term DNA, but strictly speaking it is imprecise.

Also if DNA is a genome, what is genomic DNA? I think it is a defect of the current definition. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Very small edit
Under "Branched DNA", at the start of the first sentence, please insert a comma after "In DNA". Pgpotvin (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (not a registered editor but a stickler for useful punctuation)

Another one
Hello, please edit the following sentence which appears at the top of the article:

"DNA and RNA are nucleic acids; alongside proteins and complex carbohydrates, they comprise the three major types of macromolecule that are essential for all known forms of life."

"Comprise" is used here (as it is freakin' everywhere I look) incorrectly. Change it to either "they compose" or "they are comprised of." Not a registered user, as above. 12.40.148.10 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016
'of all known living organisms' in the very beginning of the article is not entirely correct. Bacteria are organisms and based on RNA. Replace the above with 'of all known eucariote organisms' and perhaps link to Eucariote.

82.12.246.216 (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done. Bacteria have DNA genes and plasmids. Graham Beards (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of "most" in the first sentence is confusing
The use of "most" seems to imply there are genetic instructions elsewhere, but where? aren't genetic instructions those in DNA by definition? Erikdsi (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, see RNA virus. Graham Beards (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

four strand dna

 * brief blurb and video: four strand dna. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Most DNA is circular
Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix<---Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't most DNA circular, since bacteria's DNA is circular not helical? JPotter (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Bacterial DNA is often a closed circle of double-stranded, helical DNA. Graham Beards (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tag
I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to, and reviewed for, FA‐status; the lead was shorter then it is now. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Move page
the picture of shopping carts to "model" the DNA structure is lame and should be moved to a page of cheesy illustrations.

when limiting the content of pages, illustrations should be filtered based on utility and elegance of explanation. the comedy of the shopping cart tower does not fulfill any reasonable editorial objective. (not even that funny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8053:28F0:ED57:DE07:4EF9:518 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and I have removed it from the article. Graham Beards (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The Naked DNA page is unnecessary and any worthwhile information should be merged with DNA. All that is really needed is for the DNA section to define what "naked" means in the context of DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.254 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversial 3-parent baby technique produces a boy
FYI - Controversial 3-parent baby technique produces a boy -. Regards. 108.41.202.191 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825101712/http://orpheus.ucsd.edu:80/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html to http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html#abstract

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have two suggestions to improve the DNA Wikipedia page. First, I think a different picture should be displayed as the first image on the page. The image that is shown now attempts to describe how atoms are arranged on a DNA strand, depicting the specific elements that DNA is composed of, and naming specific locations such as major grooves, minor grooves, pyrimidines and purines. I think this picture should be replaced with an imagine that displays how a sugar, a phosphate, and how the four nitrogen-containing nuclebases are arranged on human DNA since the context next to the picture illustrates that and nothing about the elements or grooves. Giving a visual representation that correlates with the reading helps to digest and understand the topics at hand. Second, in the subsection "properties," I think the directionality of DNA should be explained in more depth. Adding that the 5'-to-3' direction of DNA is important because this is the only direction nucleic acids can be synthesized when they are alive. The energy produced by breaking nucleoside triphosphate bonds is used to construct various types of new strands. With this energy, new nucleoside monophosphates can connect to the 3'-hydroxyl group. The direction of the DNA can also be described as going upstream, towards the 5'-end, or downstream, towards the 3'-end. With this additional information, links must be connected to words such as: nucleoside triphosphate, monophosphates, hydroxyl, upstream, and downstream.

ZeleenOndriezek (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Zeleen Ondriezek

intro major error
lipids are not a biopolymer also this is incomprehensible The structure of DNA is non-static,[10] all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometre).[11] According to another stu

what the heck is non static ? i've earned a pay check working with dna for 30 years, and I don't think i've ever heard this term PS: angstroms are, as they say, a deprecated unit the strands are referred to in multiple ways; please be consistent matter of fact, the writing more or less sucks; you introduce the term backbone without any reference...

please delete the science fiction fantasy about arsenic

this article is why wiki is never gonna amount to much; DNA is surely in the top 0.1% of importantce, and this article sucks big time forgive me, but i'm really mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

50.82.140.156 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Picture 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin. Gosling should not be whited out to suit someone's agenda even if that agenda is the (in my view merited) argument that Franklin's contribution was at some level under-appreciated.50.82.140.156 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

DNA is a molecule?
My knowledge about it is very less, so there is huge possibility that I may make mistake, but I am not sure if DNA is a molecule. I mean does it fit the definition of molecule? Or we mean to say something different here when the word molecule is being used. Thank you. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * DNA definitely fits the definition of a molecule (two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds). Some DNA molecules (e.g., chromosomes) are enormous (contain billions of atoms), but nevertheless they are still molecules. Boghog (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's also a polymer of course. Graham Beards (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for enlightening! Thanks once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906233359/http://mason.gmu.edu/~emoody/rfranklin.html to http://mason.gmu.edu/~emoody/rfranklin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127102948/http://www.genome.gov/10506367 to http://www.genome.gov/10506367
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112000837/http://massfatality.dna.gov/Introduction/ to http://massfatality.dna.gov/Introduction/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001223217/http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtx030893.pdf to http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtx030893.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213030135/http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/ to http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

NEW DNA Graphics Req'd
Scientists wondered how 6.5 feet of DNA could be packed into each cell. See https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-imaging-technique-overturns-longstanding-textbook-model-dna-folding to discover "New imaging technique overturns longstanding textbook model of DNA folding". Kreematismos (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017
DNA is also the title song for BTS' new album ' LOVE YOURSELF 承 Her ' Please purchase and continue supporting our boys Bangtanwhat (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Once the song is notable enough to have its own article, it would get added to DNA (disambiguation), not here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Life's first code
Some students mix DNA with olive oil and tholin, they heat one part only of the liquid they extracted, and they put it back in. Then they extract only a part of the liquid and repeat some partial heating and apply also electric shocks (still partially) and mix again to the main mass of the liquid. Also they add other substances used in different experiments. Who DNA evolved? There's a specific page for it, but I prefer to practical people who study the classic fictional DNA. Functionalists are always closer to the truth, but might not have the fantasy. They just need a push... that I will certainly give! Add more links about simple self copying molecules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844D:800:DDD3:67A8:1F7A:1EF4 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Inequitable Comparison
The text states "The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes.[4] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 trillion tons of carbon (TtC)". I really have no idea how to compare those values... does anybody?!! I am *guessing* the comparison is between "50 billion tonnes" and "4 trillion tonnes"... but this really needs to be clarified (no guessing) or completely eliminated.Hydradix (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil (hm5dU)
in the section Non canonical bases there's the sentence: 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil (hm5dU) is also known to replace thymidine, i believe (hm5dU) means 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuridine & not uracil, because (hm5dU) is a nucleoside with a deoxyribose witch makes the name correct, while 5-hydroxymethyldeoxyuracil is a Thymine base that it's Methyl group was Hydroxylated and can not be Deoxygenated. also a base can not replace a nucleoside bcz thymidine is a nucleoside, I hope you correct that if I'm right. (excuse my weak english) --Momas (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have edited the article accordingly, thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Months earlier
Why is a date in Feb 1953 described as being "months" earlier than the previously discussed date in the same month, in the History section as it introduces Linus Pauling? There seems to have been some wear and tear through prior edits. DulcetTone (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Epigenome
There needs to be a link or reference to Epigenome and genomics. Not a single mention of Epigenome on the whole page, it's like as if this page is modern anti-science, and is stuck in the past ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.144.221 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Innocence
In the section "DNA profiling", shouldn't the use of DNA testing to prove the innocence of (possibly earlier convicted) suspects be mentioned too?--Nø (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018
dna is a song by the Korean band bts 81.108.170.249 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

i-motif
Should a section be added in regards to the i-motif and how its the subject of ongoing research? Gabefair (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor incorrect sentence in lead

 * During cell division these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing each cell its own complete set of chromosomes.

Cell division in meiosis creates daughter cells which have half a set of chromosomes. I can't think of a non-awkward way to fix this. Any ideas? JustOneMore (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * DNA replication is part of the cell cycle but not part of cell division (cytokinesis) itself, at least as I understand the term. How about this?  I've used "daughter cell" which is an unfortunate introduction of jargon, but I hope the meaning is clear from context. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018
In ===Non-canonical bases=== paragraph 6:

change 6N-methyadenine to 6N-methyladenine - it's clearly a typo

add a period (".") after the following sentence:

The complete replacement of cytosine by 5-glycosylhydroxymethylcytosine in T even phages (T2, T4 and T6) was observed in 1953

as I presume the capital letter in the following word signifies the beginning of a new sentence 94.78.183.18 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Virion123 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition
Dna stays in chromosome. Human body has about 35.7 trillions cells. And every cell has 46 cromosome. Dna contains gene which is the the most important part of DNA. DNA has four materials. Such as : deoxiademino monophopate, deoxicytidine monophospate, deoxitymidine monophospate and deoxiganucine monophospate. They make nuecliotide. And that makes gene Himel das porag (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. Wrong in most accounts. No factual improvements proposed. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DNA replication en.svg

Sentence about "complex DNA/RNA organic compounds"
The article contains the following sentence: "Complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine, and thymine, have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites." My impression from reading this was that long, complex segments of DNA/RNA had been formed in the laboratory. However, the source cited makes it clear that what was formed in the laboratory were amino acids (uracil, cytosine, and thymine) rather than strands of DNA/RNA. I would consider looking for an improved wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.227.0.240 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC) #
 * Uracil, cytosine, and thymine are not amino acids; they are component molecules of RNA.Graham Beards (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Szostakianism (Jack Szostak)
The archaic equivalent of DNA
 * 1) caused the cell to divide
 * 2) * changed the internal cell conditions (pH, pressure, etc) in order to cause division
 * 3) provided energy or was involved in an energy extracting mechanism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8419:9900:80D8:7C36:61E2:943D (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This was the only information it carried. (1 and 2 initially were one and the same, but evolved organisms differentiated most processes)

Initially that divicausal molecules (not infokeeping molecules, but according to information theory everything is information or can be interpreted as so, but that has informational implications) were not one, but many, and gradually specific roles per component were established.


 * In some theories, no single organism was functional and only colonies of different organisms became alive as a functional unit. This was probably the case for the most primitive life ever; but that model is unstable and was abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8419:9900:80D8:7C36:61E2:943D (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * postulation to be tested: A crucial molecular part of RNA was the metabolic product of protolife/(life as a result of various organisms necessarily working as a group and not life within one organism like nowadays).


 * Precisely what are you suggesting should be added to the article? Graham Beards (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request
Please mark all unsourced content (sentences, paragraphs) with tags, and please mark all book references that lack page numbers with the  tags, so that the students we train know that this is not how they should compose Wikipedia content. (If a subsection or section fails citation verification checks, please mark that section with the appropriate section tag.) This is supposed to be an exemplary article. We should not be finding unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY / WP:OR / WP:PSTS, nor find Stryer and other books being cited as a broad, 600-page sources. 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving this request open, but dense inline citations are not a requirement. Page numbers are also not a requirement, often you know exactly where in a book you'd look to find a specific sentence. Is there any specific claim you're disputing or have difficulty verifying? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this good faifth request. I get it, things on wikipedia must meet WP:VERIFY. I don't think you have read WP:CITENEED. We aren't going to use the citation needed tag on every unsourced material. We usually only use it to find a source for it later.  To reply, copy and paste this:      (Talk)       05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible review needed
It's been over 13 years since this went through Featured article review/DNA/archive2, which was a few months after it regained FA status. I feel another reassessment might be warranted. From a glance, there's a bunch of unsourced text (with the "Transcription and translation" section having no citations at all), and many (but not all) of the used references are more than a decade old. Is nothing more up-to-date available for the claims those are attributed to? If things don't improve soon, then I might take this to FAR. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Double Helix
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.212.98 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Desoxy- or Deoxy-ribonucleic acid??
At some point the name changed from 'desoxy' to 'deoxy'. In the piece there is a reference to one paper (ref 192 today) from 1944 which uses the 'desoxy' name. Mr Google does not seem to know (or I am entering the wrong question) - does anyone know? Certainly by the time of W&C's 1953 paper the 'deoxy' name had become normal. Cross Reference (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Exception - Dag Hammarskjöld
Dag Hammarskjöld won the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. MountVic127 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cubandrew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Axiao12, Daisy.v.leon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Acidity
Since this is Deoxyribonucleic acid, something should be said under "Properties" about its quite strong acidity. It is a polymer of phosphate esters, and "Since a monophosphate ester of this kind is a strong acid (pKa of 1.0), it will be fully ionized at the usual physiological pH (ca.7.4)." I.e. it will be in its conjugate base form in the cell. And the negative charge repels many nucleophiles that would otherwise attack it, so reducing the rate of nucleophilic hydrolysis by several orders of magnitude (these points sourced on this Michigan State University page Nucleic Acids.
 * Good idea! Added now. Blythwood (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022
"a common way is the their melting temperature" 81.103.38.4 (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Terasail [✉️] 11:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Non Canonical Bases – derived from Adenosine
Concerns this section: DNA#Listing of non-canonical bases found in DNA.

If Adenosine is a building block for RNA and Adenine only one of its components (the other being some ribose), can you please clarify why it is listed here alongside the other bases? Frankly, I believe that this is a mistake and it should be Adenine, but I cannot really know. TIA anyway. – ꟼsyc ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Adenine is the base. Adenosine is the base with the ribose sugar attached. Adenosine is in RNA. Deoxyadenosine is in DNA.
 * Is this supposed to explain why alongside the other bases, Adenosine is named instead of Adenine? I do not understand. The problem here is not Chemistry but language and the lack of. --– ꟼsyc ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lacking a conclusion, I followed logic and looked up the topic elsewhere.
 * I cannot see the reason for the exception that is made for Adenine and – thus – modified the article accordingly.
 * You can still react and teach me something. No generalities, though. – ꟼsyc ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin
Can we give Rosalinda Franklin a more prominent place in this article?

I think she may be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Kind regards, SeemGyro1 SeemGyro1 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an overarching article on DNA, the history of discovery of it is therefore a small part in such a fundamental and large topic, so it would give undue weight to include mention of those credited for the discovery in the lead of the article.|→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She is mentioned alright in the History section.--– ꟼsyc ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose you understand how to write articles better than me. I'm quite new here. SeemGyro1 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm inclined to think the amount of technical detail currently in the lead is excessive, and saying nothing in the lead about the history of our knowledge about DNA is a lack of balance.--Nø (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I beckon this.
 * The author was an expert. That is the curse of our time. – ꟼsyc ho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)