Talk:DNA polymerase I

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): Sbudhoo11.

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

Updating/Editing Article
Hi all, Compared to DNA Polymerase II and DNA Polymerase III wiki articles, I noticed that DNA Polymerase I wiki article lacks much information. I would like to edit this page, by adding more information about DNA Polymerase I. I propose to have the following subheadings on the page: i) History ii) Discovery a) Structure and Function, b) General Structure iii) Primary Function iv) Catalytic Mechanism v)Eukaryotic vs Prokaryotic vi) Research Applications (already on the page).

Some of these subheadings are also found in DNA Polymerase II, and I would like to use them in the DNA Polymerase I page to provide some consistency throughout the three polymerase pages. In addition, these are some of the sources I would use to write about the topics in my outline:

1) Lehman, I. R. (2003-09-12). "Discovery of DNA Polymerase". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 278 (37): 34733–34738. doi:10.1074/jbc.X300002200. ISSN 0021-9258..

2) Friedberg, Errol C. (2006-02-01). "The eureka enzyme: the discovery of DNA polymerase". Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 7 (2): 143–147. doi:10.1038/nrm1787. ISSN 1471-0072.

3) Cooper, Geoffrey M. (2000-01-01). "DNA Replication".

4) Loeb, Lawrence A.; Monnat, Raymond J. (2008-08-01). "DNA polymerases and human disease". Nature Reviews Genetics. 9 (8): 594–604. doi:10.1038/nrg2345. ISSN 1471-0056.

Mmreynoso (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Mmreynoso

Peer Review
Hi! I just finished reading through your edits and I think you did a really good job of condensing pertinent info into this page! That being said, here are a few edits I would suggest:

I made minor copy edits as I read through, semicolons here and there, nothing big. I like how you started off the “Discovery” section; it’s very interesting to read. But I was wondering if the tone could be made a little more informational and less story telling; however, I’m not sure if the tone even requires correcting in the first place, so I would look into how other pages go about this.

In the “Mechanism” section, possibly a picture could help clarify what you’re describing. Or alternatively, you could try and separate this section into more paragraphs, so that it is easier to read overall.

Under “Research Applications” there was this long string of numbers at the end of the paragraph… I didn’t think it was relevant so I just deleted it. Maybe something went wrong with a citation? Because from what I can see, this section does not have any citations.

Also, I think the applications section could also do with a little more information; you mention that this is used for molecular biology a couple times in this paragraph, so maybe you could find some research that has been performed with it.

I hope these suggestions help! :-)

SNur (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments
Hello here are just some of my opinions on how you could improve the article further:

The section is Discovery supplies good background information that is useful to know about DNA Pol I. Some revisions to this section could be working on the syntax of this statement: "Little did he know that this paper would interest the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in his research so much that he was removed him from World War II as soon as he enlisted in the navy in 1942.[1]" Wording in the sentence could be improved by removing "in his research" and an extra "him." Personally I suggest rewording the sentence entirely to better clarify the statement.

In General structure, perhaps include generally its other functions if you are going to mention it is mainly involved in repair of damaged DNA. The phrase "alpha/beta protein superfamily protein class" might have an extra "protein" in it, but I am unsure so I wont copy edit this. Also, this section could use some more references for example where the information about the superfamily and domains came from.

In my opinion the title, "Structural and Functional Similarity to Other Polymerases" could be altered a bit to better encompass the information presented in this section. Some terms are presented without explanations which is okay, but maybe it would be better to include links or explanations of these terms before jumping right in, for example the terminology lagging strand, leading strand, and some more could be explained or linked. I linked the word Okazaki fragments for you already. Another suggestion is to include references throughout the paragraph instead of all at the end. This shows which information came from which sources. The pictures are helpful to this article, but maybe a picture showing DNA pol I in action would be very helpful, showing the lagging strand and leading strand along with the Okazaki fragments.

Function section was nicely outlined and provided helpful and interesting information.

Mechanism and Research Applications are detailed and explain the material thoroughly. Maybe some images would help clarify for the mechanism section as there is a lot explained at once.

I made some copy edits throughout the article and hope these comments helped out your article!

Andrewovak (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Klenow Frament
Information on the klenow fragment was wrong. Whoever wrote it got their 5' to 3' exonuclease activity and their 3' to 5' exonuclease activity mixed up, writing that the Klenow fragment has 5' to 3' exonuclease activity which it doesn't. Anyway it's factually correct now, though the wording isn't the best. --[[User: 19:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Matt. S Incidently the Klenow fragment page was also wrong and i've changed that as well. If anyone wants to write more or upload some diagrams this page would be a useful reference http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/biotech/enzymes/klenow.html. As i'm not registered so don't think i can upload anything.

Author, please verify this....
with

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?N4=D8276%7CSIGMA&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC

Whether they are the same or not, please add the info of CAS number.--222.64.31.145 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph
Pol I is an example of a processive enzyme?? Any reference for that? I always thought it is a non-processive enzyme and this is why it can not be the main polymerase while Pol III can ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.245.186 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please verify this: "It is a template-dependent enzyme - it only adds nucleotides that correctly base pair with an existing DNA strand acting as a template. Ligase then joins the various fragments together into a continuous strand of DNA." I don't think any polymerases need a ligase to covalently join together nucleotides, that are next to each other. I think all the polymerase do this by themselves. It's not like the newly inserted nucleotides hang there just by the hydrogen bonds to the opposing base until the ligase arrives to zipper them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.14.245 (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of Discovery
When was the enzyme discovered? 1956, 1957 or 1958? The date of publishing the findings in a journal is not necessarily also automatically the date of its real discovery. The journal linked states "Received for publication, October 10, 1957". 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)