Talk:Enhancer (genetics)

Untitled
It would appear from the current description of enhancers that they aren't absolutely necessary for transcription of some genes. Now, I don't claim to be an expert, but having recently taken several classes covering genetics, I was left with the impression that some genes will simply not be expressed without the proper enhancers. Strictly speaking, transcription just needs a promoter region and the right machinery; on the other hand, that machinery needs to be recruited.

What I'm trying to say is that I think something more specific about levels of transcription should be added to this page. I am not qualified to do this. Taingalls (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If enhancers can affect genes on different chromosomes from the one they're on, then they're not always cis-acting. So shouldn't we say that they're usually cis-acting instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.12.249 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Junk DNA?
What if anything is the relationship between enhancers and "junk" DNA? I understand the latter to be DNA that does not encode for proteins; it sounds like these enhancers fall into that category. So are they "junk"? And if so, is it possible that very little/ some/ much of junk DNA is really enhancers? Mcswell (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "junk DNA" changes as new functions are discovered for DNA that previously had no known function - enhancers being an example. But some DNA has functions in some species, but is disabled in other species. For example the DNA sequence for coding ascorbate is functional in most mammals and rodents, but does not code for ascorbate in primates and guinea pigs, and therefore could be called "junk DNA" in humans and guinea pigs, but not "junk DNA" in goats and rats. Greensburger (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede
The current (10Mar2014) intro has some problems: Narayanese (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any trans-acting protein that binds to an enhancer is a transcription factor (not sure what the current wording is trying to say)
 * Enhancers can be both activating or repressive, in modern usage of the word enhancer
 * It's more the on/off state than the transcription level that they regulate
 * Cis-acting is really the general way they act, trans-acting is unusual or non-existing, bit too prominently mentioned