Talk:Internal transcribed spacer

26S versus 28S
This edit changed 26S to 28S as a "typo". However, I see both in the literature. Two examples of 26S are Typing of Pneumocystis carinii strains that infect humans based on nucleotide sequence variations of internal transcribed spacers of rRNA genes, Clin Microbiol. 1994 December; 32(12): 2904-2912, or Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA in plants: An example from the compositae],. Can someone shed light on this discrepency? Kingdon (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 26S is the name of the gene in bacteria (including mitochondria), 28S in eukaryotes. Usage is analogous to 16S/18S. TheManOnTheStreet (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The large subunit ribosomal RNA gene in prokaryotes is usually titled 23S. In eukaryotes, it has been labelled 25, 26 and 28S. The number in these designations refers to sedimentation units, with larger number indicating a larger molecule. The length of this gene and resulting structural RNA varies considerably across eukaryote taxa. That is likely one reason why you see different labels. However, today, most authors simply use 28S, regardless of the size of the molecule. This is helpful in avoiding confusion about whether homologous gene regions are implied in different organisms, but can be misleading with respect to molecule size.Corallorhiza (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"Advances in the molecular..." text
I have moved the following text from the article to here, unless/until it can be improved.
 * Advances in the molecular science has shown a great potential for rapid detection and identification of fungi in medical and other scientific purposes. Many targets present in the fungal genome have been studies till now. Each of the fungal genome target has its own importance. Much of the research that is being done on fungi is using the rDNA sequence as a target. This part of the fungal genome includes 18S, 5.8S and 28S regions of the genome. These are the regions that code for ribosomal RNA and have a relatively conserved sequence among fungi (Iwen et al.,2002). It also includes variable nucleotide sequence areas of the intervening internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. ITS region is not translated into proteins, but this region because of having different sequence in different species acts as a promising signature for molecular studies. It has two components, internal transcribed spacer 1 and internal transcribed spacer 2. The Internal transcribed spacer 2 of the nuclear rDNA has been widely used as a phylogenetic marker (Muller et al.,2007; Koetschan et al.,2010).The early attempts with this phylogenetic marker were restricted to low level classifications, i.e. classification of the species between the same genus. In the earlier attempts only the information derived from the fast evolving sequence was used to conduct the phylogenetic studies (Coleman et al 2007; Mai et al.,1997; Schultz et al.,2005). ITS2 region can evolve 30 times slower than mitochondrial DNA (Caccone et al.,2004). This region has been proved to be an important part of ribogenesis (Joseph et al., 1999). Though length of different ITS2 can be variable, but all of them contain a conserved core (Coleman, 2003). This highly conserved core region is common to all the eukaryotes and hence it can be used as a tool to compare very closely related species (Coleman, 2003; Coleman, 2009; Schultz et al.,2006).
 * In order to mine the information stored in the sequence, ITS2 database has been designed. This database can be accessed via link http://its2.bioapps.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/cgi-bin/index.pl?about. The ITS2 database holds the information about both the sequence and the structure of all the ITS2 sequences in the gene bank. Before this database was made, there was not even a single source of information that would tell us both about the sequence and the structure of the ITS2 sequence. Because of this drawback, each and every scientist had to predict the structure of his/her own sequence more or less manually (Muller et al., 2010). The biggest problem before this database was designed was to use structure based information to make phylogenetic trees. The software made for tree calculation was not capable of understanding the structure and hence could not draw a ‘‘tree’’ based on the structural information. Main goal of the database was to provide a valid structure for each and every sequence in the gene bank (Coleman, 2003)

Issues include: WP:PEACOCK, duplication with text elsewhere in the article, wordiness, in-line external link (see WP:EXT), and references to sources not cited (which is usually a red flag for WP:COPYVIO although I didn't do any detailed investigation). Kingdon (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)