Talk:Nanoarchaeum equitans

Smallest non-viral genome
Carsonella ruddii has recently been announced in Science magazine (October 4, 2006) as possessing the smallest cellular, non-viral genome. Its genome is 66% smaller than Nanoarchaeum equitans' genome.

"95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules." - What?
The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article reads:

"95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules."

I don't think this makes sense, does it? I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know for sure what the author means to say. Would removal of the words "for proteins" correct the sentence? Then it would read:

"95% of its DNA encodes for stable RNA molecules."

And while we're on the subject, is it correct to say, "encodes for" rather than just "encodes?" To me, either of the following would be better:

95% of its DNA encodes stable RNA molecules. or 95% of its DNA codes for stable RNA molecules.

50.0.60.12 (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Heather Wilcox

GC-Content importance
The introduction states "N. equitans' genome (...) has an average GC-content of 31.6%."

What is the importance of this fact? The rest of the article doesn't mention GC-Content, either. I checked the GC-content article and didn't find any obvious implications. Let's remove this phrase, shall we? --Negrulio (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)