Talk:Origin of replication

Overall Concern

 * There are several questions I have about this article that do not seem to line up. For one the definition of theOrigin of replicationit states that it is the Origin of replication for the genome as in all the genteic material contained in an organism but that is not necessarily true is it? There can be an origin of replication on a plasmid as it even states in the same article. I am placing several needs citation markers on this page and going to do some leg work later to correct issues with the lack of sources.  There are several missing aspects of origins that could be included more than just an AT-Rich Region and on top of that needs some clearer structure.  Teokey (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

From PNA/Biology

 * Origin of replication &mdash; refers to the "L box", "M box", and "R box". I'm guessing that these refer to the amino acids created, but, if so, it doesn't appear to be explained. &mdash; RJH 00:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily removed text

 * The origin of replication a 250 bp sequence rich in adenine-thymine base pairs, which are more easily separated than cytosine-guanine base pairs. It consists of an L box, an M box, and an R box.


 * The origin of replication binds the pre-replication complex. Specifically, the R box binds dnaA.

The origin of replication size varies significantly from organism to organism; I think it's only about 30 or 40 bp in some prokaryotes. We also need to explain what L, M, and R boxes are. If nobody else gets to it, I'll put something together in the next few days. I think dnaA might also be specific to prokaryotes--I have to check that.

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge Replication origin site
The page Replication origin site covers the same topic as this page but with less information. I suggest it should be merged into Origin of replication. Celefin 11:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I assume silence means nobody minds...I will go ahead. Celefin 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for the term 'Ori'. Are there conceptual differences between the term 'Ori' and 'Origin of replication' I am unaware of? if not then these two pages should be merged. martin_fed 30 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Weasel article
On the Origin of replication, I am not sure what to do about articles such as these, weasel articles and any article that at first glance appears to be legitimate wiki articles, yet minimal investigation reveals it's just another propaganda article in this ongoing war between those who publish lies because they cannot live in a world where God does not exist and those who publish lies because they cannot live in a world where God exists. I know most people these days are sympathetic to those who are loyal to those whom cannot live in a world where God exists, I however deem any person, organization/side despicable when they fabricate and publish lies in the name of science -- for any reason -- as it it unacceptable. While I can appreciate the humor of the choice of words for it's Darwinistic pun, this article is neither funny nor factual as well as citing not-reputable sources among the true scientific community. Any reputable source would understand the difference between mitosis and meiosis. Neither would they be foolish enough to call transcription of very specific, very short portions of DNA for the specific task of translation, the grossly inaccurate term 'replication'. Futhermore, it is precisely these types of behaviors - which are too publish such weasel articles - that will ultimately destroy the core of what wikipedia IS because it negates the countless hours of volunteer work preformed which IS wikipedia. Keep perversion where it belongs; in the bedroom or any room other than rooms that serve to publish scientific truth and the small changes it goes through called life, who cares what ultra-conservative religious groups believe, their behavior does not, nor will it ever warrant perversion of the truth according to science. Please offer alternative actions other than deletion. The most obvious is NOT label the base pairs which function as a start or stop signal for transcription of DNA with the weasel word 'replication' - Dirtclustit (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ori (genetics) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

oriC name
The article currently, Jule 2017, reads like this:

"DNA replication typically begins at a single origin of replication. In E. coli, the origin of replication — oriC — consists of three A–T rich 13-mer repeats and four 9-mer repeats."

However had, why is the "origin of replicatin" called oriC? I think that visitors will be confused. While the article in itself is correct, it IS the origin of replication in E. coli, the name oriC is also right as far as I know; but not in the context of it being meant as a "origin of replication", but "chromosomal origin". This would explain the C. Unfortunately I have no material that I could cite here, so I can not modify the content - if anyone else knows a reference to the name oriC, please add it. Thank you. 2A02:8388:1641:3580:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article needs structure
While the article has a lot of details, it's poorly organized and in urgent need of some structure, especially within the taxonomic groups, e.g. bacterial and eukaryotic. At this point it's a hodgepodge of data in which it's hard to find any details. Peteruetz (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. On top of structuring the meandering text, I would suggest to remove most details about replication to the DNA replication page, as they are not directly related to the topic of origins. This page should focus on the features of origin sequences. Peteruetz (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)