Talk:Shine–Dalgarno sequence

Untitled
just a really badly written article at the moment, we'll see if we can find some sources as a start. Active contributor 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Systematic research have shown that in E.coli SD sequence of more than 8 nucleotides can even inhibit translation.
 * False. SD Sequence does not "inhibit translation" it simply facilitates docking of the mature mRNA transcript to the 30S subunit of the ribosome via the 3' end of the 16S rRNA. If indeed there was "systematic research" that shows that SD sequences >8 bp "inhibit translation" that would surely be exceptional and abnormal and you should provide a reference instead of simply stating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

not all bacteria
The Shine-Dalgarno sequence isn't for all bacteria, it is specific to E. Coli (or possibly other gram negative bacteria?), others would have other named sequences, or the generic term, 'ribosomal binding site'.
 * You are wrong. Shine-Dalgarno sequence is indeed for all prokaryotes (not specific to E.coli). If you disagree with me, name one prokaryote which doesn't have the Shine-Dalgarno sequence present and provide a valid citation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
It wouldn't hurt to specify that it's only present in bacteria, and not in eukaryotes, somewhere in the article.

The Kozak sequence and Shine-Dalgarno operate through totally different mechanisms and perform different functions. The Kozak sequence is a context for optimal initiation of translation. Shine-Dalgarno is a sight of ribosome entrance and docking onto the mRNA. This should be clarified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.204.166 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hes right: "The Kozak sequence is not to be confused with the ribosomal binding site (RBS), that being either the 5' cap of a messenger RNA or an Internal Ribosome Entry Site (IRES)." (see Kozak article) => Kozak is not the "eukaryotic equivalent" to Shine-Dalgarno Box! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.51.153 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this statement is confusing: "When the Shine-Dalgarno sequence and the anti-Shine-Dalgarno sequence pair, the translation initiation factors IF2-GTP, IF1, IF3, as well as the initiator tRNA fMet-tRNA(fMET) are recruited to the ribosome." There isn't any specification as to whether the SD sequence is helping to recruit the IF's and initiator tRNA, or if the IF's and tRNA jut happen to go to the ribosome while the SD and anti-SD sequence are interacting. Since the word "recruit" is used, it seems that the SD is an active participant in bringing those factors and the tRNA to the ribosome. I do not myself know the answer to this question, but I think it would be very helpful if someone with some expertise could clarify the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.91.26 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BOX
maybe you should also add that it's also called shine dagarno BOX .. to make finding it in search easier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.6.46 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shine-Dalgarno box | Shine-Dalgarno Box

Errors
This article contains factual errors. For example, the Shine-Dalgarno sequence must be located 6-8 nucleotides upstream of the start codon (AUG), not downstream as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.128 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kozak sequence is not the equivalent of the SD sequence. A sequence which grants comprable benefits to fidelity/specificity has not been discovered in eukaryotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.57 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify for non experts
This page needs a lot of work, and I suspect that the content is very difficult for non experts to understand at the moment. One way to make it more accessible might be to focus more on what the sequence is, rather than the series of experiments that led to its discovery (or maybe put these under separate headers).Czeer (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)