Talk:Intron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit ยท refresh) Rated "high" as high school/SAT biology content, part of gene structure. - tameeria 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
"Evolutionary kibble"? I think you mean evolutionary "kipple", as per Philip K. Dick.204.209.121.10 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is cited as a piece of evidence in support of evolution. By whom?
- By just about every book ever written on the subject, which you'd
know if you ever care to read one. --LDC
-
-
- LDC, no need to be rude to him. We clearly do not have a strong understanding on the significance of introns. It was just recently (relatively) that they were discovered. Prior to their discovery it was claimed that the human genome contained over 150,000 active genes. Just in 2004 the NHGRI stated that there was only 20,000 some active genes. Down from the 35,000 that was believed after the Human Genome Project and that figure was down from the 150,000 that was believed prior to the Human Genome Project. This all happening very recently. I accept evolution and common descent, primarily as a philosophical view on reality.... but you are being disingenuous to claim that our understanding of introns can be used as positive evidence for evolution. It's brash claims like the one you have just made that makes the rest of us in this field look inept. Again, the role of introns is not close to being even partially understood. --RobertShapiro(fan)
-
-
- So, Great Master of intron science, please cite at least one if you know every book written on the subject...
-
- come one - am I right that you just copied this from a secondary source...
Cf. dead code in most larger software systems...
Where he copied it from is of no improtance. This is established truth. The textbook Biology by Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece states that introns may be spliced out in differnent ways to combine different exons from one gene. This mRNA will code for different proteins with new and possibly novel functions. These new proteins may allow one organism to survive better than another organism of the same species. It will live on to pass on its genetic information while others will not. If that is not evolution than I don't know what is.--Swimmer678 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Junk DNA" is not a well-defined term, of course, but I would hesitate to say that it is synonymous with intron DNA. A lot of noncoding DNA that is never transcribed into RNA in the first place exists, and I believe that it is usually also considered to be "junk" DNA when factoids about how 90% or whatever of human DNA is junk are bandied about. Bryan Derksen
- Good point. That should be stated within the article. There are in fact many types of non-junk DNA that are in fact vital to gene regulation and expression. So the statement you mention should read that "90% of all DNA does not code for any proteins". We might even want to have a separate article on this.
- I wasn't trying to imply that the two terms were directly synonymous through the merge -- its just that the article at Junk DNA was mostly about Intron DNA. There is no reason not to have a separate article about the use of the term "junk DNA" while having intron keep to the technical facts. --maveric149
The diagram a the top is neither informative nor accurate - wouldn't the one beneath it be just as good?
Group I and group II introns are mentioned. What about pre-mRNA introns? They are the ones that your figure shows. What about mentioning how introns are spliced out?
Also, there are plenty of references showing that introns are not "junk DNA", on the contrary some contain regulatory elements necessary for expression. I think this should be made clear.
- I think that is made very clear in the third paragraph of the article. --Mike Lin 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"Introns are sections of DNA that will be spliced out after transcription" - sounds ambiguous, as if the pieces of DNA will be spliced out. RNA is mentioned later but in my opinion somebody not familiar with terminology might be confusedVicki Doronina 18:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
