Talk:Nucleic acid

Protected

Hi guys. Want to talk about it? Preemptively, I will ask you to restrict your comments to the text of this article. -- Cyan 18:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I made my points in the summaries. Lir has not refuted them.168... 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I predict this page will now sit silent until the article is unprotected, at which point the reverting will recommence. At least it prevents a useless waste of server time. I'd like to see a graph of the fraction of Wiki pages that are protected versus time. I bet it's going up. 168... 00:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you willing to interact with Lir on this page? -- Cyan 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good point. No.168... 03:02, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't the answer I was hoping for. Will you reconsider, as a favor to me? -- Cyan 03:43, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Protected

Unfortunately, this article has become a gated community. Any edits a general contributor would like to make can be written here, and I will implement them. Lir, 168, continued reversion of this page will accomplish nothing.

As a point of logic, I will note, Lir, that your justification (nucleic acids are not studied in just biochemistry) is flawed, because, as 168 has pointed out, his preferred version does not state that nucleic acids are only studied in biochemistry. -- Cyan 05:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By stating that they are "studied in biochemistry"; one begs the question, "Are nucleic acids studied anywhere else?". They are studied, generally, throughout biology; although, of course, their biochemical nature lends itself especially to biochemistry. There is no reason to state, "studied in biochemistry"; when we can just state "biochemical". Lirath Q. Pynnor

If one wished to be as specific as possible (someone once told me it was the best way to communicate), one would write, "are one of the basic classes of macromolecules studied in biochemistry, and in biology in general." I would like to point out that terseness (which is the general approach you seem to me to prefer) is almost the opposite of specificity, which usually requires a certain amount of redundancy. -- Cyan 06:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One can be maximally specific and terse by stating, "biochemical"; it can then be understood that nucleic acids are studied in any and all fields which might happen to study biochemicals. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It might be understood; or it might not. You seem awfully sure that all members of our audience will make the correct inference when faced with terse information. Terseness is a good writing style for study notes, when information is already known and must simply be recalled. I feel it is a bad writing style for an encyclopedia, which must provide context for statements, and must give the reader as much help as possible to understand the concepts being conveyed. In short, it is a question of whether we provide correct information (albeit possibly redundant) in a readable form, or we provide "study note" type expositions, high in information content, but requiring contextual knowledge our readership may possibly lack. -- Cyan 19:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• First off, biochemical links to the article on biochemistry -- so if, hypothetically, the reader wonders what a "biochemical" might be; they can easily click on the word. Secondly, this is not the Simple English wiki; we should not give the reader as much help as possible, linking the word to the relevant article is plenty of help (especially since I think you'd agree that its fairly obvious that biochemicals are the biochemical focus of biochemistry).
  • In short, this isn't even an issue of context -- its very clear that biochemicals are related to biochemistry. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This phycist has been known to study ribose sugars (p orbital influence on hydrogen bonding). From my point of view, both forms of the language have all the problems asserted by either party. Or, in other words, you are all wrong, in all the ways suggested, from this distance at any rate. In which case, the solution I would have chosen would have been the most understood wording - here, biochemistry.

It strikes me that Lir is trying to say that these are studied outside of 'biochemists'. Surely the best way to handle that is a sentance of two descibing who these others are, and why they are interested in nucleic acids? Rather than quibbling over the inferences of a semantic point, make both points bloody obvious. Syntax 04:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Im not trying to say that, Im trying to state that there is no need to say "studied in biochemistry". And, by the way, it wrongly implies that these are only relevant in biochemistry classes. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Punctuation

The very first sentence of the article, currently protected, is confusingly punctuated: "The nucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), are..." should be: "The nucleic acids -- deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) -- are..."

Who knows how long this senseless dispute will drag on (C'mon, this article has only three puny paragraphs! Spend time enrich it instead...), so I'll leave a note here now, in case I shall never come upon this article again. --Menchi 05:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Once the page is unprotected, could the header for See also be moved to the correct level? (==) Thanks Dysprosia 06:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reversion War

This is not good. Admins should not be conducting an edit war. Please settle this quickly and reasonably, because I don't want this to be the first occasion of someone getting de-sysoped.

I picked the following version simply by scanning the History page. I have not read the article.

(cur) (last) . . 15:21, 6 Jan 2004 . . 137.131.72.61

If anyone has a proposed change to the article text, even something as simple as a "protection notice", and they've been involved in the edit war, I strongly suggest that you mention it here and let another admin make the change. This will give you a clean "track record", so that no one will have cause to complain about "abuse of sysop rights".

I think this is fair to all, and is best for the long-term interest of the Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is fair and I am very glad that finally someone else sees it that way too. You have protected the version that I have been protecting against Lir. Generally, admins have been reticent or unwilling to deal with Lir as he needs to be dealt with (to the extent we want to make a good encyclopedia and not just fight fires), which is why I am acting in this provocative way. 168...|...Talk 18:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, results of my polling suggest there is far from any concensus among sysops and others against the kind of thing I've been doing here (reverting/protecting against a notoriously obstinate user).168...|...Talk 19:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I assume Pakaran is a "notoriously obstinate user"? Because you have been reverting all of his edits, too... I suppose after this page is unprotected, you would revert me if I changed the wording? ugen64 04:19, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am notoriously obstinate as well. We should all be hard banned. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, since you put back protection notice, does that mean you are requesting protection ? Anthère0

Of course. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I suppose that goes in the direction of your request yesterday...Could you please indicate me the last stable version to your opinion ? (careful, this is a test :-)) Anthère0

The current version is what I want, but I think its fair to say that its only a matter of time until 168 reverts it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I did not say the version you want, but the last stable version, which is perhaps different ? Anthère0

I really don't know what "last stable version" means, I came to the article and did not feel what was written here was sufficiently "stable" -- I edited it, and 168 apparently strongly disagrees with my edit. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So...I suggest protecting it again, the next time it is reverted again. It should be protected in the last state it was protected previously, minus the see also people seem to agree on. Anthère0

I wish people would stop unprotecting the pages, we need to resolve the debates before unprotecting them. I wish a policy would be made on this, of course, the more I suggest it the less likely it becomes. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Agreed. Meanwhile, what about just letting the top of the article stands, and work on other parts of it Lir ? ant

Because Im tired of being told to "move on" from every article at which there is a dispute -- I want to resolve these disputes, not simply be bullied around by others. Lirath Q. Pynnor

you did not read me well. I suggested going on the same article, but in other parts, not moving to another. This article still needs work.

It doesn't matter whether I go to different parts, or different articles -- the effect is the same. Why would I want to try to add anything else, knowing that it too can be deleted by 168 and nothing I can do will ever be able to reverse his decision that my edits are not good enough. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Right now, it can't be deleted by 168, but only removed, Lir. I think you are being too pessimistic. This is a fact you both do not agree on some sentences, but I do not think that means you can't agree on *anything*. If you add a whole new paragraph to that article, I see not why it would be entirely removed on the reason it is not good enough. Unless it is complete crap (and I do not think you do this), even uncomplete, or slightly unaccurate, or slightly biaised, or poorly phrased information is *better* than no information at all. And I do not think 168 would just delete it. However, he might improve it by adding, rephrasing...So, why do not give it a try ? I think you are censoring yourself here :-) Anthère0

I think you are showing that you don't know what is going on. 168 has repeatedly advocated removing everything I add to the wikipedia. Its a matter of semantics that everything he "removes" isn't technically "deleted". Lirath Q. Pynnor

I however do not remember reading you were banned Lir. Shall we continue off line this conversation ? :-) ant

---

I protected the page, because Lir asked me to. This is meant to prevent a new reversion war to erupt. Clearly a couple of issues should be solved before DNA and nucleic acid are unprotected. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Hydrophobic Interactions

Hydrophobic interaction of nucleic acids is poorly understood.

What is the basis for this claim? I have never heard that there is any particular mystery about nucleic acids and the hydrophobic effect. Josh Cherry 01:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ATP a nucleic acid?

Is ATP a nucleic acid? --Enigma 20:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

no, it's not. it's a nucleotide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

Dposse 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not a nucleic acid Teja5144 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

Hydrophobic interaction of nucleic acids is poorly understood. For example, nucleic acids are insoluble in ethanol, TCA, cold and hot water, and diluted hydrochloric acid; but they are soluble in diluted NaOH, alcohol and HCl.

• Is this sentence really correct? Assuming that HCl is standing for the gas substance here, is DNA really soluble in a gaseous phase?
• And does the Hydrophobic interaction... introduction make sense here? I was under the impression that there is more to solubility than hydrophobic and -philic interactions.

--jοτομικρόν | talk 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The reference to TCA is ambiguous also, and it points to a disambigulation page.
• several references I find suggest that nucleic acids are soluble in water. Not being a specialist in the field, I will not make any changes, but ask that someone more knowledgable address this entry.

--User:Jpsi | 13:26 21 April 2006 Additionally, perhaps a clarification is needed if we say nucleic acids are insoluble in ethanol but soluble in alcohol. Ethanol is a type of alcohol, so if nucleic acids are soluble in some alcohols, perhaps the specific names should be used.

I'm more worried about the fact that DNA is both soluble and insoluble in hydrochloric acid. If HCl was being referred to as a gas (that is, its natural state), by analogy NaOH eould also have to be referred to in its natural state, a solid. Not exactly the best phase for solvents. shoy 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not fanning the flames

I started a revision of the structure section when I spotted some spelling arrors, and then continued on to fix a few errors of fact (for example, the nucleoside sugars were referred to as hexoses; I chenged this to pentoses). After the revisions, I checked this page and learned that this page has been locked to prevent revision wars. I hope I did not offend anyone, but I am confident that the revisions I made improved the accuracy of the section. I would be happy to discuss revisions. JonMoulton 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

I think this article definately needs a clearer picture of the structure of a nucleic acid, I'm more than willing to do one myself but I'm wondering if anybody has any ideas on what level of detail I should include: stick to symbols for the phosphate, pentose and base groups or the molecular structure of those groups? Joey Roe 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Acid?

but it is an acid? 131.111.8.102 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is an acid.

structure error

Hi, I believe you will find that the structure for your dCTP at your link below is in error. The double (imine) bond should be from N3 to C4, not C4 to the primary amino nitrogen. Best regards, Tim

http://www.swbic.org/products/clipart/images/nacollage.jpg

Nucleic Acid Structures

--Tlavelle 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)T

Re acid

For example, nucleic acids are insoluble in ethanol, TCA, and diluted hydrochloric acid; but they are soluble in diluted NaOH and HCl. this is self contradictory insoluble in diluted hydrochloric yet soluble in diluted HCl?! 152.91.9.170 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of nucleic acids

In an effort to push this at least to B class on the project scale, I've started pulling in text from other articles. Note: if there are arguments as to whether or not nucleobases, nucleosides and nucleotides are nucleic acids, please rename the section headings, but don't delete the text. I really think it belongs in this article. Anyway, I'll be back to include some text from the other articles, as there's a wealth of material that can be summarised into this article to improve it. -Kieran 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nucleobases, nucleosides and nucleotides are NOT nucleic acids. Nucleobases are a component of nucleosides, nucleosides are a component of nucleotides and nucleotides are the monomer unit of a nucleic acid polymer. Saying nucleosides are a type of nucleic acid is like saying a tire is a type of car or a keyboard is a type of computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.102.66 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a nucleic acid? And what constitues a nucleic acid?

I know this sounds a bit of a silly question but I have come here from the nucleotides page which is in need of a clean-up and find many redundancies in the nucleic acids page. Nucleobases and nucleosides are not monomers of nucleic acids and should probably not be dealt with in detail on this page. Nor probably should nucleotides except in brief with reference to the relevant page. Surely this page should concentrate on nucleic acids their struture and biochemistry as an entity. Rehashing nucleotide (monomer) structure along with nucleobases, nucleosides adds nothing to my understanding of nucleic acid biochemistry. How do nucleic acids behave as polymer? Role in gentcis expanded! Who elucidated their struture? Double-stranded vs single stranded? These are a few things I would like to see discussed, but do not have expertise as I am an analytical chemist. Suggestion: remove nucleobase and nucleosides from page and simply text in reference to nucleotide monomers. I am right or way off base?--Strathallen (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Apologies for editing under two different user names. JMBurke1791 and John Mackenzie Burke are the same person. JMBurke1791 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) jl;j;kl;jkl;kl;kl;jkjkljkljklklkl;jjlkjiljkljkl;jkl;jkljljkl;jkl;jkl;jkl;l; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.6.200 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I try again

Re editing copy: the repetitious copy is (again) deleted; pls note emphases of excess (bolded or underscored) at {A} vs {B} paras below. Jumbled information-flows are logically straightened. Now it reads—> definition::basic info::resultant key info; that is: nucleic acids ——>are monomers /nucleotides, ——>sugars, of which ——>result in RNA or DNA; ——>and relates info re chemical naming of sugars, RNA, and DNA; Good stuff for the lay reader!

This article is about 'nucleic acid', not 'nucleotides': the five mentions of nucleotides—here in the lede paragraph for nucleic acid—is excessive, and confusing to the lay reader. Explication of 'nucleotides' is easy to find at it's link-article.

{A:previous} Nucleic acids are biopolymers, or large biomolecules, essential for all known forms of life. Nucleic acids, which include DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid), are made from monomers known as nucleotides. Each nucleotide has three components: a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base. If the sugar is deoxyribose, the polymer is DNA. If the sugar is ribose, the polymer is RNA. When all three components are combined, they form a nucleotide. Nucleotides are also known as phosphate nucleotides.

{B:new} Nucleic acids are biopolymers, or large biomolecules, essential to all known forms of life. They are composed of monomers, which are nucleotides made of three components: a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base. If the sugar is a simple ribose, the polymer is RNA (ribonucleic acid); if the sugar is derived from ribose as deoxyribose, the polymer is DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

So .., definition, plus main arguments —simpler, logically-sequenced info, with more information and less verbiage. {Better stuff—and I charge less since I retired; regards, Charlie Clearwater} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.157.50 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference

Is there a good reason several of the headings have references in them? This is not typical of MOS. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 12:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 12:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Error

Article states, " then store information in the nucleus of every living cell of every life-form organism on Earth", but prokaryotes (bacteria, archaea) don't have a nucleus, their DNA is "free-floating" in the cell. Might also be a good spot to mention mitochondria and choloroplasts have their own DNA, independent of the organism, and it is inherited matrilineally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.89.85 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Human biology

Nucleic acid 192.145.174.244 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nucleic acid

Good English 103.57.133.221 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)