Talk:Expanded genetic code

Untitled

I have copied part of this into genetic code so this atm is repeated. but I will expand on it soon. so plz do not delete. --Squidonius (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

expanded (forgot to log in though)--Squidonius (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed for lack of clarity

Removed "from the existing 20 to a theoretically possible 172," because it is not clear what the 20 refers to (though it probably means the 20 amino acids expressed by the standard code) or where the theoretically possible 172 comes from. If the same redundancy as the current codes were used an expansion of about a factor of four might be expected, for example. It is probable that the 172 is based on expanding the existing 64 codes to 216 giving an additional 152 codes, which if they were mapped uniquely to new AAs would yield a total of 172 AAs. It is not clear, however, with the massive re-engineering of the transcription machinery required, why the redundancy in the existing code need be preserved, nor indeed the coding length of 3. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC).

Query

First, a thanks. I created this page over five years ago, but I haven't touched it since. I am glad it is in a good shape and bold edits are contested. Today, I was hoping to give it focus and update it with recent literature (in procrastination from writing a grant), but got stopped midway. I promise I'll do it soon. I was partially surprised that my edit got reverted. In it's current form it has a repetition (there are 20 amino acids) and lacks a summary of the how it is done conceptually and what the articles covers, so I will fix it. I will add reference, but I was hoping to build on my previous edit. I assume it wasn't a needs references issue, right? Two issues I see that are problematic are (i) choice of the usage of terms standard and nonstandard, and (ii) the claim that UAG recoding is the most prominent. --Squidonius (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

lead

Squidonius please stop adding content to the lead that is not in the body. please see WP:LEAD. Please improve the body first, and if what you add is important enough to add to the lead, then do it afterwards, after reviewing the whole article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I was planning on editing the body accordingly —I was just starting from the top as one does.

The article needs structure (hence the lead), focus and a more rounded coverage: at its current state it has as much focus as an undergraduate essay —I'll admit I am partly to be blamed (it is a partial transplant of a lit review).

Parenthetically, I would like to stress that I know what I am doing: I haven't been active for a long while on wikipedia, but I am not a new user, in fact I have done many bold edits (e.g. I untangled the mess that used to E. coli and split it into three articles) and, in real life, I have authored several peer-reviewed papers, so I know how to make a story coherent.

Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to know if you are okay with my editing this article and would really appreciate any suggestion or help.

really, please actually read WP:LEAD. it is not logical to start with the lead. The lead should be the last thing you do if you want to update an article. The lead just summarizes the body, and you cannot summarize something from the body if it isn't there yet. Right? And weight in the lead, should reflect weight in the body. And you cannot know the weight something has in the body if it isn't there yet, either. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)