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)

but of course!!! please be bold. please also use secondary sources, not primary ones. WP is not a scientific review article. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Expanded genetic code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001048/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/08/tp-life-engineered-with-expanded-genetic-code/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/08/tp-life-engineered-with-expanded-genetic-code/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

mouse code

In this section

Orthogonal sets in mammalian cells

   tRNATyr-TyrRS pair from Bacillus stearothermophilus[41]
   modified tRNATrp-TrpRS pair from Bacillus subtilis trp[42]
   tRNALeu–LeuRS pair from Escherichia coli[43]
   tRNAAmber-PylRS pair from the archaeon Methanosarcina barkeri and Methanosarcina mazei

41, 42 and 43 are primary sources. The last one is unsourced. I added an important primary source. @Jytdog: reverted it. I am going to insert it again. I was thanked by one experienced user for the original edit. I would like to hear comments fom the community about this brewing edit conflict. @Adrian J. Hunter: Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is great that you want to improve the article. Rather than arguing in favor of a low quality edit by pointing out the results of other low quality edits, why not improve the article by adding better refs? The specific issue as I noted in my edit notes was WP:NOTNEWS and the primary source. Adding content about hot off the presses science is unwise in an encyclopedia; we have no deadline here, and papers are sometimes retracted and often just ignored. As an example, remember that scientist who published work showing that if you shake cells (really!) you could turn them into stem cells? There was huge media hype around that. And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP. (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) only to delete it later when the paper was retracted. (We actually have a whole article on that mess Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) We should not be jerking the public around like that. There is no reason to do that - we have no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: et al. I am going to wait for other comments about this debate before I act further. However, to make it easier for people to see the text in question, here it is...

• In 2017 a mouse engineered with an extended genetic code that can produce proteins with unnatural amino acids was reported. DennisPietras (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)