Talk:Canonical sequence

About redirect to Homology (biology)

Petaholmes,

I think that using a redirect is too hard a revision here. The main reason why I'm doing this is that a) I don't feel 100% comfortable with the discussion of homology vs. sequence similarity in the Homology (biology) article (which I'll wade in on at some future date) and b) canonical sequences in the realm of gene promoters do not unequivocally imply a homologous relationship of a particular cis-regulatory sequence found in two genes in one species or in one gene across species. This is a longer discussion that I'd like to engage in here ... it would best be placed in the Homology (biology) Talk area along with introduction of a section to that article about how cis-regulatory motif patterns can provide supporting evidence (or refuting evidence) for a homology or paralogy relationship between two genes.

so in the end I'm not reverting the change but altering it ... I hope you feel ok with this.

Courtland {2005-01-27 USA ~11:15 PM EST}

First, a small warning, things never get moved to the wiktionary. Second, the problem as I see it is that there are too many words with slightly different meanings, conserved, consensus and canonical (to as lesser extent) are all applied to regions of sequence similarity, regardless of whether they are similar due to function - like the shine-delgano sequence, or because of common evolutionary origin. Ideally we could rewrite the section on homology (biology), perhaps incorporating more from sequence alignment to make the issue more clear for non-biologists. I think the redirect should stand for the time being since the article is really not very informative whereas homology (biology) at least gives some context as to its usage --nixie 04:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)