Talk:Central dogma of molecular biology

Untitled

Question: Can we use a better example to cite the 'special' case of DNA to protein directly? I've checked the cited source and Googled for neomycin and I'm not convinced. A cell-free extract can still contain ribosomes and mRNA. How about this one? "[1]" I believe the keyword to google for more info should be "messenger DNA". 218.186.9.1 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unravelling the DNA myth" asserts that the Human Genome Project, by finding too few genes and positing explanantions like "alternative splicing" (Science 2001 p1345), killed the Central Dogma; and that w/o the CD, there is in the present body of knowledge no genetic engineering, only wallowing in a muddy minefield. 142.177.169.163 17:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative splicing has been known for YEARS, decades, and absolutely does NOT disprove the Central Dogma. All the genome paper showed was that (1) complexity is encoded more in gene networks rather than in genes, and (2) alternative splicing plays more of a role than previously imagined in mammals. The difficulties for genetic engineering do not stem from failures in the Central Dogma. Graft 18:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Misconceptions

The rendering of the Central Dogma found in most standard texts, thus promulgated by many supposedly well-educated molecular biologists, and reproduced in Wikipedia, is a bowdlerization of what Crick actually had to say on the topic. Crick's own version of the Central Dogma can be summarized very simply: sequence information is not transmitted from proteins to either nucleic acids or other proteins. As of February 2005, no exceptions to this rule are known. However, once we understand how prions function, there might, perhaps, be a known exception. Original sources for Crick's version of the Central Dogma are:

Crick, F.H.C. (1958) On Protein Synthesis. in Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. XII, 139-163.

Crick, F. (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563.

• Prions do not change the sequence of their target proteins, they change the conformation (folding). So even prions will not change the central domga.David D. 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

One frequently stated misconception about the Central Dogma is that it states "DNA makes RNA makes protein". This claim was not made by Crick in his Central Dogma papers. Crick attributes this phrase to Watson in his book "What Mad Pursuit"

---

Possibly relevant: Arabidopsis may rewrite their own DNA (backup). Kwantus 22:49, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

---

For an interesting view of the problems with the Central Dogma as a research strategy see:

Werner, E. (2005) , "Genome Semantics, In Silico Multicellular Systems and the Central Dogma", FEBS Letters 579, pp 1779-1782 (March 21, 2005) 141.84.69.20

Contradictions

This article is impossible to read, as it contradicts itself, saying in the beginning there are no exceptions to the dogma, and then in a section titled "Exceptions to the Dogma", it says that it is not really a dogma and lists exceptions. We need to clean this up and come to a consensus on what the real story is. James 00:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard it, so don't want to put it in the article, but I read that it's not a dogma - Crick didn't actually know what dogma meant and wouldn't have called it a dogma if he had. I probably read it either in The Search for DNA or the book that one of Watson & Crick wrote. Or maybe Godel Escher Bach. That doesn't answer whether there are exceptions or not though. 84.203.6.162 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)SOS

I'm pretty sure Francis Crick knows what the word dogma means. He just didn't mean it literally, that's all. Richard001 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'central dogma'

I read that the term 'central dogma' arose from Francis not knowing what the word 'dogma' meant. Hasn't it got something to do with religion? --Username132 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite your source? I think the article deserves some comments on the word dogma, and if what you're saying is true it should be added. Rend 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. Religous dogma is just the primary definition. There is scientific dogma too, rightly or wrongly. I don't think Crick was ignorant but was using the secondary definition "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. " David D. (Talk) 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In What Mad Pursuit, Crick's scientific memoir, he wrote:"I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ....As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth....Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however, plausible, had little direct experimental support." The irony of course was that it is now often treated in the other way, as an idea that cannot be doubted, which was not what young Crick had in mind. --J. Dusheck. (I've forgotten my password, as I have not logged on for a while, but I write about biology in textbooks and such.)

this makes more sense in that Crick did not intend it to mean "one considered to be absolutely true". I'm still surprised he made that error since scientific dogmas especially in geology have long been a stumbling block for progress. I would have thought he had heard it used in that context. Indded it is ironic that it has turned into a true dogma. I'd say this is a good piece of information for the article. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Dogma/Evangelion

The term "Central Dogma" is used as a form of technobabble during the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, much in the same way as listed on the Pribnow box page. Shouldn't this warrant at least a sentence or two on the subject?--KoopaTroopa211 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Does this page really need a "pop-culture references" section?

--AllBiolScott

Using the term "non-coding DNA" to refer to ribozymes, rRNA, tRNA etc. is a ... unique ... use of the term. 212.23.23.154 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

protein -> protein

So what do you guys think of updating the 'protein to protein' transfer section? It is stated as unknown now, but I can think of a case. Polypeptide antibiotics are made non-ribosomally. They are made in very large protein complexs; no DNA or RNA template! They are not usually very long, maybe 10-15 amino acids, but they are polypeptides. This may end up being a big issue of symantics, is this just a peptide and not a protein? I think it may be worth mentioning, especially with the intrest in combinatorial biological engineering with these polypeptide antibiotics (ps, this is more valid than prions!). What do you guys think?! Adenosine 142.244.52.251 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? How is the sequence of amino acids determined in this large protein complex? David D. (Talk) 10:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few references I found quickly:

• [Nonribosomal peptide]] - Wikipedia article
• Zuber, Peter (December 1991). "Non-ribosomal peptide synthesis". Current Opinion in Cell Biology. 3 (6): 1046–1050. doi:10.1016/0955-0674(91)90127-K.
• Gaudelli, Nicole M.; Long, Darcie H.; Townsend, Craig A. (26 January 2015). "β-Lactam formation by a non-ribosomal peptide synthetase during antibiotic biosynthesis". Nature. 520 (7547): 383–387. doi:10.1038/nature14100.
• Hofemeister, J.; Conrad, B.; Adler, B.; Hofemeister, B.; Feesche, J.; Kucheryava, N.; Steinborn, G.; Franke, P.; Grammel, N.; Zwintscher, A.; Leenders, F.; Hitzeroth, G.; Vater, J. (7 October 2004). "Genetic analysis of the biosynthesis of non-ribosomal peptide- and polyketide-like antibiotics, iron uptake and biofilm formation by Bacillus subtilis A1/3". Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 272 (4): 363–378. doi:10.1007/s00438-004-1056-y. PMID 15480790.
• [General Yahoo Search]

Jimw338 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

McClintock

I don't unhderstand why she is mentioned in the last section. How do transposons break the central dogma? I think the sentence relating to her work should probably be cut from the article. David D. (Talk) 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Image

I'm removing the diagram at the beginning because, while very beautiful and clear, it makes the fatal mistake of mixing up the red and blue colors in the key. "General" should correspond to blue, not red. A pretty grave mistake, and grounds for temporary removal. 86.145.114.237 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Another concern for this image: the reverse transcriptase arrow moving from RNA to DNA has the "virus only" icon attached. My understanding of telomerase activity in humans and other eukaryotic organisms is that the telomerase protein itself uses its own RNA substrate as a template for telomere extension. Humans and other higher order organisms carry out reverse transcription in a majority of tissues.

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

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

--AllBiolScott

What about endogenous retroviruses? Are these ever "active" in the sense of the central dogma - being involved in how and "why" the genome and organism works the way it does, and (maybe - I don't know) how the genome and/or the organism evolves? Jimw338 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

misleading definition

While working on lectures for the upcoming semester I came across these statements in the Wikipedia listing for the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology)"

1. "The central dogma is occasionally misunderstood as being a statement of absolute fact. If taken as such, it can be criticised, as there are well-described exceptions. It is also criticised by some systems biologists as being too reductionist."

2. "There have been researchers who have found problems with the Central Dogma, like Barbara McClintock in the 1940s. [1] She won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her experiments with maize and discovering so called 'jumping genes' that turned out to need activators and controlling elements."

The central dogma represents the flow of information in the cell and is based on solid scientific evidence, and any exceptions are just modifications that occur after protein synthesis. Molecular biology IS reductionist since it describes processes at the molecular level. The second statement is entirely false. First, how could McClintock find problems with the central dogma when her research was done before the discovery of DNA structure? Second "Jumping Genes" are activators and controlling elements (they don't need them); these are terms used to describe the pattern of genetic expression she observed. Again, these terms were coined before the central dogma was described. Her data are in complete agreement with the Central Dogma and are not an exception.

There are some other problems with this entry but I don't have the time to go in and edit, and I suspect that it is a losing battle. It is obvious that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for scientific definitions.

129.138.14.52 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)DRcubed

Incorrect German localization link

The supposed "German version" of this article is actually about the "one gene, one enzyme" hypothesis developed in 1940 by Beadle and Tatum. I am too unfamiliar with the subject to know how closely this is related with the Central Dogma developed in 1970 by Crick, but they're clearly distinct.

The proper title of the German version would be "Zentrales Dogma der Molekularbiologie". As can be seen in the German Startcodon article, this title is in fact referenced but does not exist.

Until a German version of this article has been written (or moved if it was misplaced), the incorrect locale link should probably be removed.

The same note will be posted to the talk page of the German article. 212.121.153.12 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed, at last. --Tinz (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Some of these citations are leading to nowhere, not to mention the data presented has already been questioned above. Also, if something is an absolute as can be found in dogmas, there is no scientific questioning left, now is there?

The definitions, the two main ones, I know of for dogma are as follows:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.

--AmandaEP (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on the word doctrine. In Cricks on words:

"I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ....As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth....Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however, plausible, had little direct experimental support" from What Mad Pursuit, Crick's scientific memoir.

I'm not sure what you mean by there is no scientific questioning? In this case it was clearly a starting hypothesis, one that Crick probably expected to be tested thoroughly and probably modified. David D. (Talk) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a non-issue for myself, but as Crick pointed out in his own words, the use of such terminology is more trouble than it is worth. Also, thank you for the quote, as well as the citation! Kudos!--AmandaEP (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cheated, I copied it from one of the talk sections above ;) David D. (Talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lysenko lives!

My local Sainsbury is selling "organic seeds". Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

The Image:CDMB2.png says there is only RNA->RNA in "lower lifeforms", a term that usually isn't applied to plants and animals, which both have RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (see RNA interference). Narayanese (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

External References

I suggest that the link to "Death of the Central Dogma" be removed: this is an unsigned, unreferenced and opinionated piece of questionable value.--Nasorenga (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonribosomal peptides

Echoing adenosine's comment in the protein->protein section above, aren't Nonribosomal peptides and example of the "unknown" protein->protein transfer?

Martin.Budden (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, though it obviously depends much on definition. One thing is the protein/peptide distiction that Adenosine mentioned. But if I understand it correctly, some specific nonribosomal peptide synthetases exist that can produce one specific nonribosomal peptide, each. These proteins don't copy their own sequence but produce a relatively short peptide (so that information is lost). In the other cases there is usually one machinery that facilitates the conversion for many different input sequences. If there existed a protein duplication machine that worked for many different input proteins it would be different, but this way... --Tinz (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If there existed a protein duplication machine that worked for many different input proteins it would be different" -Indeed - and now you can do just that. Take your protein to the lab, reverse engineer it get a DNA sequence for it and make copies. Bye bye central dogma. TylerTim (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just asking for sure if this has been discussed about...

James A. Shapiro, a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in the University of Chicago, presents in his most recent article called Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century as much as 32 discoveries of molecular biology and genomics which, according to him, "violate the Central Dogma at multiple points" summarizing on the last page that the actual information flow is closer to the following:

DNA + Protein + ncRNA + signals + other molecules <==> Genome Structure & Phenotype

The thing is, although I haven't, as of yet, seen this article or its conclusions falsified, I always hesitate to edit articles on complex issues myself, so...I'd just like someone to analyze these discoveries and Shapiro's conclusions and whether or not they are accurate and appropriate for this article.

, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauri Hirvisalo (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the science he bases his conclusions on. Narayanese (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Great.

What about the conclusions themselves (like, for instance, that "genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome" and the above given statement about the actual information flow)?

DNA makes RNA makes protein

Marshall Nirenberg said, "DNA makes RNA makes protein." This may be right or wrong, but Nirenberg is unequivocally a WP:RS, the Office of NIH History is unequivocally a WP:RS, and it has been repeatedly stated.

It's a simple explanation. It may be an oversimplification, but that's common in biology teaching. It's true, with exceptions. As François Jacob said, "In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible". In explaining biology, you often have to be "as inexact as conscience permits." http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1965/press.html

In contrast, the lead right now violates WP:TECHNICAL -- it's so complicated, I can't even understand it, and I know what it's supposed to mean. There is no way a high school student (or even a Freshman undergraduate) approaching biology for the first time (or even the second time) could understand this introduction. Wikipedia is written for the general reader. The general reader must understand it. For those reasons, the Nirenberg quote belongs in the lead.

The test for whether it belongs in Wikipedia is not whether you think it's true. The test is whether it's a WP:RS, and it is. I think it would be best to add that Nirenberg's statement is an oversimplification. If you can find a WP:RS to say so, please add it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an explanation by a good science teacher of why we should use simple language that ordinary people can easily understand, and introduce concepts in a simplified form, even an oversimplification. Remember, Wikipedia is written for the ordinary reader, not the specialist. If the ordinary reader doesn't understand it, there's no point in writing it. These are my notes, with some extended quotations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OaIdwUdSxE&t=37s

Tyler DeWitt: Hey science teachers -- make it fun

Feb 5, 2013

High school science teacher Tyler DeWitt was ecstatic about a lesson plan on bacteria (how cool!) -- and devastated when his students hated it. The problem was the textbook: it was impossible to understand. He delivers a rousing call for science teachers to ditch the jargon and extreme precision, and instead make science sing through stories and demonstrations. (Filmed at TEDxBeaconStreet.)

In the communication of science there is this obsession with seriousness.

God forbid somebody have fun learning about science.

5:26

Another problem was that the language in their textbook was truely incomprehensible.

If we want to summarize that story I told you before we could suumarize by saying

"These viruses can start to make more copies of themselves by slipping their DNA into a bacterium."

The way it shows up in a textbook is:

"Bacteriophage replication is initiated through the introduction of viral nucleic acid into a bacterium."

That's great -- perfect --for 13-year-olds.

But here's the thing. there are plenty of people in science education who would look at that and say, there is no way we could ever give that to students, because it contains some language that isn't completely accurate.

For example, I told you that viruses have DNA. Well, a very tiny fraction of them don't. They have something called RNA instead. So a professional science writer would circle that and say, That has to go. We have to change it to something much more technical. And after a team of professional science editors went over this really simple explanation, they find fault with almost every word I use.

And they'd have to change anything that wasn't serious enough. And they'd have to change anything that wasn't 100% perfect. Then it would be accurate. But it would be completely impossible to understand.

"Bacteriophage replication is initiated through the introduction of viral nuclic acid into a bacterium."

--Nbauman (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Emerging handwaving

This section is on an important topic, but it is useless as it stands. If no-one makes any serious moves towards building any encyclopaedic substance into it pretty soon, I'll delete it. Consider:

"It is becoming increasingly clear that in reality, the concept of the central dogma of molecular biology is not entirely accurate insofar as it puts emphasis on proteins as the mediator of biological function." This is pure handwaving, and with undefined terms.

"We know that 80% of the human genome is transcribed even though only 1% codes for proteins. While it is possible this may be simple transcriptional noise, it seems to be an unlikely waste of cellular energy resources, and considering the major role played by RNA in regulation of gene expression, it may well have a role." Possibly true, but what does it have to do with the CD? The bald fact that there are as yet unsolved puzzles in our cells may seem very sad, but non-specific speculation is no contribution to the topic in an encyclopaedia.

"Current research focuses on investigating the function of non-coding RNA, that is, RNA that does not follow the dogma trend and does not code for polypeptides." There is nothing in this sentence to say what non-coding RNA has to do with the dogma, either pro or con. Nothing in the dogma says that all RNA (or DNA FTM) has to code for proteins. This is not only synthesis (which does not bother ME, no matter what the pillars say) but it is both POV and meaningless in context.

"Moreover, the precise meaning of "information" in this framework is often overlooked." Plaintive no doubt, but vacuous as stated. It contributes not a thing to the article.

All that text I am sure most of us will agree to be dispensable in the article. As for the citation given, maybe it is a good source and tells its readers all about it, but since its content is not visible to the public it is useless in the article unless the material it conveys is comprehensibly, relevantly and cogently summarised in context, the reference has not a scrap of merit. And it is not. JonRichfield (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Prion incoherence

I do not believe that anyone needing to read this article could make a scrap of sense out of the prion section as it stood. I have altered the opening paragraph, not at all to my satisfaction, but at least more or less making sense. The subsequent paragraph was at once so oversimplified and incoherent that I don't even accept it made sense. The topic needs someone who really has a perspective of what has by now become a complex subject, in fact someone who also can convey it to a moderately biologically literate reader. If he can do it readably and in less than a full page, good luck to him/her! Till then we are better off without the text at all. In fact, I am not sure I should have left the remaining paragraph either, but the topic is so important that I lacked the nerve to remove it entirely.

In fact I increasingly suspect that its function in this article is doubtful at best. Perhaps I should have removed the whole section after all... JonRichfield (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

5' UTR in 2nd svg is incorrectly labelled

Can somebody fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.127.101 (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Introduction's use of the word lexicological

In the intro we read about the "lexicological meaning" of the word "dogma". What is a "lexicological meaning" if not just "the meaning". Perhaps the author meant simply "the conventional meaning"? At any rate,, I think the word "lexicological" is needlessly confusing, as it suggests that the word "dogma" has some special meaning in lexicology. Gwideman (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Another example of an exception to Central dogma?

Perhaps this news item qualifies? "a protein playing a role normally filled by mRNA" --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing the final section "Emerging ideas"

Hey everyone. I just read the article (looking for a reference regarding the "Central Dogma", and thought about the last section "this is rubbish, I'll point out that I'll remove it if its not changed". Then I came here on the talk page, and a couple paragraphs above someone has already said the same thing (a year ago, mind...). So I'm removing it now. 37.209.42.230 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding Possible Wikipedia Link to Reproductive

I was thinking about either adding a link to the Wikipedia page germ cell or gametocyte to the word "reproductive" under DNA Replication since somatic has one. I am leaning more towards germ cell since its more of a general term by not focusing on Eukaryota solely. I am just checking to see if it would beneficial to do so. Thanks!CDOcean (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DNA, FNA, and RNA?

In the Biological Sequence Information section the article states, "The biopolymers that comprise DNA, FNA, RNA and (poly)peptides are linear polymers...". Maybe I'm woefully ignorant, but I've never heard of FNA and can't find anything about FNA on other Wikipedia pages, PubMed, or Google Scholar. I think it was a typo and should be removed. Kmbdjh911319 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FNA text has gone. Maybe they meant TNA. TylerTim (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Assessment comment Dec 2016

I have taught the central dogma to gen ed university student, and taught advanced molecular genetics at the graduate school level. IMHO, it is ABSURD that the central dogma article is rated "Start-class". I think it should be rated GA.

In the FAQs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Assessment page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genetics/Assessment you find:

How can I get my article rated?

   Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

There are 6 requests for ratings dating back to 2012! This is a broken system, IMHO!

Another FAQ:

Who can assess articles?

   Anybody is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

Yet, I cannot find how to actually do that! Maybe it takes more than a PhD. Can the collective wisdom of this group tell me how to change the rating of an article? Thanks. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The ratings are included in the WikiProject templates at the top of this page, Drdfp. Look out for the code class= there. You can't unilaterally promote articles to GA status that way, though, as there is a more thorough process for that (see Wikipedia:Good articles). In any case, I don't think this article meets the criteria at present (due to poor referencing, amongst other things). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that the system is broken, but personally I think there are more important things to worry about. Only GA and FA status is noted on article pages, and these ratings on talk pages don't seem to count for much any more - most readers will never see them, for a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I just finished looking at the "good articles" page, and won't nominate it based on your initial review. Still, certainly "start class" is not appropriate. Is it easy to raise the class to something less than GA without going through (and increasing) the backlog in the formal GA review process? If so, do you know how to do that? Or, would you suggest that I just ignore those ratings and spend time improving articles? I suspect that you'll advise me to get on with my life, which is OK. Thanks, Dennis Drdfp (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See my first reply above for a basic account of what code you need to change, Drdfp. More information is available at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. As far as I'm aware, you can change the article class as long as it's not to GA or FA. It might be a good idea to check out the pages of the relevant WikiProjects first, to see if they have any specific guidelines on rating articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - I forgot the final parts of your question. Personally, I don't worry too much about article ratings, apart from GA and FA. I can see how they might be helpful in identifying articles that could do with expanding or otherwise improving, but only if they are kept updated. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Thanks for the link above, which led me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ that I found even more helpful. And yes, the reason for doing this is for guidance within a project for which articles are most in need of improvement. Drdfp (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessment change January 2017

Per the discussion above, I am changing this assessment to A. There are some improvements that could be made, but there are so many other pages that need much more work that it shouldn't take work/focus away from those articles. Since I'm not signed up for the MCB or HoS projects, I didn't change those ratings, but I encourage members of those projects to follow my lead. Drdfp (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

siiggghhh re: Assessment change January 2017

The reason I keep my hair so short is to prevent me from getting a good hold on it and ripping it out. Changing the status on the banner on this page caused no change to the table of "Genetics articles by quality and importance" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics. The info on THAT table is what needs to be updated to more accurately reflect which pages need the most work. Does anybody know how to make changes to that table? Thanks Drdfp (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics, but I imagine that the table only updates once a day. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Far out! The central dogma article is now the only page in the newly made A class! If success like this continues, I may be able to let my hair grow out! DennisPietras (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessarily time to rejoice yet. A-class has special rules that require at least two editors from that particular WikiProject to agree that the article meets that group's standards for A-class. Most WikiProjects don't use A-class because of the extra hassle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Weismann's germ plasm theory

Why is Weismann not discussed in the article? His 1892 germ plasm theory strikingly anticipates the existence of DNA and the one-way flow of information, expressed of course in pre-DNA terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now there is a section titled: "Comparison with the Weismann barrier". TylerTim (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't CRISPR contradict this?

Doesn't the naturally-occurring CRISPR-Cas process contradict this? It seems to take bits of microbes that have infected the cell and insert them into the cell's own DNA, so that the cell (and presumably its descendents) become immune to those microbes. 184.0.143.99 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That is DNA -> DNA transfer. It is not relevant to the central dogma. TylerTim (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated citation

The article claims that "the dogma, as originally stated by Crick, remains valid today". However, the citation is frrom 1960. That's not even close to "today". The citation predates the discovery and development of genetic engineering. These days it is pretty trivial to reverse-engineer proteins, extract get detailed sequence information from them, and then create some DNA that codes for the same protein. That breaks Crick's version of the central dogma. This has been possible for over a decade now. For example, we sequenced dinosaur proteins from a T-Rex bone (with no DNA) in 2008. As a result the article gives a false impression of the status of the central dogma. --TylerTim (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a reference to Matthew Cobb's 2015 book with a quote stating that the central dogma remains valid today.

I think it's pretty clear that the central dogma refers to natural processes and not to genetic engineering so the fact that we can reverse engineer an amino acid sequence is irrelevant. I don't think we need to mention it.

I propose removing the warning at the top of the article. I think there are enough citations. The warning was inserted in March 2018 and the article has been updated since then.

Genome42 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing verb..?

“The dogma classes these into 3 groups of 3 (...)“ I may be nuts, but isn't here a verb missing?--109.190.55.91 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)