Talk:Conserved non-coding sequence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:52, 28 July 2025

Latest revision as of 19:00, 28 July 2025

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 27:

::::::Or are you suggesting a separate article on CNE's (ultraconserved elements)?

::::::If there's strong objection to blanking this article on conserved non-coding sequence then should we add sections on the really important conserved non-coding DNA such as: centromeres, telomeres, SARs, non-coding genes, regulatory sequences, and origins of replication? All of those are covered in [[Non-coding DNA]]. [[User:Genome42|Genome42]] ([[User talk:Genome42|talk]]) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Keep in mind that the underlying issue here is the completely arbitrary distinction between coding DNA and non-coding DNA. It's based on the idea that at one time scientists thought that all functional DNA elements were located in coding DNA. That hasn't been true for 60 years.

::::::This is why we have so many papers in the scientific literature proclaiming to have discovered some new functional DNA element in non-coding DNA as though that's a revolutionary thought.

::::::We could just as easily divide the genome into centromeres and non-centromeres and write an article on conserved non-centromeric DNA as if that was something worthwhile. [[User:Genome42|Genome42]] ([[User talk:Genome42|talk]]) 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm going off your comment that "there should be an article on CNEs" here. So yes, I'm agreeing that we remove the redundant info on Introns and untranslated regions and expand the section on ultraconserved sequences, with the idea of ultimately improving this article to host comprehensive coverage on CNEs (with a rename if needed). — [[User:VolatileAnomaly|<b style="background-color:black;border:3px solid gray;padding:3px;color:lime;">🪫Volatile</b>]] ^{[[User talk:VolatileAnomaly|''' 📲T''']] | [[Special:Contributions/VolatileAnomaly|'''⌨️C''']]} 19:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)