Talk:Regulation of gene expression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) Rated "top" as highschool topic and important concept/overview in molecular biology. - tameeria 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I disagree with the definition of gene regulation as the regulation of protein expression at the DNA and RNA level. It's true that most of the time, the end product of the expression of a gene is a protein, however, it is not always true, and I think that it is too much of a simplification of what gene regulation is to start of the whole overview with that as a definition.
I think that in the last decade we have learned that proteins are not the only active catalytic moiety that exists in a cell and that the work of a cell sometimes relies on special catalytic RNAs or is regulated by even more specialized RNAi's. In other words, defining gene regulation as regulation of protein expression overlooks the RNA world and places too much emphasis on the end product of a gene being a protein. When the central dogma read DNA -> RNA -> protein, the definition was true, but we now know that there need to be some loops and turns in the central dogma, so the definition is no longer suitable.
I chose to address this change in the talk section because I think that I am proposing a major change in the definition of gene regulation and I didn't want to suppose that my definition is the correct one without some form of discussion.
What do people feel, is this worth a discussion or should I just change the sentence and see what people think?
thanks, Stephen R. Lasky, Institute for Systems Biology User:Srlasky
- Dr Lasky, you have every right to modify the page. If it is disliked, someone will change it back! In the present form, the page certainly answers to the old dogma. A mention of the emerging theories would be entirely appropriate. Would you care to elaborate if catalytic RNA is an issue of concern in higher lifeforms?
- Your input is most welcomed. There is a dearth of contributors with biological expertise on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. Lasky's comments, and have corrected the definition on this page. Turan P. Urmenyi, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro User:Turan
Contents |
[edit] Prokaryotic gene regulation
This page seems to be exclusively about eukaryotic gene regulation. Fror example this sentence: Octameric protein complexes called histones are responsible for the amount of supercoiling of DNA, is simply not true for prokaryotes. There are two possible solutions, either make a Prokaryotic gene regulation article and a seperate Eukaryotic gene regulation article, or try to be more specific and make less generalisations in this article. I've been doing some work on the lac operon article and it could really do with a parallel article on prokaryotic gene regulation in order to fill in the gaps, so I'm in favour of the first option. What's the general feeling?Alun 05:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Structural modification
According to the article this is a consequence of phosphorylation and methyation, both are chemical modifications, so it should be under the same heading. Andreas (T) 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Up/Down Regulation
Could these terms actually be defined please?
[edit] Split for regulatory protein?
Regulatory protein redirects here, but I think regulatory proteins are involved in many more processes in the cell than just regulation of gene expression. Shouldn't they have their own page? - tameeria 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they should have their own page, or that they are at least described more in their section.-EmilyofWolves
[edit] Negative and positive control
Negative control and positive control are mentioned in the gene regulation chapter of intro-bio textbooks and need to be defined in the context of gene expression either here or on their respective pages. - tameeria 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sort stuff out
I dislike the layout of this page. I used to look like it was a first year undergraduate essay (I am suprised that the main reference is not Alberts. Uh, I might add that as a joke). I think Transcriptional regulation must have its own page as it is for post-transcriptional regulation, which links to a page which is now cool (great save guys!). Is that a good idea or will it make it worse as I suppose this is a high school topic too. --Squidonius (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- 3 of the 4 references were actually copied from the post-transcriptional page... --Squidonius (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
