Talk:RNA interference/Archive 1

Aims

The current intent of this article is to be reasonably novice friendly, but even then the topic is intrinsically technical. Wikipedia has some real experts writing theirs now, and its heading towards highly advanceed and detailed molecular technical discussions that are completely out of reach for beginners, and I suggest we don't go there David Tribe 19:15, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Citation style

See Help:Citation style David Tribe 21:33, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Three editor Approval

(Tribe, Leng, Sculerati) After further editing that has occurred subsequent to conversations between Tribe and Leng, Tribe and Schulerati

I think its time to place this template with a one week period before the deadline. I see the whole process as a system of checks and balances with trade offs between our goals . I will update the URL pointer as various copy edits come in David Tribe 23:48, 6 February 2007 (CST)

David Tribe has nominated this version of this article for approval. Other editors may also sign to support approval. The Biology Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on February 13, 2007.

---

RNAi is ridiculously amazing. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 17:30, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Jargon

I think there's too much Jargon in this article. I can't find anywhere what RNA stands for or what RNA is. The article needs to be introduced in a more accessible manor. It should be understandable to someone who is form outside the Biology field. The reader is thrown in the deep end here. The most technical section, "Cellular and molecular mechanisms." is the first. The topic could be more gently ramped by giving the history and background information first and dealing with the technical descriptions nearer the end after the use has learned the background.

Also, what's with all the bold text. Words seem to be bold at random. Derek Harkness 05:04, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Thanks so much

David Tribe 17:20, 26 December 2006 (CST)

I think this is a wonderful article, I found it extremely clear and interesting. Of course it's not aimed at a lay reader, but I think not all aticles can or should try to be. I think perhaps the opening paragraph could be worked on a bit, I juggled it perhaps not very successfully, but I'm happy to nominate this for approval when you want. I've copy edited the article but not otherwise contributedGareth Leng 07:05, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Further text relating to miRNAs added. Content finished; need to now focus on clarity and typo consistency. WP is far more advanced scientifically and way out of reach for beginners. David Tribe 18:58, 4 February 2007 (CST) May need to re-draw complicated PLos Flow chart figure David Tribe 19:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)

transcriptional gene silencing

Hi David, i've been reading through this is little more now and I notice that there is an ommission. In plants PTGS and TGS (as used in the figure) were used to distinguish between silencing that degraded the mRNA compared to silencing that shut off transcription. There is a very brief mention of the TGS phenomena with respect to centromere function but that is it. Was this an intentional omission? Certainly it is more well studied in plants and the animal studies all focus on the RNA stability/interference. It is probably true for animals too, given the key role in centromere function but I'm not aware of anyone looking that hard for it. Chris Day (Talk) 00:01, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Adding to this, i also see there is a section titled Multi-protein transcriptional silencing complexes generate the guide strand RNA that does not seems to address transcriptional silencing. The other Matzke figure, to the left of that section does show TGS as one of the potential outcomes. So should we add TGS into the article or do you want to focus more on the RNA stability/interference issues? If the latter, we may want to reconsider the two Matzke figures. Chris Day (Talk) 00:51, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Hi David after the vandalism spree and the confusing jan 2nd dates in the edit history I'm a little unsure of which is the current version. When i compare my last version to the current protected version it appears some of my edits have been changed back. This may have been intentional on your behalf or maybe not? Its hard to tell. In general I think most of these changes reduce the redundancy in the text. Chris Day (Talk) 10:46, 9 February 2007 (CST)