Talk:Antisense RNA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Maybe I'm confused, but it seems like (1) mRNA by definition codes for protein; anything antisense to it does not and is not mRNA, (2) it sounds like at least the first paragraph is talking about RNAi -- how is this different? I suspect this content should be merged either with RNAi or "Antisense RNA" (which should include microRNAs, and bacterial antisense RNAs). Other opinions? Zashaw 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have been thinking the same thing but did not get around to doing it. David D. 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the term 'antisense mRNA' is used not as an indication of protein-coding ability, but just to show that it is complementary to sense mRNA. Not a particulary accurate label, but the scientific community accepts it. I agree that some of the first paragraph sounds like RNAi, but there are other uses for antisense mRNA, so I disagree that the two articles should be merged. Perhaps the RNAi section from this article could be moved to RNAi? Xanin 13:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. Are we talking about plants or animals? I'm not inclined to contribute much more than insight, but it would be easy enough to compose a sentence or two that at least summarizes the letter soup posted here where one would expect a definition of what the article is about. Xientist 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Antisense techniques are distinct from RNAi. The description in the first paragraph applies to antisense techniques using single-stranded RNA. These techniques do not require the activity of the RNAi processing system (Drosha, Dicer, RISC). However, use of single-stranded RNA as antisense does involve the activity of RNase-H, an enzyme not required for RNAi. The requirement for entirely different cellular systems for their activity suggests to me that these topics (antisense RNA and RNAi) should be kept separate. Using the two approaches experimentally involves different advantages and disadvantages (for example, stimulation of toll-like receptor 3 by double-stranded RNA [1] is not an issue when using single-stranded RNA). Antisense techniques were in use long before the discovery of RNAi; the field started with introduction of single-stranded DNA[2]. Some organisms regulate gene expression by making natural antisense[3]. Regarding the question of nomenclature, I agree that "antisense RNA" is a more accurate description but that there is a long history of using "antisense mRNA". User:JonMoulton 2 June 2006