Talk:Conserved sequence
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. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is a current candidate for the MCB Collaboration of the Month. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination. |
 To-do list for Conserved sequence: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[edit] Move to Wiktionary?
I would suggest no move, because IMO this entry is likely to be a valuable object for collecting links to from other articles.
With time, "what links here" may become increasingly interesting. At the same time, the article could be usefully expanded, by addressing eg the questions "what kind of sequences tend to be strongly conserved?" and "just how conserved are they?". -- Jheald 09:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Merge of Conservation (genetics) into Conserved sequence
I think Conservation (genetics) and Conserved sequence should be merged into a single article since genetic conservaton is in fact conservation of DNA or RNA sequences (or protein sequences coded by DNA/RNA sequences). My inclination is to have the name of the merged article be Conserved sequence (with Conservation (genetics) turning into a redirect to it). The term conserved sequence is encountered more often, although genetic conservation (or conservation (genetics)) might be seen as more formal or something. Other opinions about such a merge? -R. S. Shaw 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that, they really are the same article. However, I'd say the main article ought to be conservation (genetics) because what the article really discusses is the concept of genetic conservation, rather than specific conserved sequences or the definition of the term. -Bobsagat 11:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
When I write articles, I'm more likely to talk about "conserved sequences" or "sequence conservation". The more I think about it, the more I think it's a question of scope. "Conservation" (genetics) could refer to not only sequence conservation, but also conservation of function, conservation of regulatory pathways, etc. It closely overlaps with topics like Negative selection and Stabilizing selection. The fact that the the top of Conservation (genetics) says "This article is not about conservation genetics" also suggests that the article title could be misinterpreted. I guess there could be room for both Conserved sequence and Conservation (genetics), but I'd rather see Conserved sequence kept if only one stays. Forluvoft 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
