Talk:Ribozyme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does anyone know the size of the smallest known ribozyme? Memenen 05:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Don't know, perhaps ask at the reference desk. --Lexor|Talk 08:10, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
- To the best of my knowledge the smallest ribozyme is the leadzyme. It is about 30 nucleotides in size. [Duane(browser)]
Contents |
[edit] ATP requirement
Introns don't require ATP for their catalytic activity, but is this a general property of ribozymes? --EnSamulili 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know of any ribozyme that requires ATP for their catalytic function. All of the small naturally occuring ribozymes (HDV, Hammerhead, Hairpin and VS ribozymes) require divalent (or high concentrations of monovalent) cations for their reaction. There are DNAzymes and other ribozymes that have been constructed from in vitro selection (SELEX) experiments that contain aptamer binding domains. The aptamer (could be any particular small molecule) is required for forming the active structure of the DNA/RNA enzyme, but doesn't participate directly in catalysis. There may be a DNA/RNA enzyme containing an ATP binding domain, but I'm not 100% sure (without checking) (Duane - Browser)
-
- To the contrary, ligase and polymerase ribozymes require a high-energy phosphate bond. Usually in these reactions, pyrophosphate is the leaving group when the alpha-phosphate of a triphosphate group is attacked by a hydroxyl group.
This is similar to the mechanism of DNA ligase (DNA ligase, however, uses an adenylate as the leaving group, instead of pyrophosphate. Polymerases, of course, use NTPs as the substrates, so their leaving group is pyrophosphate. Phosphodiester bond hydrolysis doesn't require ATP. It is energetically favored.
LinkinPark 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creationism
I'm probably opening a huge can of worms here, but the first reference "The RNA World: A Critque" has significant intelligent design undertones (and 'overtones' in the conclusion!). As an undergraduate, I don't know how accurate the information it contains is, but I'm skeptical of its impartiality (a cornerstone of science). As I read through it, I actually thought that it reminded me of irreversible complexity essays I've read. Does biased science belong in a scientific article such as this one - or is this the thin end of the wedge refered to in "The Wedge Document"?
Aaadddaaammm 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- You were quite right, I have replaced that one with the real reference to the original article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was merge done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do people think about merging the content from RNA Biocatalysis with this page? Tim Vickers 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Alexbateman 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Both articles germane to the same topic JMB-Universidad Complutense de Madrid
- yes i agree sinharaja2002 —Preceding comment was added at 14:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Round 18
I could swear I saw Round 18 somewhere. Incredibly, it is missing from this article. Anyone see it? Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Found it. It was two lines in the intro. sorry --Squidonius (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discovery section needs editing
The text in the "Discovery" section has many typos that makes it very difficult to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.118.114 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)