Talk:DNA and RNA codon tables

Untitled

This page is created because people might deem a RNA codon table to be more appropriate than a DNA codon table in the "Genetic Code" page. However, since a DNA codon table is generally more convenient for people who work with genomic data, then it may be preferred to have this table stored somewhere in wikipedia.

Potentially, this page can be merged to a short reference page for bioinformatics where tables of general amino acid properties are stored. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of redirecting to genetic code, as suggested in the AfD discussion, since all the relevant information already exists there. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of undoing your redirect, since that had little difference to a delete and as far as I know, the decision by the admin was to keep it. While merging this to another page is definitely appropriate, the way that you've accomplished that is not very appropriate by my standards. To repeat myself: While the tables are nearly identical to the RNA codon tables, they also represent the genetic code in a form that's more convenient to most biologists. And even though it is definitely trivial to scroll down the Genetic Code page to retrieve the table and replace uracils with thymines, I assure you that it gets tiresome after doing this for the n-th time. If you feel a strong urge to apply your wiki standards, then maybe you should start with merging/redirecting unigram, bigram, trigram to ngram or natural logarithm to logarithm. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you rephrased the lead paragraph such that it started "DNA Codon Tables set out the genetic code associated with DNA" ... or somesuch form of words, to provide a clear definition of the table. For me, the current wording entirely fails to do that. I understand why you thik this article is important. I do not understand why the article does not make clear to me what it is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording seems clear enough to me. However, feel free to change the introduction if you can make it better. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me, and I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the subject matter to be the wrong person to improve it. And for heavens sake, look at any other wikipedia article and you'll find that it'll tend to start with an emboldened subject followed by a succinct definition. Why is this the exception? And is starting with the definite article sensible? As far as I'm aware, there are at least two genetic codes, one for RNA and one for DNA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

TWO for RNA????????Turtleguy1134 Turtleguy1134 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the page is supposed to be relatively technical. While it's not rocket science, it is also not meant for anyone who doesn't know anything about basic molecular biology. Anyway, I redid the context. If someone disagrees with the way that is written, then he/she is welcomed to edit it. And lastly, there's only one known naturally-occurring genetic code but there are a number of common ways of representing this genetic code (i.e. DNA and RNA codon tables). Now, I hope the next criticism will come from someone who actually knows about the topic (i.e. a scientist). Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several naturally-occurring genetic codes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The compressed codon for Glutamine is given in the table as CCR, whilst the compressed codon for Proline is CCN. These seem to conflict- I believe the codon for Glutamine should be CAR, not CCR. 94.173.129.198 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This was actually fixed in this edit a few days ago. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is rather confusing for visitors, including myself, why there are now both RNA codon tables and DNA codon tables. I was so used to a RNA codon table, since that is the one that is read by the ribosome on the mRNA, and now the page seems to arbitrarily claim that the DNA codon table is more proper. I can't find any links or articles discussing this, so perhaps more links could be added, please? 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've provided a citation and re-worded the lead in an attempt to provide some clarification. I've also clarified that DNA codon tables are more common now than they used to be, as opposed to more common than RNA codon tables, so hopefully there's no longer any implication that the DNA codon table is more proper. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Side note

side note: By RNA it is mRNA. There are different kinds of RNA (tRNA, mRNA, ect.)Turtleguy1134Turtleguy1134 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? I think those sorts of details belong at Genetic code. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this detail is important and it is trivial to change. The codons appliy only to mRNA, due to so many RNAs being popular these days, it would not help to denote it as mRNA rather than RNA. 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The current version refers to mRNA. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of a Codon

Look in any molecular biology text book, and by definition a codon is found in RNA, specifically messenger RNA. A codon is not found in DNA, although an equivalent triplet sequence is found in the coding strand of a polypeptide-encoding gene.

Sorry, but this article just confuses things. I can see no advantage in having a DNA codon table. Anybody with a working knowledge of this topic will know that, for the equivalent of a codon in the coding strand of DNA, all you have to do is replace a U with a T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.121.25 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That it all explained in the intro sentences. It's true that "all you have to do is replace a U with a T", but having to do that (especially repeatedly, if you're looking at lots of genes) is harder than just having the result already in the table. The RNA table is at RNA codon table, and is explicitly listed in the See Also section. If you go to a page explicitly titled DNA..., that's what you would find here. If you wound up here by following a link where it really should be pointing to the RNA case, feel free to let us know, or even alter the link yourself to help others find what makes the most sense in context. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not much is "explained" in the intro sentence at all, it merely claims that it is that way. I agree with the poster before me, it simply is confusing as it is. Why are there now two different codon tables? Also, a bit aside from the point, translating from one to the other is trivial due to the only difference being Uracil versus Thymin anyway. Isn't there a standard body that has recommended which way to go about? By the way, the DNA codon table is what I found first via google, so perhaps other people also are led first to this page, rather than the RNA codon table, in particular because there is no standalone RNA codon table on wikipedia, so there is bias created towards this page here. 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much we can do about the way Google works, but I've added an additional link to the RNA codon table in the first sentence. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect translations

Since the start codon is AUG in RNA, wouldn't it be TAC in DNA, not ATG? Bases have to form hydrogen bonds to pair. G doesn't bond with G. Believe it or not, you can't ONLY swap U for T, because U bonds with A and A bonds with T / T bonds with A, while C bonds to G and G bonds to C. Similarly, the end codons in RNA are UAA, UAG, and UGA, which correspond to DNA sequences of ATT, ATC, and ACT. In other words, this table is pretty messed up. The way it currently stands, it says ATG is start when ATG = UAC = Tyrosine. The end codons are also wrong. TAG and TAA translate to AUC and AUU, which code for Isoleucine. TGA = ACU = Threonine. Either I'm going crazy or someone really messed up on this codon chart, probably because they just decided to take the RNA chart and replace U with T. Again, TAC should be start and ATT/ATC/ACT should be stop. (Edit: Apparently I am going crazy and have always been using antisense and making things more difficult for myself) --User:Zuloo37 07:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

By convention, the DNA sequence of a gene is given as the "sense", "+", "non-transcribed" or "non-template" strand. This strand is complementary to the antisense strand, which is itself complementary to the mRNA.

To put it another way, the 5'-AUG-3' start codon is complementary to the DNA sequence 3'-TAC-5'. But here we're giving the sequence of the other DNA strand, which is 5'-ATG-3'.

Sense (molecular biology) sort of explains this, though it could really use a clearer diagram, like this. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that. Apparently I've been using 3' to 5' arbitrarily unknowingly for a while now. But I still think there should be an antisense version of the table available, since the antisense strand is what is actually used as a template for the mRNA, and the antisense codon (TAC, not ATG) is what forms hydrogen bonds with the AUG of the mRNA transcript formed by RNA polymerase. The ATG on the opposite strand stores information, in a way, but doesn't actually participate. I just found this kind of ambiguous. If the polymerase acted on ATG, it would form the complementary strand UAC, which would code for a different amino acid, tyrosine, rather than methionine. Here is the Met-tRNA, from 5' to 3', I think (it never said, and I'm pretty sure I assumed it was 3' to 5'): AGTAAGGTCAGCTAAATAAGCTATCGGGCC CAT ACCCCGAAAATGTTGGTTATACCCTTCCCGTACTA. If RNA polymerase acts on that sequence, the tRNA created would be UCAUUCCAGUCGAUUUAUUCGAUAGCCCGG GUA UGGGGCUUUUACAACCAAUAUGGGAAGGGCAUGAU, but apparently this is wrong, and I need to "just replace T with U" because it's sense, rather than the antisense template that I've been assuming... And the final tRNA is really AGUAAGGUCAGCUAAAUAAGCUAUCGGGCC CAU ACCCCGAAAAUGUUGGUUAUACCCUUCCCGUACUA, which does have the anticodon for the correct mRNA codon, AUG, but the original DNA that made that sequence still had to be TAC, but if I translated again to get the sense version, it would be ATG. So I guess I've been making things harder for myself this whole time, assuming I needed to find the complementary strand to find an mRNA transcript, when all I need to do is "replace T with U" because we're biased toward 5' to 3'? The thing is, I've read DNA and translated it to RNA and then proteins, using TAC as a start codon and ATT/ATC/ACT as end codons, since those are what are complementary to the AUG start codon and UAA/UAG/UGA end codons in RNA. If I had used ATG (Tyr) as a start codon and TAA/TAG/TGA(Ile/Thr) as end codons, I would have got a completely different set of proteins. And I have the entire antisense DNA codon chart memorized (as well as the sense RNA codon chart), apparently. --User:Zuloo37

Well, perhaps, but

"A codon table can be used to translate a genetic code into a sequence of amino acids."

Well, perhaps, but that translation is only appropriate if the "genetic code" is actually for a sequence of amino acids; there are plenty of non-coding sequences. Or was this a subtle piece of wording, so it's only a "code" if it does code for a sequence, as opposed to all the other functions of DNA sequences? If so, it really does need explanation, as that sort of thing would pass by many readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

3D view of the Genetic Code

Hello I want to suggest a 3D version of the RNA to better understand the relationships of the codons. A 3D view of the Genetic Code

How can my suggestion be added without upsetting all editors?

Saludos H2mex (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have multiple high quality reliable sources to support the addition? ~ HAL333 01:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Using this source? Absolutely not, this writing is completely unhinged. Some other image to illustrate the effect of a one-base mutation? Maybe, we have File:3D Genetic Code.jpg. Artoria2e5 🌉 12:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

DNA Image

The second image in the introduction (the one showing the DNA double helix) is nice, but it seems incorrect if you look closely. That is, if you follow a single strand it reads GCA ACT CTA AAT TGA rather than GCA AGA GAT AAT TGT. With each turn of the helix, which strand is on top in the image switches. Thus, if someone is looking closely to understand how the codons would be found in DNA, they may get confused. Strongyloides (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the image shows the wrong transcription, and I think the error is significantly misleading since it's important to the transcription process that a single strand is followed, rather than jumping between strands every half cycle. Smcpeak74 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on feedback at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1134#Advice_on_fixing_an_error_in_an_article_image, I think I'll attempt to either repair or re-create this image, but I won't have time for at least a week. Smcpeak74 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now replaced the erroneous image with File:DNA translation example.jpg, correcting the problems noted. Smcpeak74 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a beautiful repair! Artoria2e5 🌉 12:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge with the templates again

We had Template:Codon table and Template:Inverse codon table extracted from the article so we could see and update them in a central place. We should get that arrangement back.

Refs will still work if the names are managed correctly. Same for notes. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're advocating for... ~ HAL333 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)