Talk:Base pair

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

A summary of this article appears in DNA.

New images

The previous image (below) contains errors (outlined on its talk page) but it would be very useful to have some diagram. Anyone with ChemDraw? Opabinia regalis 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, O. regalis, check out

and

Are they OK for your purposes? I can spruce them up if needed. The bonding should be checked, but I think they're OK. WillowW 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Did I mention that you're awesome? :) Only one minor thing - there's a double bond missing on the upper right of the cytosine (between carbons 5 and 6). I like not showing the sugar and phosphate the way the previous images did, which looked "busy" aside from being wrong. (That poor overburdened carbon atom...) Opabinia regalis 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :) I totally agree about the backbone -- it distracted from the Main Event; a student might not know what part of the Figure to look at. Sorry about the missing db, and thanks for catching it; I had a skulking feeling that something was wrong. Hope this helps and send along any other requests for ChemDraw; the program is good although I haven't learned all its tricks yet... WillowW 11:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Added both to the article. I've been using XDrawChem lately (partly for licensing reasons and partly out of a possibly-misguided attempt to stick with open-source) and it's just not as pretty or convenient to use. Still pretty good for a freebie though. I'll pass along any more ChemDraw-deficient articles I run into :) Opabinia regalis 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old image

substituted thumb|150px|the png for

File:DNAbasePairing.jpg

the jpg

because the former is only 1/4 the filesize of the latter with no apparent difference in quality.--Deelkar 21:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the png one under WP:CSD#4, as it had no source information and was tagged for speedy deletion. ElinorD (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were claims on the image page that it was factually inaccurate. ElinorD (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about uracil and adenine?

how many H bonds do they have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.151.172 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Base Stacking

What does this mean - quote: "GC stacking interactions with adjacent bases tend to be more favorable." ? Does it mean that GC base pairs form more bonds with other base pairs, be they GC or AT, or just among other GC base pairs? Do the base pairs have to be in a particular orientation, e.g. GpG with CpC vs CpG with GpC? --Seans Potato Business 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length

What is the length of 1 bp in nanometers?

how many base pairs in one turn of a double helix? why is the length of a base pair relevant to it's chemistry in DNA? in RNA?

Length II, numbers

Can anybody who knows please amend the sentence "The haploid human genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long .." (introduction) by an numeric expression? Is 3 billion 3E9 (UK) or 3E12 (US)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.1 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the US billion is 10^9, and the UK billion used to be 10^12, but common usage is tending to the 10^9 version.

The human genome is 3E9 base pairs; at 0.34 nm per base pair, that works out to 1 meter.96.54.53.165 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a base pair be denoted by a single letter?

I quote from a DNA-testing-company material:

"Your DNA is made up of a series of 'base pairs' that make up your genetic code. Each of these base pairs can have one of four designations: A, C, G, or T"

- isn't there some mistake? I thought that a pair should be designated by a pair of letters. Best regards, --CopperKettle 12:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When DNA sequences are reported, usually only one strand is written; the other strand is implied by complementarity rules.96.54.53.165 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The human genome size

According to an internet source, the human genome contains more than 3.4 billion base pairs: How big is the human genome? Maybe this could be of interest too: Detailed Record for Homo sapiens Just thought I should mention it. 84.210.29.167 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kb not (always) equal to kbp?

Hi, this article is about base pairs, but they don't always come in pairs? This is not my field so I hesitate to edit and add: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kilobase

Note I assumed in Yeast artificial chromosome "100-1000&nbps;kb" should really say 100-1000 kbp. Now I'm not sure and will not change that. comp.arch (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, "kb" is correct for single stranded nucleic acids (eg mRNA, some viral genomes), whereas "kbp" is correct for double stranded nucleic acids (eg most forms of DNA). In practice, "kb" is sometimes used in either case. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence needs improvement

Currently the opening sentence reads "Base pairs form....". This fails to define the subject matter.

Perhaps use something like this:

A base pair is a pair of complementary bases in a double-stranded nucleic acid molecule, consisting of a purine in one strand linked by hydrogen bonds to a pyrimidine in the other.

or

A base pair is two bases held together by weak bonds.

pgr94 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be an improvement. Feel free to be bold and make the change yourself! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Lead paragraph potential issues

The lead begins with:

Base pairs (unit: bp), which form between specific nucleobases (also termed nitrogenous bases), are the building blocks...

This kind of lends to the belief that something physical exists between the each necleobase pair. Perhaps "Base pairs (unit: bp), which are formed of specific nucleobases" or something similar. I'm not sure the exact proper wording, but I know the current version should be improved. 137.124.161.31 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentence. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Base pair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content and crucial to understanding DNA structure, replication, and transcription. - tameeria 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Base pair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001048/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/08/tp-life-engineered-with-expanded-genetic-code/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/08/tp-life-engineered-with-expanded-genetic-code/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of base pairs

The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 × 10^37, and weighs 50 billion tonnes.[6] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 TtC (trillion tons of carbon).

This seems like a really random factoid for the article lede. Also, that's the weight of all the DNA on Earth, and so, if anywhere, would be more suited that that article, rather than this one on Base Pairs. 209.255.238.212 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Picture on Base Pairs can not be right

The Picture "The chemical structure of DNA base-pairs" contains an Error. In the Nucleobase Guanin in the 5-ring-heterocycle there is an H-Atom with 3 bonds. This should be a Carbon-Atom. For Chemists or people known to basic rules of chemistry this is easy to notice, but might be very misleading for young students.

E.g. in the German Version there is a correct picture, that might be reused.

Keep up the good work :) 2A00:8A60:C010:1:0:0:1:1003 (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. I saw that the error had been corrected in the original source, so I used it to replace the incorrect image here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]