Talk:Origin of replication

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was adapted from Babatunde Ekundayo; Franziska Bleichert (12 September 2019). "Origins of DNA replication". PLOS Genetics. 15 (9) e1008320. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PGEN.1008320. ISSN 1553-7390. PMC 6742236. PMID 31513569. Wikidata Q86320168.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) after peer review (reviewer reports) under a CC BY 4.0 license (2019).

• There are several questions I have about this article that do not seem to line up. For one the definition of theOrigin of replicationit states that it is the Origin of replication for the genome as in all the genteic material contained in an organism but that is not necessarily true is it? There can be an origin of replication on a plasmid as it even states in the same article. I am placing several needs citation markers on this page and going to do some leg work later to correct issues with the lack of sources. There are several missing aspects of origins that could be included more than just an AT-Rich Region and on top of that needs some clearer structure. Teokey (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Origin of replication — refers to the "L box", "M box", and "R box". I'm guessing that these refer to the amino acids created, but, if so, it doesn't appear to be explained. — RJH 00:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The origin of replication a 250 bp sequence rich in adenine-thymine base pairs, which are more easily separated than cytosine-guanine base pairs. It consists of an L box, an M box, and an R box.

The origin of replication binds the pre-replication complex. Specifically, the R box binds dnaA.

The origin of replication size varies significantly from organism to organism; I think it's only about 30 or 40 bp in some prokaryotes. We also need to explain what L, M, and R boxes are. If nobody else gets to it, I'll put something together in the next few days. I think dnaA might also be specific to prokaryotes--I have to check that.

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page Replication origin site covers the same topic as this page but with less information. I suggest it should be merged into Origin of replication. Celefin 11:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I assume silence means nobody minds...I will go ahead. Celefin 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Same goes for the term 'Ori'. Are there conceptual differences between the term 'Ori' and 'Origin of replication' I am unaware of? if not then these two pages should be merged. martin_fed 30 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC).Reply

On the Origin of replication, I am not sure what to do about articles such as these, weasel articles and any article that at first glance appears to be legitimate wiki articles, yet minimal investigation reveals it's just another propaganda article in this ongoing war between those who publish lies because they cannot live in a world where God does not exist and those who publish lies because they cannot live in a world where God exists. I know most people these days are sympathetic to those who are loyal to those whom cannot live in a world where God exists, I however deem any person, organization/side despicable when they fabricate and publish lies in the name of science -- for any reason -- as it it unacceptable. While I can appreciate the humor of the choice of words for it's Darwinistic pun, this article is neither funny nor factual as well as citing not-reputable sources among the true scientific community. Any reputable source would understand the difference between mitosis and meiosis. Neither would they be foolish enough to call transcription of very specific, very short portions of DNA for the specific task of translation, the grossly inaccurate term 'replication'. Futhermore, it is precisely these types of behaviors - which are too publish such weasel articles - that will ultimately destroy the core of what wikipedia IS because it negates the countless hours of volunteer work preformed which IS wikipedia. Keep perversion where it belongs; in the bedroom or any room other than rooms that serve to publish scientific truth and the small changes it goes through called life, who cares what ultra-conservative religious groups believe, their behavior does not, nor will it ever warrant perversion of the truth according to science. Please offer alternative actions other than deletion. The most obvious is NOT label the base pairs which function as a start or stop signal for transcription of DNA with the weasel word 'replication' - Dirtclustit (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Origin of replication/CommentsTalk:Origin of replication/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.

Last edited at 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ori (genetics) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article currently, Jule 2017, reads like this:

"DNA replication typically begins at a single origin of replication. In E. coli, the origin of replication — oriC — consists of three A–T rich 13-mer repeats and four 9-mer repeats."

However had, why is the "origin of replicatin" called oriC? I think that visitors will be confused. While the article in itself is correct, it IS the origin of replication in E. coli, the name oriC is also right as far as I know; but not in the context of it being meant as a "origin of replication", but "chromosomal origin". This would explain the C. Unfortunately I have no material that I could cite here, so I can not modify the content - if anyone else knows a reference to the name oriC, please add it. Thank you. 2A02:8388:1641:3580:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

While the article has a lot of details, it's poorly organized and in urgent need of some structure, especially within the taxonomic groups, e.g. bacterial and eukaryotic. At this point it's a hodgepodge of data in which it's hard to find any details. Peteruetz (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree. On top of structuring the meandering text, I would suggest to remove most details about replication to the DNA replication page, as they are not directly related to the topic of origins. This page should focus on the features of origin sequences. Peteruetz (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's actually a lot more to the Haloferax story.

• PMID 24185008 (the article currently cited in the page) is cited by PMID 26374389, which uses pretty much the same methodology to study a different species in the same genus. Turns out:
  • H. m. has a couple of "dormant oris" that also consist of a Orc1 gene next to a ORB. When the main oris get knocked out they come into business, as shown by that copy number technique.
  • H. v. has things that look like dormant oris, but PMID 24185008 does not show them kicking into action. However, if you transplant one of them into H. m., it starts working.
  • H. m. cannot replicate with no oris, but as we've seen H. v. can.
• Both articles are cited by PMID 29268981. It mentions a very interesting case in T. kodakarensis: it doesn't use it's ori at all when grown in a lab!
• PMID 24185008 cites PMID 18523437. This article proposes that (parts of) the DNA replication machinery might have been selfish genetic elements. Remember how Orc1 genes are often next to the ORB it recognizes? PMID 24185008 thinks the Orc1-ORB sequence might just be one of these cases.

...anyways, it's a fun rabbit hole. The mention of T. k. may be useful in the article. PMID 18523437 mentions that plasmid segregation facilities have a lot in common with oris (or can act in place of them), which would be nice to mention in the article. I don't think it's quite worth spelling out the selfish replicon hypothesis though.

Artoria2e5 🌉 17:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply