Talk:Antisense RNA

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 Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I believe the figure is wrong! the 5' and 3' should be the opposite in "mRNA/sense transcript" and in "asRNA" and thus the duplex also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:6D47:8700:58E4:2D6A:4A25:F953 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kristynb4.

Above undated message substituted from

WOuld'nt the presence of Reverse transcriptase cause a lot of antisense RNA to ocurr and signal the immune system when the cell began acting funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.177.126 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the activation of the RNAi pathway by antisense simply causint the Antisense to be splices into RNAi fragments? Can someone be more specific?

While this is not the central dogma it appears to be a very significant aspect of gene function these fragments and edits appear to make the genome much more active place that we normally think.

Maybe I'm confused, but it seems like (1) mRNA by definition codes for protein; anything antisense to it does not and is not mRNA, (2) it sounds like at least the first paragraph is talking about RNAi -- how is this different? I suspect this content should be merged either with RNAi or "Antisense RNA" (which should include microRNAs, and bacterial antisense RNAs). Other opinions? Zashaw 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have been thinking the same thing but did not get around to doing it.

David D. 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the term 'antisense mRNA' is used not as an indication of protein-coding ability, but just to show that it is complementary to sense mRNA. Not a particulary accurate label, but the scientific community accepts it. I agree that some of the first paragraph sounds like RNAi, but there are other uses for antisense mRNA, so I disagree that the two articles should be merged. Perhaps the RNAi section from this article could be moved to RNAi? Xanin 13:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Are we talking about plants or animals? I'm not inclined to contribute much more than insight, but it would be easy enough to compose a sentence or two that at least summarizes the letter soup posted here where one would expect a definition of what the article is about. Xientist 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisense techniques are distinct from RNAi. The description in the first paragraph applies to antisense techniques using single-stranded RNA. These techniques do not require the activity of the RNAi processing system (Drosha, Dicer, RISC). However, use of single-stranded RNA as antisense does involve the activity of RNase-H, an enzyme not required for RNAi. The requirement for entirely different cellular systems for their activity suggests to me that these topics (antisense RNA and RNAi) should be kept separate. Using the two approaches experimentally involves different advantages and disadvantages (for example, stimulation of toll-like receptor 3 by double-stranded RNA [1] is not an issue when using single-stranded RNA). Antisense techniques were in use long before the discovery of RNAi; the field started with introduction of single-stranded DNA[2]. Some organisms regulate gene expression by making natural antisense[3]. Regarding the question of nomenclature, I agree that "antisense RNA" is a more accurate description but that there is a long history of using "antisense mRNA". User:JonMoulton 2 June 2006

Hi, I think the page

I agree, and it's a nice article. Added a 'See also' link for now

^✰ 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This article needs to be improved with traditional use of grammar and punctuation... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples? I've briefly checked it over and it seems acceptable

^✰ 10:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have corrected the edit for aRNA for antisense RNA as the majority of references I have looked at instead use asRNA? [e.g http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268863]. I have not come across any that use aRNA. I could quite well be wrong though. Apologies if so Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging antisense therapy into this article. Neither article is well-developed at the moment and interest in the therapy angle has largely moved on to alternative approaches, so the therapy article is unlikely to develop much further, though at the moment it's actually more up to date than this one. Will do this when I get around to it if no one substantively objects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging antisense therapy into this article. I think that Antisense Therapy can stand on its own even if needing improvement, because it's a quick and easy way to get an overview of what that term means and provides links for those readers who want more detail.Lenoregail (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lenoregail (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image used here is wrong as I believe the asRNA has the sequence complimentary to protein traslating RNA that is the same sequence as the template strand unlike what is shown in the picture.Link to the article. Antisense RNA - Wikipedia Thanks. Vikas Parveen (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]