Talk:Enhancer (genetics)

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

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It would appear from the current description of enhancers that they aren't absolutely necessary for transcription of some genes. Now, I don't claim to be an expert, but having recently taken several classes covering genetics, I was left with the impression that some genes will simply not be expressed without the proper enhancers. Strictly speaking, transcription just needs a promoter region and the right machinery; on the other hand, that machinery needs to be recruited.

What I'm trying to say is that I think something more specific about levels of transcription should be added to this page. I am not qualified to do this. Taingalls (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If enhancers can affect genes on different chromosomes from the one they're on, then they're not always cis-acting. So shouldn't we say that they're usually cis-acting instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.12.249 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Junk DNA? edit

What if anything is the relationship between enhancers and "junk" DNA? I understand the latter to be DNA that does not encode for proteins; it sounds like these enhancers fall into that category. So are they "junk"? And if so, is it possible that very little/ some/ much of junk DNA is really enhancers? Mcswell (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The meaning of "junk DNA" changes as new functions are discovered for DNA that previously had no known function - enhancers being an example. But some DNA has functions in some species, but is disabled in other species. For example the DNA sequence for coding ascorbate is functional in most mammals and rodents, but does not code for ascorbate in primates and guinea pigs, and therefore could be called "junk DNA" in humans and guinea pigs, but not "junk DNA" in goats and rats. Greensburger (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lede edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current (10Mar2014) intro has some problems:

Any trans-acting protein that binds to an enhancer is a transcription factor (not sure what the current wording is trying to say)
Enhancers can be both activating or repressive, in modern usage of the word enhancer
It's more the on/off state than the transcription level that they regulate
~~Cis-acting is really the general way they act, trans-acting is unusual or non-existing, bit too prominently mentioned~~

Narayanese (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic