Talk:Genetic code/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Genetic code. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Top of comments

Does anybody have a reference for "This was first discovered in the 1960's.", it would be nice to add by who it was discovered, the DNA article states that it was Crick's group. A reference to a paper would be ideal. New299 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write about all exception from basic scheme. Taw

The article was kind of hard to read, so I'm doing some significant modifications. Let me know if these are ok. I'd really like to take the start codons out of the table, since they have considerably more variability than the rest of the code (differ between eukaryotes and prokaryotes), and aren't really sufficient for a start anyways. Also, why do we always capitalize STOP and START?

So DNA is not in "genetic code?" Also, DNA and genes are not organized into codons? This needs clarification; also, ought not the article to define intron and exon? Slrubenstein

Not sure what you mean by DNA not being in "genetic code", DNA is mentioned in the second paragraph and is the medium in which genetic encodings are written. Also, yes, DNA and genes are organized into codons; a codon is simply a group of three nucleotides, like the way a byte is a group of 8 ones and zeroes. As for introns and exons, they might be worth a mention but I don't think they're really directly relevant to an article about the genetic code. introns and exons are dealt with in "preprocessing", before RNA gets to the protein-translating machinery. Bryan

Intron and exon belong in a more general article on translation, imo. This should have the tables and a bit of closely relevant explanation. -- dsws 03:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence reads:

The genetic code is the code used to translate a sequence of RNA nucleotides into protein.

Now, I assume that this is how biologists talk -- trust me, a non-biologist would eagerly look to the next sentence to find out what "translate" means in this context (or might just give up; remember, this is not a textbook, readers do not have professors or TA's to explain things, it has to be all here). So, not being sure what the technical meaning of translation is here, all I see is that there is no mention of DNA in the first sentence, only mention of RNA. Even knowing a fair amount of biology, this sentence leads me to think that the code is used in the RNA itself. There is nothing in the first sentence to suggest that the RNA is forming complementary bases from a strand of DNA which uses the same code. Look, I am not trying to be argumentative. I think the first sentence needs to be clear to leaypeople, and provide a good general definition. I really think a layperson would be pretty confused. Also, concerning codons, according to the first part of the article, codons are parts of RNA -- the implication is that they are not parts of DNA. Don't you see what I mean? The article may provide an accurate description of the process of transcription, which may be the main function of "genetic code," but it is not introducing the lay-person to what words like "genetic code" and "codon" mean in a clear way. Slrubenstein

Err.. actually, the non-biologist is supposed to CLICK the translate to find out what it means.

Absolutely agree with Slrubenstein if I understood him correctly. A mention of the genetic material as DNA or RNA is essential IMO, and I've changed the lead sentence to reflect that. --Antorjal 04:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation starts with a chain initiation or START codon, but unlike STOP codons these are not sufficient by themselves to begin the process; nearby initiation sequences are also required to induce transcription into mRNA and binding by ribosomes

What are "nearby initiation sequences"? Are we talking about cell processes that get DNA transcription/translating going, or are we talking about special sequences of codons? If the latter, why isn't it more accurate to drop talk about "start codons" and speak only of "start sequences" of codons? --Ryguasu 01:45 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I edited the bit about redundancy a bit and removed the insinuation that met only has one codon because it is the start site; since the start site is recognized by a separate tRNA than the met-tRNA for normal elongation, it is not necessary that these two properties be coupled. That is, met could have redundant codons, and only one of them need specify the start site. Graft 18:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non-AUG START codons

(first moving material from above down here to a heading)

What's with all these alternate starts? I can find one reference on pubmed that talks about GUG starts, in mtDNA. Nothing for CUG. Why are they given simply as 'start', with no annotation or caveats? For all practical purposes there's really only one start codon, the rest are basically just novelties, and the text ought to emphasize this. Unless someone has a reference saying otherwise? Graft 16:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wup. Never mind, found lots about alternate initiation. But I still think the text should emphasize that AUG is the norm. Graft 16:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I used to work on a family of mammalian transcription factors that are thought to initiate at a non-AUG codon (AUU=>I). There is evidence still lacking for a proof-positive concrete this-is-fact conclusion on that family, though, in particular amino-terminal peptide sequencing, exclusion of RNA-editing as a factor, and demonstration of either cross-recognition by a MET-encoding charged tRNA or the existence of a properly charged AUU anti-codon tRNA. I believe the evidence is concrete for plants, organelles, and microorganisms for known exceptions to their respective stereotypical START codons. For vertebrates (though I've been out of related research for going on 6 years) the hard-core biochemistry just isn't there to convince one that non-AUG initiation occurs in vivo. I would suggest that the non-AUG options for vertebrates (and man) be included in th translation or a translation initiation article and to refer to that article. Courtland 03:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

What are start and stop codons?

There is no explanation in the text. ··gracefool |☺ 01:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The defintion is in the article, but rather implicit: Translation starts with a chain initiation codon (start codon). But unlike stop codons, these are not sufficient to begin the process; nearby initiation sequences are also required to induce transcription into mRNA and binding by ribosomes. The most notable start codon is AUG, which also codes for methionine. CUG and UUG, and in prokaryotes GUG and AUU, also work.

Pjacobi 11:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I'm not sure exactly what this means (diff link):

Note that if the number of amino acids coded for was eight or less, also the number of different bases needed would -- assuming a three base codon -- be only two: "generic purine" and "generic pyrimidine".

Can anyone clarify? If so, I'll add it back into the article. --bdesham 14:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This means simply that we would have eight different codons: RRR RRY RYR RYY YRR YRY YYR and YYY. Enough to code eight different amino acids (R = purine, Y = pyrimidine). It would be a binary code, not base-4 as we have now. Note that purines are two-ring molecules and pyrimidines one-ring, so this is a strong geometric expression. Differences within these two groups are more subtle and would have been added to the code later in evolution. You can still see the "generic purine/pyrimidine" patterns in the code table...

If you now understand and agree that it is of interest, please explain it better on the page :-) - mv Tue Dec 21 18:01:15 EET 2004

Look at purine-pyrimidine scheme of the genetic code

Yo!

Okay, there's some serious problems with what we're doing here. We have DNA, we have translation (genetics), we have codon, and we have genetic code. All of these are redundant to some extent, but far more than they need to be. This article is easily the most nested of the set; in order to grasp it, one must understand the information-storing nature of DNA, the basics of protein synthesis, and what a codon is. In its current form, the article attempts to recapitulate all this information. This seems the wrong attitude to take, especially as some of these are unwieldy topics that don't lend themselves to quick exposition. So, I propose that we simply take a hardass line and say up front, "Look, if you want to understand the genetic code, you MUST know what DNA is first. go read that article and when you grasp the information storage mechanism whereby DNA operates, come back here." (etc.) Such steps will prevent the article from filling up with useless and abbreviated twaddle, and will allow it to present the code itself succintly and discuss it in greater detail, as it deserves. Graft 04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err, it seems codon is now a redirect here. Mentally amend the above paragraph as necessary. Graft 04:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think you can make this better, then by all means. I tried myself and IMHO made it better, but not good. Still, remember that all articles have this problem: they all assume background knowledge that the reader may or may not have. Only in this case the knowledge is more technical and less likely to be found in any particular reader.

Putting a warning at the start to this effect may be a good idea. Still, even after that the article should remain self-contained in a meaningful way. So that somebody that is familiar with these backgrounds can read it and say 'ah yes, that's how it was'. - mv Fri Dec 24 02:01:41 GMT+2 2004

Graft: yes, this looks clearly better! - mv Sat Dec 25 18:49:04 EET 2004

Good job on this page guys. I just thought it would be a good idea, as suggested below, to have a list of exceptions. Also- it may be worth someones time to being to put in exceptions do different species, either on this page and like to the species or on the species page and like from here to there. Keep up the good work! --DavidMendoza

Dioxyribos

Codon bias

A section should be added that talks about codon bias across organisms as an evolutionary change as well as codon bias between genes in one organsism as a subtle way of altering the rate of translation (a short presentation that popped up as the #1 Google hit against "codon bias"). I'll put it on my own list of things to do, but one of the others of you would likely get to it before me. Courtland 03:17, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

the real picture

After a quick perusal, I'd say this explanation is pretty good. What irritates me in media explanations of the genetic code is that they imply that the code is read exactly as such! (i.e. ATTCGG etc.) If I were 100% layperson hearing that I would be confused. They don't make clear that it is a sequence of amino acids which we then convert into letters. I've even heard reporters say something like "when they discovered the sequence of letters that make up the human genome"!! (as if there are small A's G's and T's visible somewhere! --62.254.0.38 17:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First sentence is wrong

The genetic code is a set of rules, which maps DNA sequences to proteins in the living cell, and is employed in the process of protein synthesis.

This is an incorrect assertion. The code does not, in amy way shape or form, map anything (unless you have a strange definition of the word map). Surely it is more accurate to say that The genetic code is a set of instructions or even The genetic code is a set of rules. One can then go on to explain that the instructions are used to make proteins, which provide structure and function. So the code is the set of instructions, written in triplets which tell the cell how to build proteins.

There are many mistakes in this article. Note a gene is not the same as a cistron. Not everyone would agree that the definition of a gene is that it codes for one product (be it RNA or protein). Many would argue that a gene is a heritable unit. Try to use words which have a specific meaning, like cistron.

I also think that it should be made apparent that there are other instructions which are not part of the code, no detail need be given, but it could be explained that they are similar to switches, turning genes on and off.

It is difficult to explain concepts such as this to non biologists, but it is a technical article. I understand little of many othe technical pages, such as computer pages. One cannot be expected to go into the complexities of chemistry and protein structure/function in the same article, this is why articles are linked. For example if one wants to know what translation means to a biologist, then there should be a separate article about it. Alternatively this article could be the basis for one about protein synthesis and a link from genetic code to the article could be made. After all the genetic code is simply an explanation of how protein synthesis works in vivo

This article seems to cover much irrelevant ground.--Alun 11:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Come on... no one uses the word "cistron" any more, except in idiosyncratic technical usages. Also, the use of the word "map" is the mathematical one. Borrowing a definition, a map is "The correspondence of elements in one set to elements in the same set or another set.", and "to map" is "To establish a mapping of (an element or a set)." With that definition the first sentence is perfectly fine.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "switches". Are you talking about gene regulation? If so, that's definitely out of the scope of this article. Graft 16:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

So are you disputing that the code is a set of instructions? And is it not a more accessible way of defining it. This is not a mathematical article, so why use mathematical terminologies? I never said that gene regulation should be part of the article, just that it should be mentionned that the code is not the only purpose of DNA. I dispute the word gene because it is ambiguous. It does have different meanings in different disciplines. The word gene is as over used and as often misused as the word evolution. Being accurate leads to less confusion, and there seems to be plenty of confusion here. If no one uses the word cistron any more then more fool them, as it's a perfectly good word with an unambiguous meaning. Also the word map is used extensively already in molecular biology in terms of chromosome mapping, which will lead to even greater confusion.--Alun 17:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the code is a set of instructions. But "mapping" precisely captures what the genetic code is: a relationship between two separate encodings or alphabets. Certainly, a mapping is also a set of instructions - "set of instructions" is a rather broad term.

I'm not particularly unhappy about the use of the word "gene" - most people understand what it means in specific contexts. "Cistron" is unnecessary jargon. Graft 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I disagree, I think the term map causes much confusion, and I disagree that it precisely captures what the genetic code is, quite the reverse. But I don't want to get into a dispute about it, if people are generally happy then fine. Again with the word 'gene', if the consensus is that it's OK then fair enough, though people do use it to mean other things like 'allele' and 'locus' and even 'phenotype' (for example eye colour), it is over used and I was merely attempting to be more accurate.

It is still true that much of what is in this article should really be in an article about protein synthesis. Remember that the article is about the genetic code, and not about transcription or translation, these should have their own articles. Also an article about protein synthesis (is ther one?) could include things like differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic synthesis, how transcription and translation are linked in prokaryotes, but occur in seperately in eukaryotes. This is where there should be some mention of the differing roles of DNA and RNA in protein synthesis. After all the code is just one small part of protein synthesis, it merely allows us to predict a protein's primary structure from a citronic or mRNA sequence. What do you think?--Alun 05:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence is also wrong as many viruses do not use DNA as a genome e.g. influenza, hepatitis C virus use RNA (no DNA stage). However in the interests of keeping it simple (if not accurate) I have made this point lower down in genomes. This is consistent with what is in the [genome]s article.

User [[User::TransControl]] 26 July 2006.

Reasons for redundancy

The codons attempt to ensure that minor errors in the genetic code either only causes a silent mutation or an error that would not affect the amino acid's hydrophilic/hydrophobic property

How can codons attempt to do anything, are they sentient? I will change this to

A practical consequence of redundancy is that minor...etc

as it seems more accurate to me.

The code is redundant because it has to be, two bases are two few to code for all amino acids (4²=16), so it has to be three at a minimum (4³=64). One consequence of this is the occurence of silent mutations. --Alun 06:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

four-fold degenerate codons can tolerate any mutation at the third position; two-fold degenerate codons can tolerate one out of the three possible mutations at the third position

This sentence is also clearly wrong. A four fold degenerate codon could not tolerate a deletion in the third position I have changed any mutation to any point mutation--Alun 06:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Names of stop codons

My copy of Biochemistry (Voet & Voet, second edition) says, "... amber, ochre, and opal codons ... were so named as the result of a laboratory joke: the German word for amber is Bernstein, the name of an individual who helped discover amber mutations (mutations that change some other codon to UAG); ochre and opal are puns on amber." -- dsws 03:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I, too, found that in-passing statement odd, if for no other reason than if there are genes named amber, ochre and opal, I'd like more details on what the genes normally do. I've found these web pages confirming dsws view:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/rev-sup/amber-name.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000603/bob9.asp

And some proposing a different origin:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2000/954367704.Mb.r.html

In my short web search, I found no reference to the "gene name" theory, short of copies of this Wikipedia article. If no one has a reference for the "gene name" theory, I'd suggest a change. 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the last link, because it was also related to some religious topics such as Kabala.

To the original question a fairly likely explation for all 3 name is at: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-03/954367704.Mb.r.html

The picture is good, but...

Most people are more familiar with DNA than RNA. If possible, a picture of DNA would be preferable. Also, the first sentence says that codons are in DNA. Shouldn't it say nucleic acids, or DNA and RNA? Twilight Realm 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: When I wrote this, I thought the article was about codons. Codon redirects to this article. It definitely deserves its own article. Just because codons are part of genetic code doesn't mean they shouldn't have their own article. Google and Yahoo are search engines, but if you type their names in, you aren't redirected to search engine. Congress is a part of the US government, but it has its own article. Same thing here. Twilight Realm 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

EDIT YET AGAIN: Actually, this page doesn't have much more than information on codons. Maybe the redirect should be reversed? Maybe some non-codon information is needed? Or maybe I'm just wasting my time and it's fine how it is. Consider it, at least. Twilight Realm 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That redirect resulted from the fact that it's simply impossible to discuss either the genetic code or codons without discussing the other. That is, the concepts are so intertwined that they might as well occupy the same article. Graft 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Start Codon Inconsistancies

In Table 1 and Table 2 the codones for start are inconsistant. Table 2 lists only AUG & GUG as start codons, but Table 1 lists AUG, UUG, & CUG as start codons for prokaryotes, and GUG & AUU as start codons for Prokaryotes only. Which is is? --Matthew 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think we should not label anything but AUG as a start. Only a handful of non-AUG starts exist; this certainly isn't reflected by the current tables, which say 'AUG, GUG' are both starts. WTF? Justification, anyone? Otherwise I'm cleaning it up and including a footnote about alternative starts. Graft 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond amino acids

I understand the part that explains how codons relate to amino acids. What the article currently misses is an explanation how groups of codons lead to a whole protein, that is: are the amino acids chained together one after one? Thanks, --Abdull 20:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's already in: This in turn is translated by mediation of a machinery consisting of ribosomes and a set of transfer RNAs and associated enzymes into an amino acid chain (polypeptide), which will then be folded into a protein.

5' to 3'

nobody mentioned the direction of the code If i'm wrong, please correct me.

"Code" metaphor criticisms

I don't know enough about them at the moment to write it up, but a section on criticisms from biologists and others (notable cryptologists) against the "code" metaphor is probably appropriate here. There is a great discussion of this in Lily Kay's book, Who Wrote the Book of Life: A History of the Genetic Code. --Fastfission 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Genocode

Hello, all. As many of you have noticed, Doctor Faust (talk · contribs) has been suggesting that we should add the word "genocode" to our discussion of the genetic code because it is "the de facto single-word term replacing 'genetic code'. Yesterday, he wrote me an email asking that we allow this addition. I have posted the body of that email below. – Clockwork Soul 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

Below is a sample of the term "Genocode" references of both common and technical usage. The user who originated the Genetic Code page might consider keeping abreast of the evolution of the language of evolution and genetics.

I most respectfully request permission to add the term "Genocode" to the Genetic Code page.

Warmest regards,

Doctor Faust

1. Article Title: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA and Microsatellite Genotyping of Pre- and Posttreatment Isolates of Candida spp. from Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients on Different Fluconazole Regimens -

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/36/8/2308 - See Heading: Materials and Methods, Sub-Heading: Rapd Analysis: "...Single band differences are identified by signscript numbers for the "genocode"...

2. Article Title: Genocodes for Genetic Algorithms -

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:GKOa1d3pVv8J:www.csis.ul.ie/staff/jjcollins/mendel97.ps.gz+horse+genocode&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a

3. Common/Popular Usage:

www.cafepress.com/buy/biology/-/pv_design_prod/pg_10/p_storeid.72897363/pNo_72897363/id_14305866/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

4. Common/Popular Usage: http://valy8851.livejournal.com/
5. Rabbit Genetics/Scientific/Common Usage: http://www.geocities.com/rah_rabbitry/QuikSilver.html

"Genocode: aaBbC-D-E-..."

6. Common/Scientific Usage: "Spider's Genocode" - http://www.da.wvu.edu/archives/021903/news/021903,01,03.html

"...He went on to talk about how in Canada, some scientists took a spider’s genocode and inserted it into the cell of a goat."

I chose to reply here, rather than by the original medium, for two reasons. First, because it is more appropriate to discuss such a subject here in the open with the entire community, and second, because I think that his logic is seriously flawed. A search returns exactly zero uses of the term "genocode" in the abstracts scientific literature (the one that he listed is the sole paper that mentions it in the body, and then only one time, buried in the methods section). Furthermore, citing highly obscure personal websites is more suggestive of the terms obscurity than its ubiquity. I am forced to conclude that the mention of the term "genocode" in this article is not appropriate, and that the existing redirect from Genocode to Genetic code is entirely sufficient. – Clockwork Soul 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

None of these usages have anything to do with the actual genetic code. Graft 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the imaginary genetic code. Doctor Faust 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As many of you may not have noticed, ClockworkSoul's refusal to accept the new usage for the term, Genocode is not based on logic or the facts, but rather is personal and proprietary. Essentially, he is on a power trip. His ego apparently can not tolerate the possibility that there may be something about this subject of which he was unaware. Doctor Faust 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason people may not have noticed is that this is entirely in your head. The reasons given are quite clear, and the consensus lies with those opposing this change. If you really wish for this to be added to the article, please make your case stronger by providing more evidence of the common use of this term, as opposed to weakening it by making uncommented reverts which go against article consensus. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is acceptable, after all, to denigrate a contributor. And I beg your forgiveness for going "against article consensus." LOL Thanks. Doctor Faust 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I only find about 1500 ghits for the term so it doesn't seem to be in common popular/lay press usage either (corresponds with ClockworkSoul's pondering on the need to cite an obscure website to find it). It may someday come into common use in scientific or non-scientific circles—if and when it does (assuming its meaning is as Doctor Faust proposes it is) it'll be appropriate to include it here. DMacks 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the term "genocode" is an obscure neologism and most of the hits are for misspellings of "genocide". --Antorjal 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neologism: a new word or usage. Yes, I agree. It is a new usage for the term genetic code. Doctor Faust 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote neologisms. It should identify them if and when they are commonly-enough used that there is encyclopedic value in explaining them. Wikipedia policy explicitly disproves of the inclusion of such terms. Chris Cunningham 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound so authoritative. I understand now: Wikipedia is uninterested in the most recent contributions to the evolution of language. Thank you so much for clarifying that for us. I also find it interesting that your postings are contributions, and mine are "promotions." Doctor Faust 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're being sarcastic. What you've stated is in fact actually policy. And yes, your contribution is an attempt to promote the use of a neologism. My contributions might very well be seen as attempting to promote the use of post-grade school level English; I doubt I'd argue with that. I try not to edit articles to actually influence the reader though. Chris Cunningham 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cunningham: Your most recent contribution might also be seen as "promoting" smug, presumptuous, insulting, comments. "Post-grade school level English?" LoL Yes, the rest of us are semi-literate chimps beside your luminous intellect. You know perfectly well that your usage of "promote" in the aforementioned context was intended to be pejorative. My response was certainly sarcastic, and responsive, but not passive-aggressive. I defer to you in all matters related to passive-aggression and the sly put-down. This is, of course, the preferred sport of academia. And if, as you state, a disinterest in "recent contributions to the evolution of language" is Wikipedia policy, then it becomes clear why many question this alleged encyclopedia's credibility. Doctor Faust 05:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how omission of this term affects WP's credibility. Searching for "Genocode" directs to the page here. But Chris is (still) right...WP is generally opposed to the use of neologisms. DMacks 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. I did NOT say the omission of the term Genocode affected WP's credibility. I clearly stated that a "policy of disinterest in recent contributions to the evolution of language" (which is what Cunningham stated) affects credibility. Doctor Faust 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for dicsussion about the "Genetic code" page: how to improve it and keep it in compliance with estanblished WP policies and guidelines. So if you're not talking about that, then you should find some other place that discusses whatever-you-are-talking-about. A debate on WP policies themselve and their effect on credibility or public perception of WP really needs more (and more diverse) minds than just those who read the talk pages of science pages. DMacks 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Extensive edit-session

I know this is an A-Class article but I believe that we might have been a little lenient on this one. ;-) I've done a lot of editing (close to 100 edits), but still I'm personally not completely happy with the "incomplete" product. Anyways, I've got a lot of editing to do over the next couple of days provided I get time from the job (that pays the bills). I apologize for not explaining every single edit but I have done so more out of appreciation of my fellow editors who I'm sure will understand most of the changes I've made. However, if you do have the time to go through the history, I'd be very happy to address any concerns/comments/anger at any edit or edits I might have made during the course of the last few hours. Thanks and regards. --Antorjal 04:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had probably bludgeoned the intro a bit with excessive jargonese, thanks Graft for the changes. I've added some comments on viruses and the universal nature. Looks pretty good IMO. I agree with ClockworkSoul it's definitely GA status and needs references now. I wish there was Endnote for wikipedia... lol. I think with some work, this one might even make FA status. I'll hack at it for a bit but would love all the help I can get. Thanks again. --Antorjal 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some further tidying suggestions

I know the article is at GA status for the content, but it's still a tad overbearing in parts. That whole table could do with being de-linked for starters. The article generally suffers from both problems related to linking; it links too often, and it links instead of using less jargonated language. I'm sooo not the most qualified to correct this, but I'll have a go at re-linking duplicates and unnecessary things in a bit.

Other than that, the second half reads rather like a dead-tree: it uses some inappropriate second-person and makes further reading recommendations in-line.