Talk:Nanoarchaeum equitans

Microbiology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Smallest non-viral genome

Carsonella ruddii has recently been announced in Science magazine (October 4, 2006) as possessing the smallest cellular, non-viral genome[1]. Its genome is 66% smaller than Nanoarchaeum equitans' genome.

"95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules." - What?

The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article reads:

"95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules."

I don't think this makes sense, does it? I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know for sure what the author means to say. Would removal of the words "for proteins" correct the sentence? Then it would read:

"95% of its DNA encodes for stable RNA molecules."

And while we're on the subject, is it correct to say, "encodes for" rather than just "encodes?" To me, either of the following would be better:

95% of its DNA encodes stable RNA molecules. or 95% of its DNA codes for stable RNA molecules.

50.0.60.12 (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Heather Wilcox[reply]

GC-Content importance

The introduction states "N. equitans' genome (...) has an average GC-content of 31.6%."

What is the importance of this fact? The rest of the article doesn't mention GC-Content, either. I checked the GC-content article and didn't find any obvious implications. Let's remove this phrase, shall we? --Negrulio (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]