Talk:Semiconservative replication

	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).

203.196.134.219 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Priyanka Nigam[reply]

Untitled

I really think that the reference that should be given is the original by Messelson and Stahl, not some recent permutation of it: Meselson, M. and Stahl, F.W. (1958). "The Replication of DNA in Escherichia coli". PNAS 44: 671-82. PMID 16590258. --Boris Wawrik 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference and a brief description of an additional and independent evidence towards the semi-conservative mechanism, based on high throughput sequencing. MuteRussian (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconservative replication of DNA is a well established fundamental tenet of biochemistry. I don't think yet another experiment re-confirming it 50 years after the fact is worth mentioning here. Ashcanpete (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 March 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMYCREYNOLDS. Peer reviewers: Socratic mindset, KBednarik, Sarahsuber, SamSenatore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah so (recent edit)

Shery Rida Rabi Fati Sadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.138.42 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if one of the three models has become the accepted or proper model, where is that stated? if none has, then those three are three proposed models, right?

did orig author mean to say that they were proposed at some certain time & place? then indicate the time & place & a sentence that says that there 'were' these three models makes more sense, right? I could be missing something else. whatever the case please help me understand & please explain further applicable edits if any.

my concern is this article is not accessible to a lay person. which is understandable. it's some technical stuff. I'll watch for changes. thanks all. S*K*A*K *K 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to second paragraph

I would like to change "stolen by Watson and Crick" to "originally discovered by Rosalind Franklin; however, the discovery was credited to Watson and Crick), or take it out entirely. user:amycreynolds —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC) AMYCREYNOLDS (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)AMYCREYNOLDS[reply]

Third paragraph

I plan to remove the part of the third paragraph after the mention of the Meselson-Stahl experiment. The second half of the sentence, as well as the last sentence, are not cited. There is a note in the article stating that it needs a citation. However, until one is found, the information does not need to be there. user:AMYCREYNOLDS —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]