Talk:Untranslated region

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: 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 Mid-importance).

What about merging Five prime untranslated region and Three prime untranslated region into this article? Should result in a better overview. --Sulai (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UTR entries are already linked via the main overview mRNA page. This page really mainly serves as definition.

TransControl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this definition Really require a source to justify it/reference banner? It is after all, simply a wide-spread acronym, I'm pretty certain it could stand alone. Also, I'm pro-merging the 5', 3' and UTR page. I simply don't see the logic in separating them, even if they are linked on mRNA. Redirection, by all means. Geno-Supremo (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this discussion back into memory: Why not merge the articles? There's no need to leave them seperated. The definition of UTRs can be the introduction. -- Baertierchen (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be very much in favour of merging the articles! Merging them would result in a more concise, less repetitive article than these three seperate ones... Ilikelifesciences (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTR, in the UK at least, also stands for "Unique Tax Reference". Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed? 08:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.55.28 (talk)

According to the recently published findings of the ENCODE consortium, about 1.2% of the human genome is protein-coding, while 2.9% is exonic, meaning the 5' and 3' UTRs together make up about 1.7% of the human genome. The image associated with this article shows the UTRs as collectively shorter than the coding sequence, which no longer appears to be accurate.149.76.252.66 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the introduction, "The importance of these non-coding regions is supported by evolutionary reasoning, as natural selection would have otherwise eliminated this unusable RNA.", needs to either be fully explained and cited or removed. Natural selection does not actively remove useless things that have little effect on fitness (neutral theory). For the statement above to hold, it needs to be proven that longer UTRs have significant fitness penalties, and that these penalties are offset by the fitness benefits of the added regulation. I haven't studied this particular system, but I suspect the evolutionary dynamics of UTRs is quite complex. I think it is better to say nothing than to casually present a theory without support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbwrnz (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]