Talk:Arsenic biochemistry/Archive 1

Archive 1

People

Please stop confusing "arsenic-BASED" life with single cell life that can utilize arsenic, possibly as a replacement of phosphorous. It is WILDLY inaccurate to state that arsenic formed a successful part of the "genetic" makeup or functional DNA of the bacteria.

The hype should stop. Please go get an education. And stop editing the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.111.34 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree (mostly). This article is poorly titled (at least as far as it discussesGFAJ-1 rather than hypothetical extraterrestrial life-forms). GFAJ-1 isn't arsenic based. It's still carbon based. It uses arsenic instead of phosphorous in some circumstances, which is certainly a significant finding. Still, as with other terrestrial organisms, arsenic/phosphorous are a tiny chunk of the overall bulk of the organism. Maybe 0.5% of GFAJ-1 is arsenic (0.5% is roughly the amount of phosphorous in other organisms). 20% of GFAJ-1 is carbon, and the bulk of the remainder is water.192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to say wait... Please refer yourselves [to this page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GFAJ-1]. The community consensus is to wait for a few days to see how the news plays out. Mrld (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's be clear. That consensus is only on merging of the two articles. Renaming this article, to a name more appropriate and in-line with the verifiable sources to date, need not wait for the merger discussion to be completed. See the next comment below. N2e (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think someone knowledgeable ought to consider making a proposal to RENAME the article. If so, it should be done in a new section (below) on this Talk page. I would be inclined to support such a rename as there certainly doesn't seem to be reliable source verifiability for the claim implied by the current article title (Arsenic-based life). N2e (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the phrase "arsenic based life" is being used, its incorrect. I would recommend we let the scientific community come up with a name, which may be more like "arsenate substituted nucleic biology". arsenic based life is a phrasing equivalent to "carbon based life" which of course this org. is. we really dont need to ADD to the dumbing down of the population. Until we get a good name, i think a neutral term like "arsenic in biological processes" would work better. not as glamorous of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Arsenic DNA" is a misnomer, people. It's nonsensical. It is wildly misleading, although it slightly less foolish than "Arsenic-based life" (in reference to the bacterial sensation). Phosphorous has a molecular role in the backbone of DNA, not the codons, and even then, the concentration of phosphorous in DNA is the lowest, by far, of all other constituent elements. Just look at a DNA diagram. The term "Arsenic DNA" is like calling your vehicle a "Rubber Car!" because your tires are rubber. This is moronic, and goes back to highly irresponsible journalism by "New Scientist", and it's now getting entrenched on wikipedia by people who don't know what they're talking about, although they are very excited to talk about it.

And even then, we're still not talking about an entire genome with P in place of As, because the bacteria merely showed a higher-than-normal levels of Arsenic and lower-than-normal levels of Phosphorous in some tests, after the environment was saturated with arsenic. One test supposedly indicated that Arsenic had taken on the molecular role of phosphorous in the backbone, but the title of this article is still nonsensical. 216.254.111.34 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how "Arsenic DNA" could be a misnomer: it's DNA which incorporates arsenate groups as linkers instead of the phosphate groups which are more common; as such it could be considered one type of DNA; referring to it as arsenic DNA is reasonably descriptive and logical. It's by no means nonsensical to refer to the fact that a molecule (unusually) contains arsenic, simply because it's one of the less abundant elements in the molecule. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree, however, that "arsenic-based life" is a ridiculous expression, given that life is dependent on many substances, and ironically, arsenic isn't one of them even in this case, as phoshorous is still preferred over arsenic in these organisms. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "phosphorous-independent" life would be a more appropriate term for organisms which can survive on arsenic instead of phosphorous (though as yet there's no actual evidence that any organism is capable of such, only that arsenate can be used in the absence of phosphorous in some usually phosphate structures in the organism). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you fail to see how it could be a misnomer, you have apparently failed to read the first paragraph. It states "Arsenic DNA refers to microorganisms [...]" etc etc. This is not the case, never has been the case, and never will be the case. Nobody refers to any organism as "Arsenic DNA." You will simply find many hits for the term on google (along with "arsenic-based life"), because it's been published by ignorant journalists who have no idea what they're talking about.

Arsenic DNA is a foolish term, except in a context that is intended to distinguish typical "phosphate DNA BACKBONE" from "arsenate DNA BACKBONE". Do a google search for "Arsenic DNA" and tell me that the hits are not vacuous and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.229.59 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I read the first paragraph of the article before coming to the talk page and did a massive Facepalm . Used in that context, of course it's misleading (and the article as it stands is wholly incorrect, at least in that respect). But referring to DNA which incorporates arsenates instead of phosphates as "arsenic DNA" seems perfectly reasonable to me, and that is what I was referring to. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In my grammar, a substance qualifier (Arsenic, or Plumbum, or what have you) in front of a noun (DNA, or snow-shoe, or what have you) implies something much more significant than what the recent research has found. And much more significant than anything that anybody has ever theorized. You don't call a vehicle "A Rubber Car!" just because it has rubber tires. "Arsenic DNA" could be linguistically contrastive in the context of "Phosphorous DNA", but both terms are misleading. And any use of that contrastive terminology would be connected, exclusively, to research discussing their qualitative differences (most of the current hoopla has confounded "Bacteria that only contains Arsenate in DNA" with "Saturating a bacterial colony with Arsenic").

If I give you a DNA strand in which I have replaced a single phosphorous atom with a single arsenic atom, are you going to call that "Arsenic DNA"? It still has millions of phosphorous atoms, and even then, phosphorous is marginal compared to the rest of the stew, aside from not carrying any actual genetic information. Furthermore: even if an entire genome successfully undergoes arsenate/phosphate substitution, do we even call that DNA? It's a different molecule from what "DNA" has conventionally referred to, although it's the same genetic blueprint (though it may not be stable over a lineage). The problem is that the name "DNA" doesn't say anything explicit about phosphates. Why? Because you don't name something after the least salient component!

Even Arsenic in DNA would be a much better title. It's more accurate, and would serve to focus the article in the correct way. The article should pertain to a phenomenon, not an established substance, because that's what we have on our hands right now.

The proof that the article title is awful is that there's no way to complete the sentence "Arsenic DNA refers to _________" without being an embarrassment to Wikipedia. ("Arsenic DNA refers to a micro-organism"? What?) It's just that the people who titled the article, and the wrote the first paragraph, know nothing about biochemistry, or basic 76.15.229.59 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title proposals

Let's start a list of proposals for renaming this article:

• Arsenic-accommodating organisms. This is my first proposal. --Thorwald (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is

• Arsenic-DNA hoax

This is going to be a new Sokal affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Alfredr (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The "hoax" proposal is hilarious, and much more accurate than "Arsenic DNA" in my view. But still, I'd suggest something like

• Arsenate-Phosphate Substition in DNA (I am not a chemist)

or

• Arsenic-Phosphorous substitution in DNA.

• Arsenic-laced life, from a commentator at the Wired.com article. Highly accurate, and also hilarious.

• Arsenic-accommodating life is great, because the focus needs to be moved away from DNA. Preferably far, far away. There's no evidence that the DNA had a purely arsonate backbone, nor that a stable lineage would ever be viable from such a thing. And the recent findings pertain to biochemistry outside of DNA as well.

• Arsenate in DNA and metabolites

You don't need to be an expert in the field to see through the stupidity surrounding the issue. I encourage everyone to look at a DNA diagram, and notice that there are very few "P's", and that they occur only on the non-coding side-lines of the codon ladder. Even still, it's beside the point, because the Arsenic supposedly was taking a role outside the DNA as well. Yawn. Wake me up when we get a probe on Titan.216.254.111.34 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This page was renamed from Arsenic-based life to Arsenic DNA by a banned user. I have removed all of their other changes, but given that the name is being discussed here, I wont restore it to the previous name. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can opine on whether this name is appropriate or provide a better name. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced arsenic DNA deserves its own page, as there's no evidence it actually exists: partial replacement of DNA's phosphate groups with arsenate ones, certainly, but AFAIK there's been no evidence of a DNA strand which completely excludes phosphate. I'll probably wait a while and see if the article stabilises, and then consider whether it's worth proposing a merge of the relevant content into DNA or taking the article to AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Right! The whole hype will be over in a few weeks and than it will be an article about a science claim somewhere between nebulium and String theory. There is still a lot of work to doe before this is a biology fact for a textbook. --Stone (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. Whether or not there is enough evidence to support the theory, the fact that it has gotten so much press makes having this article worthwhile. Time will tell, but the article should remain. --Thorwald (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Its own article is OK but what is real and what will vanish when you have a closer look will profe time. If everything a hoax than it have even more press and than it has a article of its own in the other way. I did not suggest to merge, but to wait a few days or better months and than start to look at the article again.--Stone (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is worthy of an article of its own or not, is the topic of a different conversation (Talk:GFAJ-1#Merger_proposal), one in which there was no consensus to merge, at least at this early stage, and the proposer withdrew the proposal to Merge the articles. However, this discussion, in this section of the Talk page, is about potentially finding a better name for an existing article. There seems to be consensus that neither Arsenic-based life or Arsenic DNA are quite right, fully supported by verifiable sources, etc. I agree. So I think it best that we continue the discussion to potentially rename this article in the near-term. Some of the ideas proposed above seem better than what we have. N2e (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I seems we have gotten nowhere with the renaming process. We really need to come up with a better title for this article and implement it right away. It still propose "Arsenic-accommodating organisms". --Thorwald (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On the name

Okay, I get why "arsenic-based life" is a bad name. It was both misleading and arguably wrong. On the other hand, it had the virtue of being widely used in the popular press (though not by scientists, as far as I could tell). I'm not sure where the name "arsenic DNA" came from but it seems to be almost a novel invention. Very few accounts seem to have adopted that compound noun, and I'm not sure any of those accounts use it to refer to both the DNA with arsenic in it and more generally to the ability to incorporate arsenic in other biomolecules, as this article currently tries to.

So, I don't think "arsenic DNA" is a good name either. Perhaps we need to settle on something longer and more descriptive? "Phosphorus replacement by arsenic", "Microbial arsenic substitution", "Arsenic-based biomolecules". Frankly, I don't know what the right title is, but I don't think that "arsenic DNA" is it. Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. From what I gather, we are still awaiting further research to confirm in what compounds GFAJ-1 incorporates arsenic. However, it's probably more than just DNA. ATP (ATAs?), isn't considered DNA, is it (even though it contains a nucleotide)? I'm not sure where all phosphorous shows up biochemically; predominantly in DNA for sure, but there are other compounds floating around as well. The titles proposed by Dragons flight above seem decent, but we should probably wait until an appropriate term appears in the scientific literature.192.104.39.2 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article needs expansion. The current article is solely about the new organism announced by NASA. But according to our own arsenic article, there are microbes that use arsenic in photosynthesis where arsenate replaces water. That should also be in this article. With that expansion, we can come up with a better name. "Arsenic DNA" is definitely bad, since even with the current article contents, it covers more than having arsenic in DNA. Arsenic in other biomolecules is already covered here. 65.93.12.108 (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Arsenic DNA" is a misnomer, plain and simple. It's nonsensical. It is wildly misleading, although it slightly less foolish than "Arsenic-based life" (in reference to the bacterial sensation). Phosphorous has a molecular role in the backbone of DNA, not the codons, and even then, the concentration of phosphorous in the DNA [backbone] is the lowest, by far, of all other constituent elements. Just look at a DNA diagram. The term "Arsenic DNA" is like calling your vehicle a "Rubber Car!" because your tires are rubber. (The moronic trend probably started with the "New Scientist" in 2008.)

Furthermore, we're still not talking about an entire genome with P in place of As, because the bacteria merely showed a higher-than-normal levels of Arsenic and lower-than-normal levels of Phosphorous in some tests, after the environment was saturated with arsenic. One test supposedly indicated that Arsenic had taken on the molecular role of Phosphorous in the backbone. Even if the evidence was perfect that arsenic could fully replace phosphorous in the genome, "Arsenic DNA" would still be a terrible name. 216.254.111.34 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.111.34 (talk)

Phosphorus may be the lowest constituent element in DNA, it remains that phosphorus is the essential link that maintains the codons together, through the phosphodiester bonds. Even substituting a single arsenic atom for a single phosphorus one, considering that arsenate esters are much less stable than phosphate esters, would be enough to cause the DNA to split in two parts at that weak link, possibly stabilized by the phosphate bond on the other strand of the double helix, but in risk of breaking when the strands separate for duplication. Anyway, as soon as the concnetration of arsenic increases, the chance of having both bonds at the same level unstable increases: with 10% arsenic, that means that even the double helix would be very fragile, on the average, on 1% of the bonds. Even more arsenic, the DNA will just fall apart, unless something very mysterious stabilizes it. I still cannot believe the whole thing, I am convinced this is a hoax, a new Sokal affair, though I fail to see why the authors would do such a thing. But

• Arsenic-backboned DNA or
• Arsenate-backboned DNA

would express the essential point, the fact that what keeps the DNA whole is arsenic (aresenate diesters) instead of phosphorus (phosphodiesters)Alfredr (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Again though, the arsenic is presumably (the original study hasn't confirmed this where arsenic is localized) incorporated in other compounds besides DNA. "Arsenic DNA" is only a part of what's going on, not the whole thing. We need to wait for further research to confirm the localization of As, but the current title isn't broad enough. It ignores potential adenosine tri-arsenate, arsenolipids, etc. Either further research will debunk the whole thing, or we're going to find GFAJ-1 has arsenic replacing phosphorous in a variety of biomolecules, not just DNA.21:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk)

The title itself and first phrase are is a WP:Weasel. I'd rather see this article deleted because 1)The sciuentific criticism is quite strong, and 2) We are asuming that there are multiple organisms capable of incoirporating arsenate into its metabolites and nucleic acids, when there are indications of only a single bacteria strain that may be capable, and it already has an article in WP. If the article is to remain, I'd title it something like:

• Arsenate in DNA as it does not imply a 100% phosphate substitutiuon.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

expansion

This article is too focused on the new NASA organism. It should be expanded to cover the theoretical aspects of arsenic in life, substituting for some other chemical that most life uses instead. It should also cover other organisms. The arsenic article already mentions the use of arsenate in replacement of water for photosynthesis for Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii.

Theoretical biology and astrobiology aspects need to be increased.

65.93.12.108 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry of arsenates

From the article: "One of the reasons this result is unexpected is because arsenate is generally unstable in water, with a half-life measured in minutes." Does this mean something like, "Chemical bonds between carbon atoms and arsenate groups are generally unstable in water"? Can someone cite some references? --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

From the journal article: "AsO4 esters are predicted to be orders of magnitude less stable than PO4 esters, at least for simple molecules". The line you quote is based on the press conference (possibly somewhat garbled) where one of the panelists indicated that he had expected arsenate based DNA would be unstable and break down with a half-life "like 10 minutes". Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are interesting hits on http://www.google.com/#q=arsenate+hydrolysis but if DNA is the main focus then you might consider it a mismatch.

• Synthesis and Hydrolysis of ADP-Arsenate by Beef Heart Submitochondrial Particles] THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 258, No. 10. Issue of May 25, pp. 6266-6271, 1983
  • "The first order rate constant for ADP-arsenate hydrolysis at pH 7.5, 30 C, was determined to be greater than 5 min-1 and was estimated to be 70 min-1."
• Kinetics of the hydrolysis of arsenate(V) triesters Inorg. Chem., (March) 1981, 20 (3), pp 905–907 doi:10.1021/ic50217a052
  • "The hydrolysis of trimethyl arsenate in methanol solution was first order in ester and in water with k1(25C) = 73 M-1 s-1, delta enthalpy of 13 +/- 1 kJ mol-1 and delta entropy of -167 +/- 13 J mol-1 K-1. Hydrolysis rates of the esters decreased in the order methyl > ethyl > n-pentyl > isopropyl. An associative mechanism is proposed."

Doesn't this rate of decay depend very heavily on the pH? Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Right! Most of the hydrolysis is either base or acid catalysed.--13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Has this been replicated by another team, I am surprised that this was announced by the NASA without confirmation by several teams. What are the chances that this is not like the Herminiimonas arsenicoxydans and the samples were not contaminated feeding the organism with phosphorus? RobertMel (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of references: (Why nature chose phosphates. Westheimer FH. Science. 1987 Mar 6;235(4793):1173-8. PMID 2434996; Formation and properties of sugar arsenate esters. Lagunas R. Rev Esp Fisiol. 1982;38 Suppl:63-72.) The second reference is in Spanish, but has an abstract in English, and this is where the estimated half life of 10 minutes for a sugar arsenate ester likely came from.96.54.32.44 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's criticism suggesting it may had been a false announcement.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/arsenic-bacteria-alien-life-101202.html --Leladax (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly merge into GFAJ-1?

I didn't add a merge tag, but since it seems that a) there are no robust data whatsoever indicating "arsenic DNA" exists in GFAJ-1 and b) this whole thing might eventually end up at Science_(journal)#Controversies, it would seem to be better to treat everything discussed, peacocked, weaselled and OR'd in and concerning the present article under GFAJ-1. This issue has all trappings of a maintenance nightmare, and it would be much easier to handle if it is restricted to as few articles as possible while the controversy is still ongoing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have already discussed this and voted. The result was not to merge. --Thorwald (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. In this case it should, and rapidly. Abductive (reasoning) 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but it wouldn't hurt to wait a few weeks until the dust settles on the initial publication of results before we revisit it again. Moreover, in my view, for any new proposal to get real traction it would be a good thing if the proposer took the time, as part of the proposal, to summarize all the various articles on the topic that are proposed to stay, while some particular article is done away with and merged. As a non-biochemist reader of Wikipedia, I'm a bit confused about Arsenic DNA, Arseno DNA, Prebiotic arsenic, etc., etc. and exactly what role each article plays, or should play in the proposer's mind, in the grand scheme of things. Still, I think the time to revisit this is after several more weeks have passed. N2e (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First, a correction: Athena Andreadis is not a microbiologist, but a molecular biologist specializing in splicing (RNA biochemistry/biology). Her name and cited link appear at the introduction to this article, which is not editable. I concur that the unique portions of this discussion might most profitably be merged into a single article on the topic once the dust has settled. Putting under GFAJ-1 may not necessarily be the best choice, but time will tell. Helivoy (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)helivoy

Holy wow what is Hersfold doing to the article?

He's removing edits that were inserted by a banned user. Sorry, I know this has put the state of the article back by a few days, but these edits cannot be allowed to stand. Please contact me privately if you have any questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• This page should be redirected to GFAJ-1. Its verifiable, non-Original Research parts are entirely duplicative of that article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

HEY GUYS, you're defining new scientific nomenclature here, the title ARSENIC DNA is not a citation from anywhere, therefore the term arsenate-phosphate substitution' is a LOT better since it's a phenomenological description. Somebody should write an article on arsenate-phosphate comparison!!! (electrochemistry, salts, esters and so on) I got no time right now, learning for biochem final exam :P CU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.179.22 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, another idea. To avoid a misnomer, the article could be renamed ArsaDNA, this would be an analogy to e.g. arsabenzene, which is a valid, yet not very pretty, example of substitutive nomenclature ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.179.22 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have BOLDly rewritten this article and merged it with related content from other places. My goal is to create a general article discussing the ways that arsenic is used by living things. There is not much detail yet, but there would seem to be more potential here for expansion. I think recasting this page in terms of a broader topic is a more natural and sustainable approach than having a dedicated article for "arsenic DNA", which just tended to be largely redundant with the much better GFAJ-1 article. Hopefully people will like this change and see it as beneficial. If not, well whatever. Please feel free to improve the new text. Dragons flight (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the title and the format. Great job. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW - This rewrite effort, trying to consolidate the various arsenic articles, seems ok to me at the moment as well - the article title ("Biological uses of arsenic") also seems ok although some other titles may be considered - including (in order of preference) -> "Arsenic biochemistry" or "Biochemistry of arsenic" or "Arsenic-based biochemistry" or "Arsenic detoxification" or "Biological role of arsenic" - there may be other titles? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the BOLDness and the article as well. However, as a non-biologist, non-chemist, I'm (still) a bit confused about the many Wikipedia articles covering aspects of this topic—Arsenic DNA, Arseno DNA, Prebiotic arsenic, Biological uses of arsenic, etc., etc. and exactly what role each article plays, or should play in the evolving (but supposedly, getting better) Wikipedia grand scheme of things. Would someone be willing to articulate a sort of "score card" for those of us who aren't "inside baseball" on the topic? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some knowledge in arsenic biochemistry may be *very* newly developing and "in process" at the moment - nonetheless, I entirely agree that the various arsenic-related articles currently in Wikipedia could be better consolidated and presented - especially for the benefit of non-experts of course - the present rewrite effort seems to be a step in this direction - at least AFAIK at present. Drbogdan (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the new broader biochemical context of the article, and the suggested title of "Biochemistry of arsenic" is a significant refinement of "Biological uses of arsenic". ALso, please consider including some information from Arsenic poisoning to help explain its toxicity.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the article title - to "Arsenic biochemistry" or "Biochemistry of arsenic" - is ok with me - esp if ok all-around - perhaps an editor experienced in doing this could help - I'm somewhat new to some of this. Drbogdan (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm okay with any name. I would just like to see some rationality for what might be covered in each of the various Wikipedia articles covering aspects of this topic—"Arsenic DNA", "Arseno DNA", "Prebiotic arsenic", "Biological uses of arsenic", "Arsenic biochemistry" or "Biochemistry of arsenic". What role does, or should, each of the existing articles play? I need a scorecard. N2e (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

All those articles are now one and the same: This one. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Arsenic biochemistry seems like the best-fitting name; "biological uses of arsenic" is a bit unnecessarily wordy, and as it pertains to arsenic, it all boils down to the biochemistry anyway. Alternatively, "Arsenic in biochemistry"? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed the article title to Arsenic biochemistry as suggested in the discussion above - hope this is *completely ok* - this is my first time with changing such an article title - any help in "clean up" would be appreciated of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1