nunchukgun Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Is there an evolutionary purpose/advantage of having uracil in RNA rather than thymine (as seen in DNA)? Why does only thymine get replaced in RNA? -cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I think that was answered a couple of times already. Short answer: DNA does have thymine instead of uracil (you actually have to see it that way) because thymine (which is basically methylated uracil) ensures higher fidelity in DNA as compared to using uracil (which is more promiscuous with regards to base pairing, in addition cytosine can deaminate to uracil, which, if uracil instead of thymine was used in DNA, would lead to a mutation). Fidelity is less a problem in RNA than in DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Does the uracil at all help with the RNA folding, or is that all the different sugar-phosphate backbone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I would expect that uracil RNA would be slightly more flexible than thymine RNA, but I am not sure. There are ways to calculate that, though, if you really wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now