What Happened to Chargaff's Rules? - 4

Even Stephen and The Rules

Was a major part of Chargaff's Rules in error, or is genetic sequencing faulty?

Upon further research and discussions with Google's AI entity, the answer is "neither".

The GenBank only records the 5' 3' strand of dsDNA, leaving out the 3' 5' strand.

Those who want to consider the 3' 5' strand can only attain an imaginary software generated version that simply reverses the 5' 3' strand sequence.

That is, discovering damage to dsDNA and/or damage to sequences is not in the cards when utilizing GenBank and similar online data sources.

So, the assertions made in this series ("sequencing shows violations of Chargaff's Rules") can not be validated using GenBank data (FASTA files and GenBank flat file format) even though those database sources do have other abstract uses.

So, this is the last post in this series based solely on GenBank, ending with the statement "It was a mistake to think GenBank files could help find the answer to potential violations of Chargaff's Rules".

On to "better" format details and a more comprehensive search (NIH).

---

---