Contents

Talk:X-inactivation

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

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB 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).

Barr body[edit]

Shouldn't the discovery of the Barr body be mentioned in the history chapter? --Dietzel65 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be a further mention of skewing on this page? -- 134.36.14.232 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Clarified it here and added a wiki for skewed X-inactivation —Preceding unsigned comment added by TransControl (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Russell's work on X inactivation in the mouse (translocations involving Chr 7) ought to be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebernstine (talk • contribs) 01:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to this: "The inactive X chromosome is silenced by it being packaged in such a way that it has a transcriptionally inactive structure called heterochromatin." Blueawr (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that only the X-active is found in the ova (from a woman)? Or are the ova formed prior X-inactivation, since ova are formed when the woman is still a foetus? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:3498:C714:CB93:317F (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following from the article. I have never heard of this and the reference does not indicate that it is true. This article is the only source that pops up with a search of the internet.

"The Lyon hypothesis became the Lyon Law on July 22, 2011 at the EMBO 50-years of X-inactivation conference in Oxford.^[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.66.5 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The call for it to be called『Lyon’s law for XCI in XX mammals』is mentioned here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section quotes the cytological work of Takagi et al. (1975), but seems to ignore the 1979 paper by Harper & Monk which showed double dosage of X-chromosome transcription/translation products (HGPRT) when female embryos were compared to males in mice around the 8-cell stage. This concurs with the Okamoto paper quoted "Here, we show that although initially active, the paternal X chromosome undergoes imprinted inactivation from the cleavage stages" (my emphasis), so the process is a bit more complex than stated. I don't have access to the papers behind a paywall, so cant review the actual methodology and have been out of the field for a long time. Semudobia (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]