This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I really like this; It helped me a lot with my homework. Thank you so much! I will keep using this and expect more coming! Thanks, Let the sunshine in333 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Human genetic variation article needs help. There is also a current Request for Comment on the article.[1]. --Oost (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Breeding back appears to describe a special case of breeding back to the parental strains of a hybrid cross. I cannot find a Wikipedia article on breeding back in the more general sense. Would anyone here care to take a look at this? --Una Smith (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Mitochondrial Eve has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is a stub, and rather colloquially written. Could someone take a look and judge whether the content's accurate and true (and better still, maybe add a ref)? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
These articles have been nominated for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article Beard I got a very good understanding of cultural aspects in connection with beards. However, there is a lack of biological aspects, i.e. why and how is a beard growing?, do all human races have a beard?, what are the physiological reasons to let beards grow?, is there treatment, if no beards grows? Could you please add such aspects? 85.178.44.22 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Huntington's Disease has been selected as the WP:MCOTW, and with pointers from a recent GA review, feel free to join in the fun! On another note I see it isn't tagged for the genetics project directly, are we leaving actual disorder pages to WP:MEDGEN or is it an oversight? LeeVJ (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:11, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Both articles are in need of a good rewriting/expanding to use clearer, more general language by someone who knows what they're talking about in this area (i.e. not me!). Both (but particularly the latter) could do with referencing from reliable sources too. Just a heads-up if anyone here is interested. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been updating this page today and would like someone to have a quick look to check I haven't said anything stupid. Also I've created a little bit of a plant bias - not sure if this is me or because it's the case with this topic. Searching "animal phenotypic plasticity" only brings up plant/animal comparisons! Thanks Smartse (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are three types of plant DNA! What are they? Is this one of them? mitochondrial? Or normal DNA or was it normal nuclear DNA? What was the last one? Emi626 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The current Gene library article deals entirely with genomic libraries. I think that the term "Genomic library" is more commonly used, and has the advantage of being less ambiguous; "gene library" could arguably include cDNA libraries. I've put a proposal on the Gene library talk page to move that article to Genomic library (which presently redirects to gene library), then make a short general intro to libraries under "Gene library" (or, perhaps better, "Library (genetics)") that would include links to both "Genomic library" and "cDNA library". I'd appreciate some comment and suggestions. Agathman (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to find out why different species have different numbers of chromosomes, and the relationship between chromosome numbers and speciation events. Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzees and gorillas have 48 chromosomes. Some of the canids also have different chromosome numbers (see Canid_hybrid#Genetic_considerations). What would be useful to know, is when the number of chromosomes is increased or decreased in a specific individual, how would the individual be able to successfully reproduce, being that the affected individual will have more or less chromosomes than its sexual counterpart. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Drosophila melanogaster has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal for the Gene stubs category and stubs to be reorganized and renamed. Please read more here. — Skittleys (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the pages on genes for proteins, are one with the page on the protein. Several of the pages incorrectly state that the "protein" is the human gene. This is ambiguous and misleading. I was informed by AndrewGNF that there was a consensus on this project to keep both the gene and the protein on the same Wikipedia page. Especially In the cases where the amount of information on the protein and the gene are substantial, there should be a disambiguation of the two, per the guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, for lay persons who may not be as aware of the differentiation of the gene and protein in the content put forth, it would provide greater clarity.
As such, Syntaxins are already separated this way by a prior editor, and I have started to work on the information regarding Synapsin I & II and plan to do Synapsin II as well. There is a considerable amount of information on these phosphoproteins that should be expounded upon.
Update: This is a point of disambiguation. Regardless of the opening sentence, the Wikipedia guidelines call for the separation of the two topics, as they are clearly two distinctly different entities. On many of the proteins, there is a considerable amount of information that could be provided. The 3D rendered protein image on the page is misleading to those not familiar with the content, and should be shown on a separate protein page. A link to or image/diagram relevant to the genetic sequence data for the gene should be provided instead.
— User:Synapsin [[User talk:Synapsin[talk]] 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Some expert input would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks. Pondle (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of info in Outcrossing which seems dubious to me. Can someone take a look. --Dodo bird (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful if a knowledgable editor could respond to the comments of User:Ledboots. I want to avoid an edit war over his OR additions to the article (which, BTW, could do with being improved). Paul B (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Possible merge? Opinions here please. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Should Virtual Karyotype be merged with Array comparative genomic hybridization. I'm not an expert, or in fact know anything about it, I just thought you were the guys to do it *hums the A team theme tune under breath*. Thanks! Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The explanation of the TGGE Method in the overview article SNP genotyping seems rather wrong. They talk about a melting and reanealling step before the actual gel electrophoresis. That would be "Heteroduplex analysis" such as DHPLC, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padder333 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
it states that SNPs are the most common type of genetic variation but structural variation in terms of total nucleotide bases is more common than SNPs, right?? should we change this? Findingdan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The information on the "conditional gene knockout" page is incomplete. Shouldn't conditional also have a time component? Is there any specialist to confirm and to adjust the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstragier (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Would like your help and comments on the article and/or AfD. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Hawks. --JWB (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Morpholino for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article and help it maintain its GA status. Please comment there to help resolve the raised issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
On hold for seven days at the request of User:Boghog2. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Prion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello there peeps, I'm tidying up at Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've found an argument about Common gamma chain and IL2RG. This is too technical for me to assess (O level biology was a looooong time ago, even though I passed the exam it was more about setting fire to a peanut than analysing the human genome), could someone here sort it out? Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The FAC nomination for Homologous recombination has been up for about a week and a half, and is in need of further review. As it is a major mechanism of DNA repair and genetic diversification, the subject is one of WikiProject Genetics's "High Importance" articles. Any input would be greatly appreciated! Emw (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The current Medicine Collaboration of the MonthisCongenital heart defect. The previous collaboration was Abdominal aortic aneurysm. We welcome your help! |
Craig Hicks (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Commmittee case on race and intelligence has just been decided. Thus articles that are either in the Race and intelligence controversy category or mentioned in the findings of the 2010 Arbitration Committee case on Race and intelligence or closely related to those are subject to active arbitration remedies that you may wish to review. The case decision seems to have resulted in an immediate improvement in the editing environment of several articles that previously were very contentious. Peaceful, collaborative editing that turns to sources and upholds Wikipedia policy is enjoyable editing. I thought I should let participants on this WikiProject know that this improved atmosphere now exists, because some of the articles related to that case have long been marked as part of this project. Your participation in editing those articles is welcomed and encouraged. You can look up sources to help improve articles in the source lists I have been compiling to share with all Wikipedians. And because the source lists span several different topics, and those topics fit quite a few articles in this WikiProject in whole or in part, suggesting new sources would be a very kind thing to do. The atmosphere has improved a lot, so the articles can improve a lot. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Genetics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies if this solicitation goes beyond the scope of your WikiProject talk page. I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am looking for editors who have done some editing to genetics articles on Wikipedia in the past as participants for a short survey. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will help me model what sorts of things are reverted on Wikipedia so that I can develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. You can find out more about me on my user page, and I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page. Thank you so much for your time. JeffRz (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
We're discussing suitable and unsuitable images for the lead infobox of Cystic fibrosis, and more opinions and ideas would be very welcome. The conversation is ongoing at Talk:Cystic_fibrosis#Image_in_lead. Badger Drink (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Pure blood theory in Korea#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone vet the article HY box for accuracy? It has been created by a user which seems to have created a large number of articles by incoherently copying and pasting sentences from journal papers. Cheers, —Ruud 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I nominated the Genome-wide association study article for collaboration of the month. I put in a lot of work already, and I think it just needs a little bit more to get it really nice. Second-opinions and the like. I think it could have what it takes to become a featured article, and it would be nice to see such about some modern relevant science, in contrast to the usual movie characters and historical battlefields. Go there and vote - or better yet, just go to the article and help me :-) --LasseFolkersen (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Should this page (MART-1) merge to MLANA? Please comment at Talk:MART-1. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am involved in a content discussion on Talk:Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory#Mutual Misunderstings? with a gentleman identifying himself as the senior science writer for that facility, regarding the nature of relationship of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory to the Eugenics Record Office. I invite any disinterested by knowledgeable editors to review the discussion and weigh in. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Having noticed 69.142.42.133 (talk · contribs) removing sourced text and adding material from DNA tribes at various articles I took a look at our article DNA Tribes which reads almost like a brochure from the company, possibly because there is some clear copyvio, eg searching for a short excerpt turns up [2]. 06:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk)
I'd like to see Haplodiploid sex-determination system moved to Haplodiploidy over the redirect. It's so much simpler. Needs an admin. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Barbara McClintock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This category is proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_13#Category:Sequenced_genomes. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This new article is up for review in the Afc: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/c10orf76. It could use an expert opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
...and here's another: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alpha-1B-glycoprotein. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
AfC: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GeneTalk. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Expert opinions needed reading the notability of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Retina and Anterior Neural Fold Homeobox and whether the submission is ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia. Please use {{afc comment|1=Your comment here.}} to leave a comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting submission. Care to review it? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey all
I just saw the article Abraham modal haplotype when browsing around. The sourcing seems to consist of four works, two by the self-proclaimed discoverer of the haplotype, one I can't see, and one that is only available in "snippet" form and doesn't seem to use "Abraham modal haplotype" in those precise words. Would anyone be able and willing to hunt for sources in academic databases and let me know the likelihood of this article being, well, a crock? Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: The above article will soon be deleted as an abandoned stale draft. If the information in the article is correct, is this a notable academic? Are there sources to support this? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Help from geneticists is much appreciated. --CopperKettle 09:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have recently created an article called Indigenous Amerindian genetics....What i am requesting is someone familiar with the topic to take a look at the article and Copy edit were need be... !!!..O YES!!! pls add article to your watch list! ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, dyad is currently tagged for a possible merge to Chromatid. I think it should be merged but I really haven't the knowledge to give a valued opinion. Could someone a look ? thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The number of links to single nucleotide polymorphism, which redirects to single-nucleotide polymorphism, appears to suggest merely another case of how many people today fail to appreciate the utility of the more traditional way of using hyphens, which is still dominant in newpapers, magazines, and books not written by professors in scientific fields. I can well imagine some people saying that it is silly to think anyone might see "single nucleotide polymorphism" and think that it means just one—a single one—of those things called "nucleotide polymorphisms". (Of course, the hyphen resolves that ambiguity.) I invite anyone tempted to say that to think before they speak. In the first place, some intelligent people are unfamiliar with this particular field and might indeed think that. In the second place, notice that the same objection could be applied to many cases of omitting a question mark at the end of a question. But good habits—using the hyphen or the question mark when it is applicable—result in those habits being applied generally, not just to this one particular phrase but to all where they are appropriate. And there are numerous ambiguities that can be resolved in this marvelously efficient way. (Some of the redirects to single-nucleotide polymorphism are perfectly inoffensive, such as the plural single-nucleotide polymorphisms, with a proper hyphen—perfectly printable.)
So: If everyone here fixes two or three links to the unhyphenated phrase every day—just by adding the hyphen—then the problem will soon be gone. (And while we're at it, we can fix things like Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, with incorrect capitals, and Single-nucleotide polymorphism (some people seem to feel that the initial letter of a link should be capital even when it's just a common noun in the middle of a sentence). Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been adding material to these pages and would like to revise them. I believe having both of these pages is a good idea. RNA polymerase II contained very little text on the polymerase and a lot on transcription. I would like to move the transcription portion, except for a brief review since RNAP2 is involved, to the holoenzyme page. But, I'd like some input before I do this. The holoenzyme is the transcription enzyme, whereas RNAP2 is the crucial part that cannot interact with DNA until the holoenzyme has been assembled. Since the image of POLR2 comes from USA NIH, as indicated in the link, pictures showing the locations of each of the different subunits can be downloaded to wikimedia and added to the text. Please take a look at what I've added so far and provide some feedback or criticism. Thanks. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we do not write separate articles for proteins and their genes, at least not when there is a 1-1 correspondence and there is not too much text. I came across this phenomenon in the case of Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, the protein, and CFTR (gene). In this case most of the info about the gene is also in the article about the protein. Are there any other views on this? --Ettrig (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my list of missing genetics topics - 88.115.203.231 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The subject gene (GeneID: 25902) is newly implicated (http://www.physorg.com/news190461684.html points to Pericak-Vance M et al. in the upcoming Neurology 2010 Apr 20) in late-onset Alzheimer's disease. There's an existing article for MTHFD1, but nothing for the gene, a.k.a. FLJ21145; FTHFSDC1; MTC1THFS; dJ292B18.2; RP1-292B18.2; DKFZp586G1517. It appears to be an SNP that links to high homocysteine levels. Can we get ahead of the game with at least a stub on this one, please? User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There is unclear MT-RNR2 for me:
Should be 16S rRNA disambiguation page? --Snek01 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Should this article be included in the WikiProject somewhere? I wasn't sure of the category as I'm not an expert on genetics. I went to the article for info and found that it is in need of attention. Some of it looks as if it could be copied from a book. Stainless steel cat (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Searching finds 9,787 for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=gene and 10,099 for GeneID
List of human ATPase genes seems to be an example where pairs of GeneID values with the EntrezGene link are listed eg
Catalytic core (F1 - Fraction 1) * alpha subunit: ATP5A1 GeneID: 498<ref>{{cite web | title = Entrez Gene: ATP5A1 ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, alpha subunit 1, cardiac muscle | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=498}}</ref> ATPAF2 GeneID: 91467<ref>{{cite web | title = Entrez Gene: ATPAF2 ATP synthase mitochondrial F1 complex assembly factor 2 | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=91467}}</ref>. * beta subunit: ATP5B GeneID: 506<ref>{{cite web | title = Entrez Gene: ATP5B ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, beta polypeptide | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=506}}</ref> ATPAF1 GeneID: 64756<ref>{{cite web | title = Entrez Gene: ATPAF1 ATP synthase mitochondrial F1 complex assembly factor 1 | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=64756}}</ref> ...
Since the GeneID appears to be the TermToSearch value in Db=Gene or the equivalent? short form, should there be a template or template family like the Template:OMIM set for providing Entrez Gene links? Note that the OMIM templates have recently been changed to an /omim/#### URL form
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=515 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/515
ATP5F1 ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F0 complex, subunit B1 Homo sapiens GeneID: 515
Worth considering? RDBrown (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
My pubmed search for articles with explicit long form pubmed URLs found the following genes which are marked as orphan articles and are only in the Human Proteins category. Are there additional categories that suit these open reading frame genes? C16orf42 C16orf58 C16orf84 C7orf30 C7orf67 Hope this is useful – I have no domain knowledge. RDBrown (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please offer an opinion on whether the following external links would be helpful:
The links were added by a new editor (User:Brenleymcintosh), and were removed by User:Fæ with edit summary "Open wikis fail WP:ELNO". A very polite discussion followed at User talk:Brenleymcintosh, and WP:ELN#Clarification for EcoliWiki links, and my talk page, where I agreed to raise this issue for the user. The open wiki may be acceptable as an external link because it appears to be stable and to have a sufficient number of editors. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between a gene bank and a genomic library? I wanted to clean up the langlinks but got lost in contradictions between the different language wikis. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is an article Lewontin's_Fallacy that treats quite a few issues in genetics, but it doesn't have a talk page template yet linking it to this project. That page may need some expert attention, so I thought I would mention it here. Anyone with expertise who looks that article over would be doing Wikipedia readers a favor. Thanks for your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I see the following phrases in lots of articles: http://www.google.ca/#q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22conserved+gene%22
I have the following questions/proposals:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A new editor contributed big gene recently, and I'm a little dubious about whether this is really a specific named concept. Google isn't very helpful (even after filtering out all the references to people nicknamed 'Big Gene'), because 'big' is such a common adjective. There's a "BIG gene" which codes for "the BIG protein, a calossin-like protein in Arabidopsis", but that's absolutely not the same thing.
And this is really not my field. Opinions, anyone? DS (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of articles concerning gene/proteins where there is no human ortholog. Some of these articles transclude the {{infobox protein}} template. This is less than ideal since many of the external links are to human databases (e.g., HGNCid and OMIM) whereas others are "hard wired" to human data (e.g., RefSeq and Chromosome). In order to overcome this limitation, I created a new {{infobox nonhuman protein}} template in which the RefSeq and Chromosome link now should work with any species. In addition, two additional parameters, organism and TaxID have been added so that the species may be specified. An example of the template in use may be found in a recently created uterine serpin article. Comments and suggestion for improving the {{infobox nonhuman protein}} template are welcome.
I also wanted to acknowledge new MCB WikiProject member User:Ufpete for the great job he did in creating the uterine serpin article! Boghog (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion. Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians, I've recently been speaking with a (responsible) New York based journalist who is working on a story on the people and motivations behind the biological content on Wikipedia. She is attending the upcoming American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting and was wondering whether any Wikipedians were going. If you are, she would like to meet with you. Leave me a message or email me and I can put you in touch with her. Her request is as follows:
Rockpocket 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Susie the orangutan has apparently had her entire genome sequenced (apologies if I have misused technical vocabulary), and the announcement that a third species has been afforded this degree of investigation has been posted to the Main Page in the In The News section. The problem is, the article cited omits to let us know whether Susie is/was Pongo pygmaeusorPongo abelii, thus leaving our main page with the clearly inaccurate claim The orangutan becomes the third hominid species to have .... Anyone know more of Susie? (answers to WP:ERRORS would generate the most rapid chance of correcting the main page.) Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone more knowledgeable than myself take a look at the new article Cortical Inheritance? The subject is introduced as a synonym of structural inheritance, so should the articles be merged? Also, sentences like "The mainstream scientific community believes that all inheritance is passed on via the genes in the nucleus of a cell" are troubling, especially considering this editor's other contributions. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I started a thread on the talk for crossbreed about the actuall differenses between the terms hybrid and crossbreed. Could anyone here help out, as well? --AHA2 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The Doubled Haploidy article has been tagged as being too technical for most readers to understand since Novemberof2007. I attempted to fix the problem (see Talk:Doubled haploidy and History:Doubled haploidy ), but another editor felt that my revision was worse than the original (I am not saying he is wrong), and did not provide an alternative. Because we could not arrive at a consensus for any course of action that would bring the article up to Wikipedia standards, I am asking for help from someone with enough expertise to rewrite the lead paragraph so that is is understandable to the average reader. (I also asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback but have not received any response so far.) Any help would be very much appreciated. Guy Macon 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I am writing an article on familial DNA database searches, which are currently mentioned in the DNA Profiling entry as familial searching. The technology is rather complicated and the history of their use and the debate about their use is extensive. The UK and US are now using these searches in criminal investigations and proceedings. I've posted a draft on my user page User: Spu2011 (please feel free to provide feedback, if you are so inclined!) and need to know if this should be a seperate article or should just expand upon the section in DNA Profiling. Spu2011 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking for some opinions from others. An editor wants to remove Adolf Hitler from a list of 'famous DNA'. Maybe some sort of consensus can be reached.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been having a discussion recently with another editor regarding the set up of the {{Genetic engineering}} template and it would be good to get other editiors involved. The general disagreement is over the notability of single transgenic events and whether they should be redlinked in the template. There is also a related move request at Talk:GTS 40-3-2. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There have been repeated changes to a table on this page that I think are wrong, from several anonymous IP addresses (I haven't reverted the last one). The changes have to do with relatedness ratios. It would be helpful if knowledgeable people could check this. Am I making a mistake? Thanks in advance. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The new article titled Behavior mutation is a complete orphan: no other articles link to it. To do:
Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please cast their eye over Paraiyar#Genetics. It is complete gobbledegook to me and it is common for contributors to Indian caste/community articles to show "half a story" in order to promote a POV. The contributor was editing from an IP registered to General Motors & so I am unsure of their technical expertise etc. If someone could actually rephrase the section so that it makes sense to the layperson then so much the better. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I randomly stumbled upon this article. I have no idea what this article is really about, but it raises several red flags of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I got zero expertise on this, so I can't say if it's a load of baloney that should be sent to deletion, or if it's salvageable with some work, but I know that it needs some attention from people that know something about something. I'm cross-posting this notice at WP:MED and WP:PSYCH to, so as many eyes as possible will look at this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable check Monohybrid cross for factual accuracy? There are several allegations of factual inaccuracy on the talk page, and some of the statements seems flatly untrue or contradictory to my freshman-biology-only eyes (e.g. "The cross between their [P-generation] offspring is referred to as a dihybrid cross, in which parents are both heterozygous at one locus.").
-Equaaldoors (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone help me expand the genome section of the tammar wallaby article? I hope to get it to FA status. Here's a database that collects papers relating to the tammar genome. I have a tough time understanding them. LittleJerry (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Myself and at least one other editor have been unable to verify claims being made by a (potential) COI contributor to the article. Please see the article talk page for additional information as the technical nature of the claims is beyond my ability to succinctly reproduce accurately. Thank you for your contributions! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article on the replisome. This included content reframing, major additions, and much improved citations. Would anyone care to proof it?Thermodynamic (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a new article. I don't know what to make of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see also: User talk:Notahelix#Your username Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
At least one article (e.g. Four-gamete test) has a redlink to "segregating site", and others use the phrase without definition. An internet search suggested that this might be (essentially?) the same thing as Single-nucleotide polymorphism. Is this right and, if so, can something be added to that article to indicate the relation? Melcombe (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have done a small rewrite of the reading frame article, but I have put in some statements that I am not 100% sure of. I have put that a single nucleic acid strand may have six reading frames (three in one direction, and three in the reverse direction) as that seemed logical, but I have no source for it, though it seems to make sense. Also I have put that transcription occurs 3' to 5' along the DNA strand, and translation occurs 5' to 3' along the RNA strand, as I think is commonly known. Therefore for DNA the 5' to 3' reading frames can be disregarded (for transcription), and for RNA strands the 3' to 5' reading frames can be disregarded (for translation), but I have a niggling feeling that there may be an exception to these cases somewhere, although a quick google search doesn't bring up anything. My main source is Lodish; et al. (2007). Molecular Cell Biology (6th ed.). W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-1429203142. {{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(help). I would appreciate if someone could review the article and correct it, thanks! -Zynwyx (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Non-helical DNA structure (Talk:Non-helical DNA structure) is a relatively new article and one which has a lot of content, but is written in an essay style and is mainly written by one editor. I don't feel familiar enough with the subject to properly understand everything in the article, but perhaps someone else from here could review it and make some suggestions? -Zynwyx (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the usage of the term arrhenotoky in a manner nonsynonymous to haplodiploidy; On the question of wether to merge the two articles.
I've managed to find two nice looking secondary sources and used it to expand the article but they are paywalled. (annual reviews and oxford journals) Another editor User:Macdonald-ross is not convinced about the existence of multiple definitions (due to the paywall). See the discussion on Talk:Arrhenotoky. If some one can read normark 2003 in the page 401 section halodiploidy and give their comments on the article I would be grateful. (Normark, B. B. (2003). "The evolution of alternative genetic systems in insects". Annual Review of Entomology. 48: 397–423. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.48.091801.112703. PMID 12221039. ) Staticd (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
IP edit-warring on this page, has added [4] or similar for the 4th time. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just proposed the ENCODE publication as a candidate for the front page news. Please comment at WP:ITN/C is you have an opinion. It would also be useful to add more material about this event to the article if you can. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hot potato article that needs work. Has a genetics section. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles this discussion should concern:
The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)
hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi
IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?
But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really watching the articles right now, but I just wanted to confirm that the objections I raised were indeed answered. It doesn't "feel good" from my own style perspective, but I don't know of any style guideline that rules it out. Also, I think that the general organization Jytdog has put in place is a good one; as he said, my concerns were only about the way they were disambiguated. It seems that people adding the same citations repeatedly is common in this group of articles, and this organization would probably help a lot. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's have a focused discussion on overall structure. This is part of the topic mentioned above but only part. Let's map it out. It would be really great to do this with some kind of software that allowed us to draw things, but I am ignorant of how to do that. So I will take a shot at this using words alone.
Here is my perspective
All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above...Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time!Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Today David Cameron unveiled plans for a National Health Service DNA database that could one day hold the genetic details of every person in Britain (see news reports here and here). Where does this development fit on Wikipedia? The United Kingdom National DNA Database is a criminal intelligence database. HelenOnline (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
this is how my brain works can look at a thing and tell you how far way if its brokin most of the time my small brain fixes it i have know idea how this works as a child i fixed all household stuff and did not know[1] how or why too this day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.160 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you think? Details are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaktl17 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I refer to the confusion on genetic studies as brought out by Sitush earlier. Owing to such confusion, and issues concerning pushing of POVs using published data (on race / ethnicity, caste-exclusivity, socio-religious notions of purity, cultural-religious ideas of origin and traits), fictitiously attributing own POVs to published data, and such issues across wiki articles, there is a requirement for common consensus and general guidelines. Request interested participants here to discuss the following points.
1) Should results of genetic studies be allowed / mentioned in wiki articles ?
2) If results are mentioned, what should the header state?
3) Should a brief mention of materials and/or methods be provided along with results in the article, so a reader wud also know (a) the sample size, (b) region from where taken, (c) communities tested, (c) method(s) used ?
Expecting the above to serve as a starter for (several) discussions to follow. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Hello WikiProject Genetics people!
Apparently Kihara was one of the most significant scientists in wheat genetics. I've started the biographical article, but the science is beyond me.
Could you possibly have a little look into this? Thank you! Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Could we get a few eyes on the info at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans#New study about hpalogroup A00. --Moxy (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a ping that I created Horse genome. Would appreciate anyone who'd like to add necessary scientific info to it, I am not a scientist, just a horse geek with an interest in equine genetics. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
We have an edit war ongoing at African admixture in Europe - could we get a few experienced editors to look over this edit - see what is going on here.Moxy (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
from the article:"The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago.[4][verification needed]"
(I was the one who inserted the verification needed, as well as, perhaps wrongly, put up a cleanup tag that someone else took down.)My real question, is, this true or at least somewhat verifiable as a minority viewpoint(which should be labelled as such, if so)? It cites something from Nature, which sounds good, but it's a pay site.I'm wondering if it's a letter to the editor. Since I've reead that people have been living in Australia for more than 50,000 years, and in the Americas for at least 13,000 year I think it's probably wrong.Thanks.-Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually just read the article. It actually doesn't say anything about "5 to 10 thousand years ago". I tried to wrap my head around their statements to see if I could independently arrive at the article's 5 to 10k years ago claim via routine calculations, but could not. There are several statements about mean identical ancestor points arrived at in their simulations depending on changes to variables and the models, placing it at 2,158 BC, or 5,353 BC, and also noting that if people in Tasmania were totally reproductively isolated until 1803, then the latest possible identical ancestor point corresponds to the flooding of the Bass Strait some 9,000–12,000 years ago. Honestly, I think this is far enough away from routine calculations to make the claim in most recent common ancestor constitute original research. At the very least it probably needs in-text attribution to the authors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This article, about controversial experiments on rats claimed to show that GM (Roundup-resistant) maize and Roundup "are extremely toxic", could do with some neutral eyes: it is the subject of heavy editing by SPAs. I had to semi-protect it for a short time this morning because of repeated attempts to blank it as an attack page. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a draft FAQ for the Genetically modified food controversies page (possibly to be transcluded to related pages as well). This is a topic area associated with a lot of fringe science (WP:FRINGE), so the FAQ is focused towards objections from that direction. The talk page section for discussion is here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I came across the article Paleogenetics and found it in pretty sorry shape—short, substandard writing quality, lack of strong and up-to-date sources. I've made some preliminary minor copyedits and removed some particularly bad bits, but the article is still rather shoddy. I have some knowledge of the anthropological aspect of it and would be happy to help out with that bit, but I am busy with other things at the moment and cannot guarantee much in-depth support for the next month or so. I was hoping that I'd find some editors around here who would be able to help improve this neglected article, which deals with a field that is quickly growing in prominence, especially with recent work on the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes by Svante Pääbo and others. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
I agree with you, that this article indeed needs some attention. Additionally I am confused about three things:
1. What is the intended difference between the articles ancient DNA and Paleogenetics ?
2. Shouldn't it also be mentioned that you can study "old" DNA that is "fossilized" within recent organisms, e.g. in Retropseudogenes, etc.? (see for example this study, which uses Retropseudogenes to analyze the contemporary and ancient human transcriptome: Shemesh, R., Novik, A., Edelheit, S., & Sorek, R. (2006). Genomic fossils as a snapshot of the human transcriptome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 103(5), 1364–1369.) IronicPseudonym (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Input is needed regarding a dispute about how best to represent the results of the INMEGEN study.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Can any qualified individuals in the project comment as to whether the opinions expressed here by "bioscience resource project": [5] are pseudoscientific? Also their main news website: [6]. Context: [7]. Here is the Wikipedia context: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Strange_activity_at_Monsanto-related_articles. Trying to figure out if this is a pseudoscience/fringe group (it appears to be, but I've never heard of them), IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
For a while I've been compiling a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted in user space for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. Please feel free to suggest any reliable sources you know of, and I will look for those for adding them to the bibliography. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
From the talk page:
Please update this article.
Can someone please update this article. Some of these citations are over thirty years old. Listing Pseudogene as dysfunctional is just not the case anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.170.183 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
In support of this request:
Protein Coding 'Junk Genes' May Be Linked to Cancer
In the current paper in Nature Methods, researchers present a new proteogenomics method, which makes it possible to track down protein coding genes in the remaining 98.5% of the genome, something that until now has been an impossible task to pursue. Among other things, the research shows that some pseudogenes produce proteins indicating that they indeed have a function.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131117155500.htm
-- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this stub be called "Anthropological Genetics" which seems to be the most common name (although both are used) and considerably expanded? Cross-posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few Wikipedia articles that cite primary research publications on human genetics, often to push a particular point of view on human race categories. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human population categories and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.
As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.
Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays
in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote,『There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification,』pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article
in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.
So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.
Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are or have been available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)This first book (Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008) is useful because it includes a chapter co-authored by Richard Lewontin in which he updates his views.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)The Whitmarsh and Jones (2010) source has several very useful chapters on medical genetics.
Most studies of human population genetics begin by citing a seminal 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin bearing the title of this subsection [29]. Given the central role this work has played in our field, we will begin by discussing it briefl y and return to its conclusions throughout the chapter. In this paper, Lewontin summarized patterns of variation across 17 polymorphic human loci (including classical blood groups such as ABO and M/N as well as enzymes which exhibit electrophoretic variation) genotyped in individuals across classically defined 'races' (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines [29] ). A key conclusion of the paper is that 85.4% of the total genetic variation observed occurred within each group. That is, he reported that the vast majority of genetic differences are found within populations rather than between them. In this paper and his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change [30], Lewontin concluded that genetic variation, therefore, provided no basis for human racial classifications. ... His finding has been reproduced in study after study up through the present: two random individuals from any one group (which could be a continent or even a local population) are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world (see proportion of variation within populations in Table 20.1 and [20]).
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)The Ramachandran, Tang, et al. (2010) book chapter is of course written by leading researchers on human population genetics, and is part of a very authoritative advanced textbook on human genetics for medical doctors and other specialists.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)Like the previous source, the Krimsky and Sloan (2011) source has several useful chapters on medical genetics.
Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.'
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.
The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for various Wikipedia articles as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.
By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to this article.
Lewontin's conclusions have stood up remarkably well, across diverse kinds of genetic markers, but this produces an odd paradox.
An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM
In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.
Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions.
A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.
We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=18
(help)Other current review articles related to human genetics include
What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.
I hope these sources are of help to Wikipedians working on articles within the scope of this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would love to add a genome information box to the pages of species that includes the number of chromosomes, karyotype, size of the genome, GC content, and so on. I've mocked up a simple example on User:Sdjackman. Could a Wikipedia veteran help me implement this? Thanks, Shaun —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! I hadn't noticed that Template:Infobox_genome already exists. Thanks for pointing me to this resource, Adrian. I've added a Infobox genome to my talk page User:Sdjackman. —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. For the last four years, I have attended a weekly graduate seminar there on behavior genetics, keeping up with the latest publications on all aspects of behavior genetics, from the genes to the behaviors. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on the article talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.
Noting that Behavioural genetics is listed as a start-class, high-importance article by the WikiProjects for both genetics and psychology, I will start a workpage of an article update draft in my user space, relying on the sources recommended on the article talk page and on others listed here (in approximate order of date of publication, which is also almost but not exactly the order in which I have read them over the last few years):
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help)There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help)Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (help); Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help)I would be delighted to hear from project participants suggestions of other useful, current sources. Another Wikipedian today described the several articles now on Wikipedia about behavior genetics as a "mess," and I would be glad to clean up that mess collaboratively with other editors who are involved in this project. Please let's discuss how to use good sources to build better articles for the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Some content is plagiarised from the http://creation.com/genetic-redundancy article (the author on CMI is "Peter Borger"). See this difference, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_redundancy&diff=524203465&oldid=489462530 and note the phrasing of the odd English wording...
WIK = "the major part of the websites makes only a few links"
CMI = "the major part of the websites makes only a few links"
The addition was by an IP that is the University of Basel. Perhaps related there is or was a Dutch biologist who works on asthma research called Peter Borger in Basel. If Borger put in the material then he should cite where it is first used (Journal of Creation 22(2):79–84 August 2008 though that's probably not a WP:RS by WP standards) and if it is copied by another (non-Author) then it is a copyright violation unless the original is compatible (which for CMI it is not). That aside the wording is conducive to promoting an Intelligent Design agenda of casting doubts about Darwin and natural selection (with the addition of "A Darwinian Paradox" and "This is because the redundant character of the genes (which are not associated with genetic duplication and which do not mutate faster) seems to defy natural selection."). The article needs going over to remove Intelligent Design/Creation POV. Fromthehill (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello geneticists! Is the above old abandoned Afc submission about a notable topic? I notice that there is Identity by descent. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
These two articles seem to treat "element" and "module" as roughly synonymous. I'm not a genetecist but is there a reason to have two articles? If not then they should be merged at the most common title. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: This old abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Cro-Magnon and Origin of the Basques? If you look at Talk:Cro-Magnon I've made some comments about sources, including an interesting source for Basque genetics. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epigenome editing. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drug2Gene. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Sapereaudeincipe/Chromoplexy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I hope I'm at the right project. There is an article in the dreaded Articles for Creation project awaiting review, and perhaps some of you can help! It's been waiting for a review for a while, and i have a feeling it hasn't received one as it's out of the scope of many of us in the project. Please help by reviewing it for either being moved into the article space, or explaining why it can't yet be a wikipedia article and make friend suggestions for improvement. Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epigenome editing. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this database notable? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MethBase. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter (WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Selective Chemical Labeling of 5- hydroxymethylcytosine. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place that may be of interest to some members of this project at Talk:XY sex-determination system#Proposed merge with Maternal influence on sex determination. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
As discussed at Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula#Page move suggestion there are a number of pages relevant to the apparently defunct WikiProject Human Genetic History, that have pages of the form "Genetic history of" <geographic location>. It is suggested that these might be helpfully moved to something like "Genetic history of people of" <geographic location> or "Human Genetic history of" <geographic location>. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that User:InceptionBot generates a new article list for Genetics. There are three examples for adding the results to a Project page, replacing Russia with Genetics. The search rules can be modified. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe we can now, in 2011, assume that the concept of prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes is obsolete... As it is now agreed by everyone with a decent background in biology; archaea are closer to eukaryotes than they are to bacteria. Both archaea and bacteria are still considered "prokaryotes"; which makes no logical sense. Therefore, I propose; like many did before me, that when an author refers to bacteria, the term "bacteria" is used. If writing about archaea, usage of the term "archaea" is best. Finally, if speaking of both; it is preferable to say "bacteria and archaea" or "archaea and bacteria" than "prokaryotes".
I think a detail like this one would indeed contribute to more accurate and reliable articles.
Archaea include halophiles and thermophiles. Since these organisms lack nuclei, it makes more sense to categorize them as prokaryotes. Moreover, they do not share several qualities with eukaryotes. Except for the lack of peptidoglycan and the inability to cause disease in humans, archaea have numerous similarities to eubacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1600:403:F8ED:D19A:AC46:E938 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
N-32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.202.109 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Would you please review and verify the Genetics section on article Sarmatians? I need help for that section (not written by me). If I posted my request on a wrong talk page/project, please tell me where I can find experienced editors who are familiar with topics/sections like that? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC, I've read the section and am mystified ... What exactly does the following mean in non-technical English?:
A revelation of the study is the surprising presence of a Turkic-rooted woman among the Pokrovka Sarmatians, and the complete absence of any pointers characteristic for the Indo-Iranians, who reputedly constituted a bulk, if not all, of the Sarmatians.
Is it trying to say this: that various people wrote that the Sarmatians were Indo-Iranian in origin; but they are wrong? If so, perhaps it could be rewritten more simply. Also, the word "reputedly" is a weasel word, so if we report the claim about the Sarmatians being mostly or all Indo-Iranian, a citation is necessary. Here is my first try at rewriting the sentence which caused my difficulty:
The study of the Pokrovka Sarmatians revealed two surprises: they include a woman of Turkic origin, and they include no people of Indo-Iranian descent. The second point refutes the claim [citation needed] that the Sarmatians were all, or mostly, Indo-Iranian in origin.
However, the second sentence contains a logical fallacy, and it's as follows. Unless the people in the Pokrovka sample numbered at least one half of all Sarmatians - which is extremely unlikely - the fact that the sample contains no people of Indo-Iranian descent does not refute the claim that the Sarmatians were mostly (i.e. more than 50%) Indo-Iranian in origin. So here's my second attempt:
The study of the Pokrovka Sarmatians revealed two surprises: they include a woman of Turkic origin, and they include no people of Indo-Iranian descent. The second point refutes the claim [citation needed] that the Sarmatians were all Indo-Iranian in origin.
Note that I've glossed over one point: I've translated "the complete absence of any pointers characteristic for the Indo-Iranians" into "no people of Indo-Iranian descent". If this is an over-simplification, feel free to fix it. yoyo (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, genetics experts! Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a general consensus on the article talk page that the amount of material in this article on genetics (atAshkenazi Jews#Genetics) is WP:UNDUE, especially given the fact that there is an article solely devoted to this topic (Genetic studies on Jews). Genetic studies are, in part, being utilized to promote specific points of view about the ethnic origins of Ashkenazi Jews (primarily, whether they originated in Europe or the Middle East). But there is a clear recognition that those editors who have deep knowledge of the history and culture of Ashkenazi Jews are not the best experts on weighing the merits of conflicting studies on genetics.
This article section desperately needs the experience of editors who can objectively assess the comparative value of these genetic studies and help other editors decide what to include, what to prune and the amount of emphasis and weight these studies should receive. Your assistance would be welcome but any editor taking this on would be advised to announce what you are doing on the article talk page. Thank you for considering this request for assistance! Liz Read! Talk! 12:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Category: Human gene and Category: Human genes should probably be merged. Although I'm not a specialist, the only difference I can see is that one's title is singular and the other plural. There probably is a MOS item about singular or plural category titles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: Here's another old AfC submission that appears to be relevant to this project. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept rather than being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In mid-March, two students announced on the talk page of the Gene cluster article, that they were planning to improve the article, as a college project. They requested other editors not to edit the article until their project was assessed, om May 7th. They then made many changes to the article, adding a lot of new material.
Other editors praised their efforts. I criticised them, as I believed they were incorporating errors and misunderstandings into the article. They accepted some of my criticisms, and made some corrections.
Their deadline is now a week past, and I assume that their project is over, though they and their professor have given no feedback on it. I believe that they have made many improvements to the article, most notably the addition of material about Hox genes and the Homeobox family. But I also believe that some of the errors they introduced are still there, and should be removed.
However, I believe that I am not the best person to clear up the errors. While I believe I am technically competent to do it, I feel some "commitment" to the article, which must be a bad thing. I would prefer another editor to take a lead here. I have already stated many of my views on the errors, on the article's talk page, and can provide further details if asked. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
These all seem to be part of some university project. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Transposon Sequencing (TnSeq). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. The lede makes little sense to me, and I don't think that's because I lack the technical knowledge to understand it. Where would you like me to comment? Maproom (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello WP:Genetics. This article needs expert attention. Thanks to anyone willing to check and verify. Please, see also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Phenotypic_heterogeneity. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please could someone have a look at Draft:Epigenetics of partner preference and comment on Draft talk:Epigenetics of partner preference? Can it made into an appropriate article? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe the new stub Allelotype conflates genotype, allele frequency, and genotyping. Scholarly sources mainly deal with chromosomal signatures of cancer cells. If any experts can improve it beyond a dictionary definition, or if it can hold water and can ever be more than a stub definition, great, other wise a judicious merge to larger articles may be warranted (I'm not a fan of isolated stubs differing by pedantically subtly elements, but in this case I'm not yet certain.) Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Compare Bivalent (genetics) with compare with Chromosome . We have links going to both of these, and there seems to be complete overlap, unless someone expand the bivalent article. If we do, I think there's a lot to be said for making Chromosome pairing its article title, I spotted this in the AfCs, but Idon;t have time to work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, genetics experts. Is this abandoned AfC submission about a notable topic, and should the page be saved and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: This old AfC submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic, and should it be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There's been discussion about George M. Church and whether his article, a suspected autobiography, needs cleanup. However, none of us really has any expertise in the subject, and we can't evaluate the claims made in the article. Could someone take a look at George M. Church, and, if warranted, weigh in at WP:BLPN#George M. Church? Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Genetics experts: is Draft:ANNK1 and addictive behaviors a notable topic? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Major changes made in this article based in part on genetic claims which I think are being misrepresented. I've commented at Talk:Israelites about misuse of sources, unreliable sources and OR. Eg using a year 2000 dna study and ignoring a 2013 one[11] on the Lemba, use of FamilytreeDNA, use of sources that don't actually explicitly state that a group is descended from the Israelites, insistence that the Cohen Modal Haplotype can prove Israelite (or Jewish) ancestry and coupling this with what is basically an assertion that we can rely on the Bible to back this up and state that things are proven and undisputed. A thorny subject and hard to unravel. I also and of the strong opinion that when other groups are mentioned that have articles, eg the Lemba people and the Palestinian people that articles should not contradict each other. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Any general improvements to Obesity#Genetics / Genetics of obesity would be most welcome (see also Talk:Obesity#Genetics). Thanks, 86.134.200.29 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel the so-called "Three-parent baby" page could benefit from some tlc (perhaps starting from the page name?). Mitochondrial replacement is in the news at the moment [12], and is likely to attract further media and public attention in the coming months. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Two review articles in prominent journals about human population genetics are bringing together analysis of the many recent studies of human DNA, including DNA from ancient individuals.
The shared evolutionary history of living humans has resulted in a high relatedness among all living people, as indicated for example by the very low fixation index (FST) among living human populations.
However, the data also often contradict models of population replacement: when two distinct population groups come together during demographic expansions the result is often genetic admixture rather than complete replacement. This suggests that new types of models – with admixture at their center – are necessary for describing key aspects of human history ([14–16] for early examples of admixture models).
Earlier studies of this issue were based on more limited samples (fewer genes, and fewer human individuals from fewer regions and only recent times). As more samples of more genes from more individuals from more places and times are gathered, the molecular evidence is making it increasingly clear that human beings have been moving back and forth across the Earth's surface and mixing genes over long distances ever since their earliest ancestors moved out of the human homeland in Africa. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, we're having trouble disambiguating links to CDKN2A. It isn't apparent from context whether they should go to p16orp14arf. Would it be possible for someone to go through the articles on the "What links here" page and correct the links appropriately? Otherwise, if CDKN2A should have an article of its own then some more information could be added and the {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}} tag could be removed. Nick Number (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The following articles currently exist:
In addition, "Genetic variance" previously redirected to genetic diversity, but I made it into a disambiguation page for these three articles. It would be wonderful if an expert in the topic would make it clear what the differences between these topics are, either within each article or in a separate article (similar to the introduction to genetics article). "Genetic variance" could remain a disambiguation page, be made into a separate article, or be made a redirect to an appropriate article. If it is made into a redirect, hopefully it will have an explanation for the redirect near the top of the article, such as an alternative name. Finally, if "genetic variance" is to remain a disambiguation page, it should have appropriate descriptions of each topic. Currently, it only lists the articles.
Before I posted to this talk page (I was greatly delayed), an editor used a template to encourage the creation of a broad topic article on the disambiguation page. I am fine with whatever people think is best. Thank you very much, Kjkolb (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: Here's an old AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Right now, ACF7 is a redirect to MACF1, and is tagged as being a synonym of this. If this is true, is there information in the draft which should be added to the MACF1 article? Or is this a separate topic that should have its own article? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fullwoodenjacket (talk · contribs) has created Draft:Bulked segregant analysis as part of a school assignment and has submitted it for review. Looks good to me as a stub, but biology isn't my forte. The topic has some coverage at Doubled_haploidy#Bulked_segregant_analysis_(BSA), but if it's notable enough for an independent article, I'd like to send it into the mainspace. Just wanted to see if anyone had any input regarding that. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Inexperienced users are editing and edit-warring over this article. It needs a quality check and involvment of experienced users to sort thing out. (Please don't block the editors as they are new). Iselilja (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I just made this edit to remove Template:Y-DNA G from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, but I am out of my league with regards to the subject matter, so I would appreciate it if someone could have a look to see if the content is correct. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on on how to categorize genes. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Genes mutated in mice. Input from interested partticipants in this project is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
This draft is up for WP:G13 deletion. Unlike Canarium odontophyllum, a draft that was also up for WP:G13 that I moved into article-space, the science here is way, way beyond me. Should this be deleted? Moved into article-space? Re-directed to something else about human genetics? Some other outcome?
Your opinions about this would be greatly appreciated. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion was just closed as keep. Unfortunately, very few people participated in the discussion and none seemed to be hampered by much knowledge about genetics. I find the distinction between "mouse genes" and "mutated mouse genes" untenable. If this distinction is being made for other species, too, then perhaps we should re-think the whole "genes" category tree. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Genetics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please assess the acceptability of Draft:Single-cell DNA template strand sequencing. I'm not well versed in the minutiae of genetics, but it looks like a reasonable article to me - however it has no wikilinks to other pages so please also help to add relevant ones. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Enzyme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear genetics experts: Here's an old AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable organization which should have an encyclopedia article?—Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Eight months ago, I wrote
No-one responded (and today, coincidentally, my request was archived). I am planning to work on the article myself soon. I shall copy this to its talk page.
While the students made many improvements to the article, they added a long section on formation, discussing various theories about the origin of gene clusters. But this is absurd; the origin of gene clusters (by duplication and divergence) was known in 1972, and is not in doubt. This is acknowledged in the second sentence of the article "A gene cluster is part of a gene family": The gene family article starts "A gene family is a set of several similar genes, formed by duplication of a single original gene."
I will replace the long "formation" section by a much shorter historical section, mentioning the various pre-1970 conjectures. Maproom (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
ToWP:MCB, WP:GEN, WP:BIOL and WP:EB
The gene article gets 50,000 views per month but has been de-listed as a featured article since 2006. Given the success of the recent blitz on the enzyme article, I thought I'd suggest spending a couple of weeks seeing if we can get it up to a higher standard. I'm going to start with updating some of the images. If you'd like to help out on the article, it'd be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Snooping around I encountered Template:Genetics glossary, I don't know it's backstory, but it is a rather cleaver idea for a template in my opinion. I partially reckon it might go well under the first image in place or the second image depicting DNA, which conceptually is a tangent. I am not sure, hence my asking. --Squidonius (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm planning on adding some more Molecular Biology of the Cell references to the article using {{rp}}
to specify chapter sections. I went to the MBOC 4th ed. online page but I can find no way of searching by page number, chapter, section or anything else. Any ideas on how to specify specific sections as is possible for Biochemistry 5th ed. online? Alternatively, maybe there's a more easily refernced online textbook for general citations. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
|chapter=
and |chapterurl=
parameters differ:
{{cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help)I've not done much non-standard reference citation so I'll wait until you've done a couple so that I can see the format in context before doing any more. The ones I added yesterday shouldn't be too difficult to reformat. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Article
Genes[2]: 2 are numerous[2]: 4 and useful[2]: 4.1
References
So{{rp}} labels the chapter number but does not provide any easy link to the actual information. Therefore it's combined with a list of chapter links. the benefit is that the {{rp}} template is relatively easy to maintain and the list of chapter links doesn't require maintainance and places all the MBOC links together. As stated above, there's basically no way to avoid linking individually to chapters if we want to cite MBOC. I'll finish building the chapter list over the next couple of days. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
expand=true
so the box is expanded by default but that made no difference. Maybe better to change to a bulleted or indented list? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Hidden begin}}
+ {{Hidden end}}
, which renders properly on phones (default expanded). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has an interest in interactive annotated images, I've made a post on WP:IUP to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is Showcase empty?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone with knowledge in biology/proteins look at this draft article- due to my lack of subject knowledge, I cannot determine if it's notable enough for Wikipedia or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks! JTdaleTalk~ 16:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The pages for Genome engineering and Genome editing seem to overlap quite a bit, with no apparent rationale for the distinction, if any.
I gather that Genetic engineering is a broader topic than Genome engineering, but the distinction is not apparent (to me) in the articles. For example, the intro sentences:
Perhaps add these to your list of things to look at? I don't have the expertise to do that myself. Thanks! -- Bassomatic (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This is slightly tangential, but should there be an article on epigenetic engineering (e.g., this summary paper which discusses another paper where the authors made use of engineered transcription factors and modulate transcriptional activation/repression through histone modification) at some point, or would that topic be better suited for coverage in the genetic engineering article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
CRISPR-Cas9 is getting a lot of attention now. I think it would be beneficial if all the information on this, and the lawsuit [13] between mit and ucb, was in one place, perhaps in an article on the technique itself, and not scattered between articles. articles containing pieces of it are Jennifer Doudna, Gene drive, David Baltimore, CRISPR, and Cas9. this is a little beyond my scope, otherwise i might be bold and create it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Protein & Cell published a paper on CRISPR/Cas9 use for gene therapy in human embryos. An article in Nature states the paper looks "set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing" - and the experiments are facing a backlash
Discussion on ITN: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Human embryos genetically modified for the first time
-- Aronzak (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I've declined a draft article that was written by an IP over sourcing issues, Draft:Brain Transcriptome Database (BrainTx) Project. It's a little too good to just leave in the draftspace, so I thought I'd ask here if anyone could help find sourcing. I'd do it myself but I'm really not familiar with genetics beyond the high school level, as interesting as they are. This also needs some slight tweaking for terminology since it does read a little too technical. I was just going to move on to the next AfC draft but I'm afraid of this languishing in the AfC space (since a lot of editors tend to abandon their drafts) and then getting G13'd. It just seems a little too interesting to not try to give it a little bit of extra help. I figure if it doesn't pass then it doesn't pass, but I figured that at the very least I could make you guys aware of it since you'd obviously be more likely to know where to find sourcing for this that I wouldn't. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Arequested move discussion has been initiated for Selection to be moved to Selection (genetics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Category renaming proposed at here. About 25 categories included in this category, renaming from, for example, Category:Genes on chromosome 1 → Category:Genes on human chromosome 1 is proposed (adding "human" to category name). Although I think there are no need to explain the reason of renaming to the members of this project, chromosome number which contains certain gene varies in species-to-species. So we need to specify species. --Was a bee (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I previously posted this in October 2014, but didn't receive a response. It is still an issue.
Over at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, we're having trouble disambiguating links to CDKN2A. It isn't apparent from context whether they should go to p16orp14arf. Would it be possible for someone to go through the articles on the "What links here" page and correct the links appropriately? Otherwise, if CDKN2A should have an article of its own then some more information could be added and the {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}} tag could be removed. Nick Number (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Boghog: You've muddied the waters a bit with this edit. Per the previous discussion above, the stub article was created for the gene alone because there are two different proteins which the gene codes for, and the term CDKN2A was ambiguous when referring to them. Now I'm not really qualified to discuss this subject in any detail, but is there a way the lead can be rephrased to avoid confusion? Nick Number (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors,
I am new to this editing function of Wiki, however I had a query regarding the pronucleus description.
Specifically I have noticed that the Pronucleus page of Wiki discusses that the Pronucleus is haploid, then fusion occurs making the single cells zygote diploid. Then the cell immediately divides again, which would make the 2 cell stage contain two haploid cells. I have read an alternative explanation in 2 other sources, one quite good: Langmans Medical Embryology Pg 39, and another online at http://ww.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html. These sources describe how the pronuclei double their DNA to achieve a diploid state prior to fusion. Then the single celled zygote is 4n and divides to make the 2 cell stage contain 2 diploid cells. Perhaps this is a minor technicality, perhaps we are all saying the same thing essentially, however I just thought a little extra detail couldn't go astray?
I welcome feedback to this curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for taking the time to read and evaluate this. If you would be so kind as to go to this website and perhaps tell me whether this is a good source: http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote01.html. It states: The DNA must be duplicated before each commencing cell division so it can be distributed among the daughter cells. In an impregnated oocyte this happens for every chromosome set – the one from the father and the one from the mother – each in a separate pronucleus. The time needed for the duplication of the DNA amounts to roughly 12-18 hours. During this time span, the two pronuclei also get closer to each other spatially. I also read the same thing in quite a trusted text book Langmans Medical Embryology. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it amazing! I mean the implications of this could be very interesting. Firstly it may help us understand parthenogenesis in other animals, it may even mean that parthenogenesis could be manipulated in humans, but most importantly I think is that it might shed light on what prompts the DNA replication phase of mitosis. Eg how does the nucleus of 4n know to simply divide, rather than duplicate and then divide. It could teach us a lot about the prompts for DNA synthesis etc. Of course it may also just be meaningless information. "Yes we get to 4n, who cares how we get there." Either way I think that the wiki page would make a reasonable person think that the DNA replication happens after the pronucleus combine. Which may not be the case. Wiki states: 'Their chromosomes can then combine and become part of a single diploid nucleus in the resulting embryo, containing a full set of chromosomes.' Yes this is true, but this would not happen until the embryo consists of 2 cells. I think in all honesty this is such a minor detail, however, surely we should try to make wiki as clear as possible? More and more people are using Wiki as an information source. Again thank you for your conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thats interesting, I too thought that mitosis included chromosome division, but you're right it doesn't. I'm still curious as to which version of events is correct. Is the DNA duplicated after fusion or in the pronuclei before fusion? If anyone can confirm or refute this I'd be much appreciated. I have a professor looking into this as well however he won't be able to respond for a few days. If it is true, do you think that details like these should be added to the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
As the Gene article is about to be GA reviewed, it might be useful to check that there is consensus on the definitions (Talk:Gene#Definitions). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their UID - for instance by their UNIPROT number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational aspects of genetics. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --
Homepage: http://felinegenetics.missouri.edu/99lives
Definitely notable, given this level of Google News coverage. I'm working on updating the Manx cat article with info about the loosely affiliated Manx Cat Genome Project, so maybe someone else can take on the larger organization. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Editors may perhaps be interested in Talk:Desirable genetic trait#Merge proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello all--I know very little about genetics, but I do know that this Y-DNA haplogroup stuff has been contentious in various articles. With that in mind, I would like to ask some of you to look at this edit: Concus Cretus and ThecentreCZ seem to be getting into it a bit, without the mutual courtesy of talk page discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That is historical revisionism of Czech National Revival and triggers
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
as a German-Czech editor and his purposeful look on genetics studies, which is due to compromises at discussions on other articles purely false, and even is not the main indicator of main attributes of any nations.
--ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On the Template:Infobox gene there is an "RNA expression pattern", which seems rather informative – see GLUT1 for an example. However, this is currently missing an link to an article on Wikipedia describing exactly what this is, and how to read it. Please, can someone more knowledgeable than me (or rather much more knowledgeable) start such an article? Tony Mach (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Archive 2 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Template:Chromosomes, we can read the list of human chromosomes, with 22 autosomes, and 2 sex chromosomes + the pseudoautosomal region. Do you think we should add the mitochondrial chromosome? This might be done by adding a new line, entitled Mitochondrial chromosome, and linking to mitochondrial DNA. Manudouz (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
AtTalk:Genome engineering#Merge discussion it was decided that genome editing & genome engineering should be merged. However in November User:Evolution and evolvability asked for a qualified academic to help out with the merge. Maybe someone in here can lend a hand? Please just go ahead and properly merge both articles so that no content is lost.
I guess as there's also a genetic engineering article the most appropriate target to merge to would be genome engineering? What do you think would be the more accurate or popular term?
--Fixuture (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To do list
Ensure that all of these categories are within Category:Genetics Confirm that the hierarchy of Category:Genetics and List of basic genetics topics are what a typical reader would expect. An example Genetics hierarchy is here.
Problems:
1. clicking "these categories" gives a 404 Not Found response
2. in "List of basic genetics topics"
instead of trying to maintain such a list independently? https://www.omim.org/
DennisPietras (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm a new user with considerable experience in genetics. I consulted the table "Genetics articles by quality and importance" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics to find which articles I might help to improve. I would say, IMHO, that the ratings are fubar and should just be ignored, except for the notion I'm entertaing that there must be some way to actually fix the table. Does anybody actually know how to do that? Thanks, Drdfp (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Folks, I'd like to see genetics articles get needed attention. I am going to throw out some suggestions and see if any stick. I'm a newbie, so this may be totally inappropriate, but whatcha gonna do, fire me?
1. Delete the "To do list" section. Has anybody but me ever commented on the links? Who is it that is responsible for eliminating things like "patent" from this project? Just do it.
2. Realize that there are about 100 people who have signed up for the project. I suggest that whoever is leading this project (if anyone?) compose a "ping list" (manually, if needed) of those users and send out a message asking each member to assess 20 of the 2044 unassessed articles over the next month. Explain how to do it. Explain that they are free to assess whatever articles they wish. If all goes well, by March we'll have a much better idea of what we are dealing with.
3. if all doesn't go well and there are still 1984 unassessed articles come March, just forget about the project. Seriously.
Note: I do NOT have the people skills to be a leader. If nominated, I will not campaign. If elected, I will not serve. DennisPietras (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If I am using it properly, the first 2 topics on the to do list
were added in May 2008 by a user, GregManninLB, who was not signed up on the list of participants at the time and is not now, as far as I can see. I'm deleting them. DennisPietras (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)