Talk:Genetics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Once

Once a page is protected, can it become unprotected? This page still needs a bit of work.

1. Genomics is not applied genetics. I have no idea of how anyone could have that impression. The genome is all of the genetic material of an organism. It is all of the individual genes, including how they are connected and how they interact with each other. It is as abstract (if not more so) than traditional genetic analysis.
2. This page should link to epigenetic inheritance
   

adam

Unprotected. There is no reason why it should have been protected and was probably done on accident. --mav

---

Mjanich, thanks for adding all the new information to this article, but please search for and use internal wikilinks if they exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be a self-contained encyclopedia. External links are fine, but internal links are better if they exist (e.g. New Scientist). Also, if they should exist, i.e. are encyclopedia-worthy or otherwise notable, creating a link to an empty page creates an incentive for somebody to create a page on that subject! Thanks. --Lexor 08:54, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Timeline

"1945 - Genes code for one protein" Does this refer to George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum's experiments? I was about to change the timeline to "George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum show that genes code . . ." but the main publication of their findings was 1941. Is the date wrong or is this timeline refering to someone else? Sayeth 17:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

According to EvoWiki: History of Genetics (based on the timeline in P.J. Russel's iGenetics textbook) you're right, and 1945 is wrong. --Steinsky 18:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected the article to reflect this. Sayeth 22:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

The timeline also mentions 1997 as the first genome sequenced. Bioinformatics mentions 1984. Frederick Sanger first sequenced the Phi-X174 Phage as the first sequenced genome in 1977 according to http://dorakmt.tripod.com/genetics/notes01.html. -Adenosine- 02:50, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

ok no one is replying to this, i really hope someone can give me the basis for the statement that 1997 was the first sequenced genome, it should be 1977 -Adenosine- 09:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can find no evidence for the 1997 claim: the first eukaryote sequence (yeast) was published in 1996, but I can confirm that Sanger sequenced øX174 in 1977 (though I don't know if the definition of "genome" includes phages. Joe D (t) 12:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To keep with 'wikipedian' consistency, we nee to consider viruses as having genomes. I know many people might argue that viruses are not alive and there for their nucleic acid is not a 'genome'. But i argue that they carry inheritable genetic information and must be included. Unless anyone has arguement with me, I'll change the date to reflect Frederick Sanger's monumental achievment. -Adenosine- 07:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Sequencing the phage genome would have been difficult at the time, and this was the first DNA sequence generated, so that should definately be included. The the first prokaryote (Haemophilus influenzae 1995) and first eukaryote with a sequenced genome (yeast, 1996 [1]), first multicellualr eukartote (C.elegans, 1998 [2]), should also be included, this site [3] would be a good source for other sequencing milestones. --nixie 08:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paleogenetics

Should paleogenetics be added to the "Subfields of genetics" box? —Vespristiano 01:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genes and diseases

This article doesn't mention things like colour (hair eyes and even skin) which can randomly appear in someone from a very distant gene. (like a family with all blonde hair and blue eyes producing a green eyed, ginger haired child) How does this all work? Is this the right section for it? (I can't find it elsewhere) Also diseases which are genetic, shouldn't this be mentioned?

Check out List of genetic disorders. Also, Eye color and Hair Color also contain some of the issue you seak. I wonder about a proper way to link this info in the article --Jruffatto 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of irregular dominant

I can't find a definition of "irregular dominant" anywhere. I'd like to see it in the article, along with whatever's related (dominant recessive, etc.). -Barry- 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that our family have found these articles really useful. Thanks. Robsmommy 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone could be my expert on genetics. If you can e-mail me on Uthinkunome333@AIM.com. When i say anyone I mean anyone that even looks at this page that has a degree in genetics or knows a whole lot about them.

Thanks, You think you know me

Answer to questions posted in the article

I don't think that the article is the apropriate place for these questions, so i reverted them to the talk page. I am not an expert in genetics or philosophy, but i will try to answer your questions.

1. Could genetics define incest and hence prevent it? No. Sexual attraction is mainly physical. Genes could perhaps determine which kind of persons someone could be attracted to, but it doesn't matter wether these persons are family or not. When someone is hot, he or she is hot. I saw on television that smells are very important to determine wether you fall in love with someone, that is why family members hardly ever fall in love with each other. But falling in love (limerence) is something different from being horny.
2. Is the GENOME project merely reinvented the wheel only? No. The Human Genome Project is not inventing anything. It tries to determine what a part of reality looks like, that we (humanity) didn't know about.
3. Any connection between family names and genetics? It depends. Some women tend to make children with men whom they are not married to. This means that the genes have no connection with the (male inherited) family name. Suppose that a father gives his family name to his real natural child and that this has happened for many generations in the same family, then the link between genes and family names is still small. It disregards all the women in the line of inheritance.--Daanschr 06:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Monozygotic ("identical") twins, a clone resulting from", does not make sense, since "twins" is a plural, while "clone" is singular.

Non-mendelian inheritance controversy

Did anyone read/hear about this really odd Arabidopsis genetics paper in Nature last year PMID 15785770? There is a really recent paper along the same lines on mice PMID 16724059. Basicly, the authors found that a proportion of progeny of parents homozygous mutant for a gene reverted to the wild-type. Remarkably, the version reverted to was precisely the one carried by the wildtype grandparents. Both papers hypothesise and present some evidence for a sort of RNA-based repository of parental genomes. I know there is a lot of weird science going on out there, and we cannot make a Wikipedia article for every such paper. However, I think these results are more than just that. They already earned mention in several popular science sources (such as Scientific American). If the findings and their interpretation are true, it could change the way we view inheritance. I would like to write an article summarizing the recent findings and arguments for and against (there are a few published commentaries) the interpretation proposed by the authors. Is anyone interested in helping? Peter Znamenskiy 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Links don't work. Could you give me new ones? I'm interested. NCurse _work 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems Pubmed is experiencing problems... It cannot retrieve a lot of database entries at the moment. Here is the first article on the Nature website - [4]... I can't find the second one right now. Peter Z.^Talk 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Links work again. Peter Z.^Talk 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [5]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I'm a passer-by, and I hope I'm not doing the wrong thing by commenting here. In the first paragraph, I'm mystified about how the word "Genetics" could have been first coined in 1905, then used at the THIRD International conference on GENETICS. Am I missing something? At the least, a word of explanation of this remarkable situation seems appropriate. – —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.5.35 (talk)

This seems like an excellent question to me - anybody have an answer? – ClockworkSoul 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a really good question. The French and the German article doesn't say anything about that conference. But I found a link to the Seventh Edition of A Dictionary of Genetics. And it says: "The publication of this fully updated edition of A Dictionary of Genetics coincides with the hundredth anniversary of the introduction of the term genetics by William Bateson in 1906 at the Third International Conference on Genetics." It can be a misinterpretation of that sentence. Maybe this dictionary was published in the Third International Conference on Genetics. NCurse _work 19:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. Plus, I'm not sure they even had anything resembling the "international conference" back in 1906. I say we scrub the conference bit from the article. – ClockworkSoul 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did find an article entitled Heritable Variation and Mutagenesis at Early International Congresses of Genetics, published in 1989 in the journal Genetics, which cites the following: "BATESON, W., 1906 The Progress of Genetic Research, pp. 90–97 in Report of the Third International Conference on Genetics, edited by Rev. W. WILKS. Royal Horticultural Society, London." – ClockworkSoul 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just found an article by Robert Olby about this topic - apparently, the conference was titled: "the third international conference on plant hybridization", with the term "genetics" as an alternate title. (Article online at: http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html). I am adjusting the article accordingly. Jdfoote 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed that sentence and after your second message reverted myself. :) Weird... NCurse _work 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Question

Why does the Clinical Genetics section link to the Geneticist stub instead of to the Medical genetics page? Patadragon 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Request

Could someone with knowlege in this area write an article on Coefficient of Inbreeding. This tool is starting to be used by dog breeders, but I suspect that not many lay persons have a good idea how to interpret it. Thanks--Counsel 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nontechnical introduction

My suggestion here is that gene or genetics attempt to do the same as we have done for evolution and has been done for special relativity and general relativity. That is, an Introduction to Genetics article be created in Wikipedia to allow easier access to the material. I would be glad to help. I propose to use the Simple Wikipedia article as a basis, and then we can edit it to be more suitable, just as was done in the case of Introduction to evolution. --20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Question!!!!!

How many genes does the average person have? Why that number instead of 237,018??? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.41.239 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

To answer your question, the "average" person has roughly 25,000 - 30,000 known genes. I put "average" in quotes because we all have exactly the same genes, just differing levels and modes of expression. And I say known genes, because there are many putative genes for which functions and definitions have yet to be obtained. Also, I put it as a range because the definitions of many identified genes are still hotly debated. As far as the 237,018 you mentioned, I'm not sure where that comes from. Our genome contains roughly 3 billion nucleotides, a very small portion of which actually contains genes. The rest is either "junk" DNA (which is thought to exist for a number of reasons) or resides in regions such as telomeres and centromeres, which provide structural support to the chromosomes themselves, rather than encoding for genetic information. Does that help? Eganio 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

As an outsider, I thought I would offer some comments.

Genetics (from the Greek genno γεννώ= give birth) is the science of genes, heredity, and the variation of organisms.

• Not sure I like the parenthetic aside. Make it a separate sentence. do not assume the knowledge of the word gene or require someone to follow a link to understand most words in the lead section.

The word "genetics" was first suggested to describe the study of inheritance and the science of variation by the prominent British scientist William Bateson in a personal letter to Adam Sedgwick, dated April 18, 1905. Bateson first used the term "genetics" publicly at the Third International Conference on Genetics (London, England) in 1906.

• As described above, I am not sure I understand how there was a third conference, let alone a third international conference on genetics within a year. Also, from the gene article, we find the following: Danish botanist Wilhelm Johannsen coined the word "gene" in 1909 to describe these fundamental physical and functional units of heredity.[4]. How did we have the word genetics being used before the word gene was first used? And a conference on genetics before the word gene was first used?

Heredity and variations form the basis of genetics.

• what sort of variations? Does everyone know what heredity is?

Humans applied knowledge of genetics in prehistory with the domestication and breeding of plants and animals.

• not a sentence

In modern research, genetics provides important tools for the investigation of the function of a particular gene, e.g., analysis of genetic interactions.

• what does this mean? I do not like compound sentences like this with e.g.

Within organisms, genetic information generally is carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules.

• generally? not clear what a chromosome is and how it relates to DNA

Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing the amino-acid sequences in proteins, which in turn play a large role in determining the final phenotype, or physical appearance, of the organism.

• average person will not know what protein is, phenotype or amino acid. I do not like parenthetical definitions like was done for phenotype. Sentence too long.

In diploid organisms, a dominant allele on one chromosome will mask the expression of a recessive gene on the other.

• Awful awful sentence for introduction. Holy cow. Do not require me to look up a ton of technical words. This has more than half a dozen in one sentence.

The phrase to code for is often used to mean a gene contains the instructions about how to build a particular protein, as in the gene codes for the protein.

• Ok this sort of is helpful.

The "one gene, one protein" concept is now known to be simplistic.

• the average person would not know that expression

For example, a single gene may produce multiple products, depending on how its transcription is regulated. Genes code for the nucleotide sequences in mRNA, tRNA and rRNA, required for protein synthesis.

• This sentence is too long and technical.

Genetics determines much (but not all) of the appearance of organisms, including humans, and possibly how they act.

• do not need parentheses

Environmental differences and random factors also play a part.

• semi ok. Not really though.

Monozygotic ("identical") twins, a clone resulting from the early splitting of an embryo, have the same DNA, but different personalities and fingerprints.

• Why use monozygotic here? Why use clone here?

Genetically-identical plants grown in colder climates incorporate shorter and less-saturated fatty acids to avoid stiffness.

• average person will not know what a fatty acid is

Mull these over. Consider rewriting the lead section.--Filll 13:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links Cleanup

This article has been accumulating many external links, particular with simple references to Journals. Since most of these require registration which does not conform to WP:EL guidelines, I went ahead and cleaned these up and substituted dmoz which is WP's recommended process. Hopefully this will keep this article cleaner and limit the number of external links. If you feel that any of these links need to be re-added, please comment here and gain consensus. Thanks! Calltech 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Codominance

I'm not sure I like the wording of the sentence on codominance. "both alleles are dominant" doesn't seems quite right but rather neither allele is dominant. This might be a personal theoretical preference though. Jvbishop 13:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the offending sentence and sent the reader to the Dominance relationship article. Dr d12 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"unreferenced" tag

User:Sefringle tagged this page in February with "expand" and "unreferenced", but left no comments on this discussion page. He has removed the expand tag, and his response (from his user talk page) to my request for clarification follows. -Madeleine 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are only six references. Most of the material is still unsourced. However I have removed the expand tag.--Sefringle 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro and history

I've rewritten the intro and history to the article. Let me know here what you think. -Madeleine 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding new material?

I was wondering if this article could use material that really attempts to describe the field. It's a big thing to do, but I drew up this outline:

• Features of inheritance

• Discrete inheritance and Mendel's observations
• Complex traits and heritability
• Hard inheritance and the Lamarckian fallacy

• The molecular basis for inheritance

• DNA and the genetic code
• Chromosomes, linkage, and recombination

• Genetic techniques and technology

• Model organisms & genetics
• Cloning and recombinant DNA
• Sequencing and genomics

• Genetics and evolution

• Mutation and selection
• Evolutionary trees

And I've started filling it in here: User:Madprime/Genetics -- I've done the first section so far. Tell me what think here, please! Tell me if it's a good idea, or tell me if you think it shouldn't go here. Please help edit if you want. Thanks! Madeleine 02:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggested addition, but maybe we can just link to Gregor Mendel article for Mendel's observations, as to not repeat too much. I hate lengthy scientific articles on wikipedia. It makes my head spin. If we can add all this and be a thorough but as brief as possible it would be great. Bulldog123 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to summarize... Since the section is already there now in the main article, can you write up a sample of how you'd shorten it? Feel free to use my draft (User:Madprime/Genetics), if you'd like. Madeleine 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article being too long -- what do you think about removing/reducing other parts? (A) We could remove the timeline. The history section is a decent summary I think (could be improved), and the History of genetics page might be the proper place for the more in depth list of events. (B) The "Areas of genetics" could be converted to a bullet point list, much shorter, rather than trying to summarize each area with whole sections. Madeleine 14:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madprime. I re-worded the 1st paragraph, for clarity and a bit for brevity. Take a look, and see what you think. (OOPS - I think I forgot to leave an edit summary). Some other quick suggestions:

• The next paragraph is begins with an incorrect premise; RNA viruses and viroids have genetic material, and it is not DNA. This should be clarified
• Given the long knowledge of inheritance, I think the 1st section (below the intro) should contain a bit of the history of genetic thought - from Aristotle, through various "blending" theories, including Darwin's, before leading into heavy-duty Mendelism. Bear in mind, Mendel did not invent the idea of inheritance any more than Darwin invented evolution. Both discovered the mechanism whereby these processes happened. This should be clear.
• Punnett was a person (a geneticist), and the name on his square should be capitalised.

Is any of that helpful? Esseh 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking it over! It is definitely helpful. That contrast in the introduction was what I originally intended, I'm glad you added it in. On the DNA/RNA thing, it's an exception I glossed over; I'll have to think about how to restate it without confusing the reader. Viruses are not typically considered "organisms" per se -- at least, that is the consensus on the organism wikipedia page. So I guess a footnote would be appropriate here? On the Punnett thing, my bad, I know he was a guy who worked with Bateson, that's more of a typo on my part.

As for the history, I agree with your point. For the Lamarckism section I have a structure like "people used to think X and now they know it's wrong" (it's that way because I couldn't see how to describe hard inheritance without describing Lamarckism). Maybe the discrete inheritance section also needs a sentence or two like this? So the "blending" is introduced (+ some pre-Mendel history) and then discrete inheritance is introduced as contrasting material? I wonder if that will make the material more confusing. I only started with Mendel because he's a convenient example for describing discrete inheritance, but I can see how the reader gets mislead into thinking he was the first guy to bother thinking about the phenomenon of inheritance. There should definitely be some stuff on pre-Mendel genetics added to the history section later in the article. (There was actually no post-Mendel stuff when I got to this page!) Madeleine 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mad. Glad it looked OK. As for whether viruses are "organisms", I guess that depends on the definition. Personally, I don't feel they're "alive", but I do think they're organisms. I'll see what I can do. It really would be hard to leave viruses out of an article on genetics.

per the history, just a paragraph or two, given there is a separate article on it. I just always found it puts everything into context - leads well into Mendel and discrete inheritance. For Lamarck, making a distinction between the soma and the germ line should do, I would think. Really, I don't see how Lamarck fits into anything genetic otherwise. (We need a homunculus picture or two, as well though I don't think we should get into the whole ovist/spermist debate.) Anyway, keep up the good work. Esseh 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern textbooks class viruses as non-living as they dont display the characteristics of living things, look it up if you don't believe me. I do agree that mentioning them in a page about genetics is a necessity though. Pwnz0r1377 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You can probably just say that the question of whether viruses are living things is still under debate. As far as I know it is, though the general agreement in the USA, at least, is that they're not. Bulldog123 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm well aware of what "modern textbooks" say, and you will note above that I said I agree with that interpretation - they only have some of the characteristics of living things. But it is a judgement call, not a "fact", and some people disagree. You may want to check talk:astrobiology for my views on that - I really don't want to go into it again. However, I think the important thing is that viruses must be mentioned, and since many of them are RNA retroviruses, RNA becomes a legitimate genetic material on its own. This is particularly true, since it is speculated that the first "replicons" (if they're still called that) on earth were probably RNA-based and very like viroids. Cheers. Esseh 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Esseh, you're completely right that viruses need to be mentioned, I was just shying away from it in the introductory material. I'm sorry you got piled on for the technicality about "organisms", I shouldn't have defended myself with pedantry. I've added the word "cellular" to the introduction, and a footnote there on viruses. I have also added a statement on viruses in the "DNA and the genetic code". In addition to your arguments, the study of viral genetics was integral to genetic history, eg the Hershey-Chase experiment.

Regarding Lamarckism... I just wanted to get the idea of hard inheritance down, maybe I overdid it. (Homunculus? That isn't the generally association with Lamarckism, and isn't mentioned in the Lamarckism article. Generally the term refers to the misconception of soft inheritance.) I think I ended up using Lamarckism in part because the article on hard inheritance is a stub, and in part because it felt like the idea needed to be defined by its contrast to soft inheritance. This could all go, more succinctly, as a statement within the Genetics and Evolution section (not written yet).

Regarding the history -- I'm still confused -- it sounds like you aren't seeing Genetics#History_of_genetics? Do you want that at the top, and some pre-Mendel content added? Or do you want a separate section on pre-Mendel history at the top? Madeleine 11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwnz0r1377, some comments on your edits... I deliberately didn't refer to the central dogma because I think the term is misused. It was meant to refer to the directionality of the process, nucleic acid to protein and never the other way around, and not really to the mechanism itself. From the Central dogma of molecular biology page: The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. Using it to refer to DNA -> RNA -> protein leads to people saying "Aha! Reverse transcriptase violates the central dogma!", which is kind of missing the point, that the information goes into proteins but not back out. I hope it's ok if I remove this. On adding the statement about chromosomes to the discrete inheritance section -- I was trying to keep the molecular stuff out of that section, I think this should go somewhere in the "Chromosomes, recombination, and linkage" section. The edit creating the statement "Many organisms, including humans, are diploid, with two alleles, one dominant and one recessive, for each gene." is wrong. Some organisms have two dominant, some have two recessive, sometimes there's even codominance. I'm going to revert this to the old form, that simply says two alleles, I think that's the accurate thing to say here. The rest of your remaining edits are good, I think. Thank you for helping out! Madeleine 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. I'm just glad to be helping. Next time I'll check the validity of my "facts" before I add them to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwnz0r1377 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

...And sometimes there are MORE than two alleles. Be careful with that. Esseh 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardy-Weinberg addition

Pwnz0r1337, what do you think about adding that stuff to the Population genetics page instead? (Also, a correction, I don't think the formula has to do with the "change of frequencies over time" -- it describes the relationship between the frequency of alleles and the frequencies of different genotypes within a population.) The population genetics page is pretty bare and could use the material. At the moment I think the Genetics#Areas of genetics section is meant to be a bunch of summaries, although Hardy-weinberg definitely deserves mention somewhere in the article, thanks for bringing it up!

Right now I see have two ideas on where it could go -- (a) a sentence somewhere within Genetics#Discrete inheritance and Mendel's laws -- since it's like a punnett square on the population level, or (b) a population genetics section that's not in the current outline (maybe this should be somewhere in "Genetics and evolution"). I think wherever it goes, it's going to have to be a bit shorter -- if we expanded the description of everything in the article, the thing would turn into a textbook.  :-) Madeleine 12:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article on population genetics. You could do a brief section here, and direct to the main article (which iteself needs to be expanded. Just a thought. Esseh 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I just thought it'd be hard to talk about Population Genetics without mentioning Hardy-Weinberg. Although it could be relocated to the page for it and shortened to a sentence or 2 in this one. =D Pwnz0r1377 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Genetic research and technology" section added

New material added. I thought about combining the "Genetic technologies" and "Sequencing & genomics" into a single "Genetic technologies and genomics" section, but ended up leaving it as two sections. I was on the fence about it, though, so I'm mentioning it here. Madeleine 00:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Areas of genetics" and history timeline -- should be removed?

Most of the material in "areas of genetics" has been rendered obsolete by being mentioned within the article itself. Should we remove this section? Madeleine 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another question: Should the timeline be removed? (its removal was suggested in the review here: Wikipedia:Scientific_peer_review/Genetics ) Madeleine 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support removing it, and just linking to the other article. Hopefully this could be done in most articles. I think it was done in article on radio. Bulldog123 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've just removed it, since there's two in favor and none against. It can always be added back, if we change our minds... Madeleine 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mutation and Evolution" section added

Last part of the outline added. I know there's a ton of editors who care about the subject of evolution in wikipedia, you can hopefully correct or improve upon the section now that it's here. Madeleine 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Social misperceptions and oversimplifications of genetics

There's a new article started that might be of interest for geneticists (despite a rather wordy title): Social misperceptions and oversimplifications of genetics. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone seems interested, but I've now moved this article to Common misunderstandings of genetics. Also over-wordy, but a marked improvement. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Impromtu review

Some points I spotted on a closer reading of this article:

• Does the first sentence really need three references confirming the definition of genetics? Surely one is enough?
• "genes exist physically in the structure" - I get what you are trying to say here, but the wording comes across as clumsy. Make it clearer somehow that the structure of DNA is the physical bit, and explain how genes are related to that.
• Overall, the lead section should be longer, at least 3 or 4 paragraphs, and should contain a little bit of all the rest of the article.
• Personally I'm uncomfortable with the history section being as far down as it is. I'd be happier if the history section was the first section, or if the history aspects were spread throughout the article to form the narrative I mentioned elsewhere. Of course, you still have to have the detailed explanation sections, but when you mention specific events (research and people), it really helps to mention years to give the context and tell people when these things happened.
• Also, it might make more sense to have the DNA section first, as that is what most people will have heard of. Even in that section, you need to say a bit more about basic biochemistry and cell biology. Explain what a nucleic acid is, and stuff like that. Obviously not in too much detail, but enough so that people don't feel lost when reading this.
• Having re-read this now, I stand by my comment that the different sections need linking more. Try asking (and answering) questions like how does genetics relate to what we see around us? The link between DNA and the final product (a whole organism) is not explicitly made clear. You get as far as proteins, but how to you get from proteins to a whole organism? This would also make clearer why changes in genomes can lead to speciation. It would also help to give more examples of specific genes (even if only in model organisms) that have been studied and identified in whole or part with a particular trait. And in general give more examples. eg. Examples of inherited diseases; examples of genetic technologies.

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was following the example provided in Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines, providing a list of general references for the topic after the first sentence.
• "genes exist as linear sections of DNA" ?
• I can work on expanding the lead to cover all the article now covers.
• I can move it to the top. I was open to this suggestion earlier. I'm concerned that the history covers concepts that will be explained later in the article, but this will always be the case for any article with a history section. Also, the history section is currently flawed, it needs some more pre-Mendel and post-Watson-Crick material.
• I'm worried that covering DNA first neglects the more basic and approachable properties of inheritance and loses the reader. While people have heard all heard of "DNA" (which does get mentioned in the lead), the order people tend to learn how this stuff works (and not just "hear about it") is first in the basic observations, the Mendelian thing, and later in the molecular basis, the translation, the proteins, the biochemistry. By analogy, we've all heard about Einstein, but would you want to cover special relativity before covering the Newtonian approximation? In addition (and in parallel to this physics analogy), if you want this to at all match the historical narrative, the observations should precede the molecular basis.
• I could give more examples and expand some material. I'm trying to avoid being needlessly didactic, as I'm given to understand that wikipedia is not a textbook. Nevertheless, some material (genes -> whole organism) didn't get covered (I guess I'll start out with cellular differentiation, maybe taking off at the epigenetics section) and other stuff might benefit from expansion. It's not clear to me how genes -> whole organism would make speciation clear, as speciation results from the inability of organisms to produce viable offspring due to their genetic divergence — differences in whole-organism structure are more long term and general and not particularly related to speciation as I understand it. Dogs are all one species, while nematodes all look the same to me.

I've attempted a rewording to that phrase and I've moved the history. I'll plan on expanding the lead (although it should not be more than four paragraphs, according to WP:LEAD), and adding some material for cellular differentiation and development. I'll probably move mutation higher up so I can cover cancer along with differentiation / development. I think I'll place genetic technologies at the bottom, since they're necessarily a grab-bag of things that disrupt any narrative order. For now, I disagree with the idea of moving DNA to precede the properties of inheritance. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know on my talk page if you want me to read it again when you've finished. Carcharoth 10:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded. I've added more material, notably the entire "Gene expression and the creation of phenotype" section, which contains some examples of how changes to DNA sequence cause changes in organisms. Also a section on "Reproduction", although I wonder if this is wandering off topic. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the new material, and looked again at the overall article structure, and it looks good. It has addressed the problems I felt were there before, and it does bring people from the molecular stuff towards everyday stuff. The reproduction section does this as well, so I don't think that is off topic at all. The one thing I did spot was that the first paragraph of the lead takes the reader from selective breeding to Mendel, but doesn't make clear that the molecular basis of genetics was not uncovered until later (the article later mentions the 1910 work on chromosomes). Maybe something like "but the molecular basis of genetics was not determined until the 20th century."? Carcharoth 08:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I added this to the lead section. Would you be able to check/reference it? Carcharoth 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I thought maybe we could elaborate on when the physical basis of heredity was discovered, to make the timeline more clear? What do you think about the version here: User:Madprime/Draft ? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though you should probably mention Watson and Crick by name as you name Mendel. One nitpick. The sentence "Following the rediscovery of Mendel's observations in the early 1900s, the combination cell biology and classical genetics observations in the 1910s..." - I think you mean "combination of cell biology", and further, you need to explain what you mean by 'classical genetics' (is this Mendel or someone new?) and when 'cell biology' started. Was Mendel even aware of the cell? When did cell biology really get started? Carcharoth 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This "cell biology" thing was derived from the sentence you wrote: "Later work in the new science of cell biology revealed that in an organism's cell each gene exists as a linear section of a large molecule called DNA." I'm not sure what you meant by cell biology, but I assumed you were referring to the visual observation of chromosomes, since you mentioned it here -- I was trying to make the statement more correct: it wasn't the observation of chromosomes alone that led to the inference that genes resided on them, it was in combination of genetics observations. "Classical genetics" refers to pre-molecular genetics, although this could simply read "genetics". I wouldn't call the later experiments that implicated DNA "cell biology", I think they were more like biochemistry and X-ray crystallography. If you meant to use "new science of" to imply "cell biology" came after Mendel, I think this isn't accurate; the cell was first observed by Robert Hooke in 1663, far predating Mendel. I don't know if Mendel was aware of cells, but according to the cell theory page, scientists of the 1800s generally understood plants to be made of cells.

The naming of a discipline is a fuzzy thing and could be avoided entirely. The sentence could instead read: "Following the rediscovery of Mendel's observations in the early 1900s, the combination of microscopic and genetic observations in the 1910s yielded the first physical understanding of inheritance — that genes are arranged linearly along large cellular structures called chromosomes." Or it could more simply say: "Following the rediscovery of Mendel's observations in the early 1900s, research in 1910s yielded the first physical understanding of inheritance — that genes are arranged linearly along large cellular structures called chromosomes." Do you prefer either of these? I don't think we should get side-tracked into defining the discipline of cell biology here. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The phrase 'cell biology' is causing more trouble than it is worth. The phrase "genetic observations" is still a bit unclear, so the second phrasing might be better. Carcharoth 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia Article

Just a heads up: I'm starting work on a Simple English Wikipedia article on simple:Genetics. It's not going to be as in-depth as this one: I figure that Mendellian genetics, basic population genetics, genetics and evolution, and history is about the limit of an article for schoolchildren. I'm playing down DNA a little bit - with Simple English Wikipedia, it's usually best to delegate as much information you can to other articles, and there's simple:DNA for things like chromosomes. I'm also making necessary simplifications, but noting them in the notes and references.

Anyway, if anyone wants to help, please do! Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The {{nomorelinks}} template was boldly removed as violating policy--see discussion on that talk page, Template talk:NoMoreLinks. I modified it to conform, and reinserted it. Please discuss before changing again. DGG (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Template:NoMoreLinks is appropriate for this article. At present there is only one external link, so the addition of such a template seems like WP:OWN. If there were 20+ external links, addition of the template might warranted. Even if this article does have problems with commercial spamming (I don't know if it does or not), an effort should be made to put up 5+ legitimate links before adding this template. Forluvoft 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume this is WP:OWN. I wrote almost all of the current version of this article, but that template was placed here before I touched it (along with the removal of a bunch of links): [6]. I myself have placed the template on the Polymerase chain reaction article because it was repeatedly getting links inserted by biotech advertisers (sometimes to "tutorials", but it's still advertising!), but I haven't noticed that problem with this article. Is this violating policy, should it be modified, is there a better tag to discourage abuse of wikipedia by advertisers? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't mean to offend anyone. The article looks like the product of a lot of hard work! And I agree that many pages, especially those for biological assays, tend to attract dubious external links to commercial websites. But the way the article reads now, there is one external link and a warning to first discuss the inclusion of any further links. It just seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia to me, but maybe it could be lumped in with the idea of protected pages, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of any other solutions. It might be nice to have the template specifically warn that links to commercial sites that could be deemed as advertising will not be tolerated.

This is only my two cents. Forluvoft (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Code error?

Weird things happen with the "See Also" section of the article. Currently, it is three columns of 4 links each. However, when I right-click on one of the links (I was trying to open a link in a new tab), the list transforms to two columns of 8 links! This phenomenon only occurs when I right-click on a link in the middle column. My question: is this a coding error or something else? I use the latest version of Firefox, running with Windows Vista. I looked at the editing page but could not make much out of it, as I still don't know HTML or whatever code Wikipedia uses to write its articles.75.93.4.164 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really funny! I replaced the div codes with our col template. Now it seems to be ok. Thank you for the notice. NCurse _work 09:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)