Talk:LINE1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Czelinka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

moved out of unassessed on the genetics project

1/17/17 DennisPietras (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Disease

I believe some hemophilia A diseases are also called by L1 integration. Perhaps the main article could mention this?

I do not have a good source to cite for it, only read that in a somewhat old textbook. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:1535:595B:9280:DF61 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect facts reported on December 16th, 2023

There are inaccurate set of facts reported during the recent edits made on Dec 16th, 2023 under the section Structure/ORF2. Please see below for details.

"The second ORF of L1 encodes a protein that has endonuclease and reverse transcriptase activity. The encoded protein has a molecular weight of 150 kDa. The structure of the ORF2 protein was solved in 2023."

- this is correct information but there are citations missing after 2023. The most important one missing is the correct structure of the full length protein on DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06933-5.

"Its reverse-transcriptase core contains two domains with previously-unknown functions, termed "tower" and "wrist" in line with the "palm" reverse-transcriptase analogy. It also has a C-terminal domain.

- the terminology "tower" and "wrist" is not accepted by most of the field. Please delete these terminologies.

"Unlike viral RTs, L1 ORF2p can be primed by RNA, including RNA hairpin primers produced by the Alu element.

- This is ok and the reference [16] cited here is correct.

"A single ORF2p is probably sufficient to copy the whole LINE1 element."

- this statement has already been proven wrong very comprehensively by a paper that got published next to the one cited here. Please remove this statement as it is not correct.

I tried to make these changes myself but another member of the edit community did not allow my changes to remain there. Line1wiki (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That the paper you wrote does not also appear in this article is not an error, and logging out to add yourself does not resolve your conflict of interest problem. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If I cannot add the right articles, I will be deleting the incorrect statements from the page. Line1wiki (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm (Arthur Zalevsky) a co-author of one of the papers in question (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06947-z). I've noticed that the wiki reference on our Altmetric page was going on/off and ended up in this thread. @MrOllie why do you keep deleting references to our and Thawani et al. papers? Both our groups independently resolved ORF2p structures for the first time and it was indeed a long-awaited breakthrough for the whole LINE1 field.

P.S. Just to make it clear, according to the log, the reference to our paper was first added on December 16th (two days after the publication) by user @Artoria2e5 who is not affiliated with anyone from our team. You can also check my account - it's almost decade old and i had never used any other or anonymous accounts to suggest edits. Aozalevsky (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete the citation to the Baldwin paper - the Thawani citespammer did that after they were not permitted to self-promote on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Arthur @Aozalevsky, I'm Akanksha Thawani. I'd like to mention that only one of the two articles, the one from your group, was cited for a long time, deliberately leaving out our long-sought work also published with yours. Also, no consensus was reported in the paragraph in question, and instead a few statements that are already contradicted not only by the data from our work but also a other works in the field. I'm sure you do not want your work to be incorrectly represented either.

I had wanted to add both articles to correct this overlooking but that seemed to not be permitted by @MrOllie, who presumed I was spamming instead.

I'm glad you stepped in, and I would like to resolve this. I concur that both articles should be cited and the consensus between the two works reported on this wiki page. As I understand the rules according to @MrOllie say that I cannot add my article and you cannot add yours. One solution is we each correctly add the other work and edit to report the facts that match the two works that have been long sought in the field. Please let me know if all parties involved are happy with this scenario. If not, please recommend another resolution.

Akanksha 2607:F140:400:11F:35E8:7670:8851:C8B2 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A Quid pro quo arrangement is just as much a violation of the relevant policies as spamming yourself (and you absolutely were spamming yourself on multiple articles). MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that I personally have nothing to do with the Baldwin people. By pure luck I happened upon Baldwin's paper summary with video on Twitter and thought it looked cool. It's also not only [...] cited for a long time, because my edit only predated Line1wiki's edit by 16 days.

The current situation is not great for any party involved: right now we have a description of ORF2 structure WITH NO CITATION AT ALL. The Thawani paper is very likely also worth mentioning, but someone other than you (or suspected sockpuppets) should be doing the adding. I don't have the time for it right now; maybe in 12 hours. Sockpuppetry is a serious offense, don't do it. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)