Talk:Dominance relationship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dominance relationship has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The first Punnett Square on this page doesn't look right at all. Could someone have mixed up the values? -- bdesham
- No replies, so I'm fixing it myself. -- bdesham
"For these examples, the homozygous traits are more serious than the heterozygous trait. In fact, carriers of SCA are better off!" - I'll attack this bit later on, unless someone else gets there before me. Need to explain why SCA carriers have an advantage... Nick04 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The section on co-dominance and the molecular mechanisms for dominance is sketchy. I don't know enough to fill it out but this would be helpful! Zrenneh 21:11 GMT, 24 Jan 2005
Co-dominance is just an extreme form of incomplete dominance (??)
Contents |
[edit] Footnotes
The two notes at the bottom are not keyed to anything. Please determine where the referent numbers should go (I couldn't be sure) and fix the footnote tagging (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) --Samwisebruce 23:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- The text to which the footnotes refer was deleted by User:Axl on 31JAN05. I have no knowledge of the subject matter, (but there is a note questioning it, above) so I've deleted the footnotes until someone more knowledgeable comes along. Noisy | Talk 09:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV section
As a side note, some schools of thought believe that the gene labeled properly here as R' should be labled r. This school of thought, although at one time prevelant, is now known to be completely backward. This notion implies a completly false premise. The proprieters of this school of thought, notably Meg Ropski, are slowly converting to the right notation.
This section has a strong non-Neutral Point of View. Until why this notation is "backward" etc can be cited it should be removed. Debivort 16:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merging and rename
The article page says that there is discussion of merging this article with various other articles, and refers to this talk page. There is no discussion here, so I'll just make a little comment: alleles are not dominant or recessive; traits associated with alleles are dominant of recessive. It's a subtle distinction, but can eliminate some confusion down the road. Otherwise, without looking at dominant allele or recessive allele, I say they are two sides of the same coin and should just point to this article. Likewise, autosomal dominant really addresses two issues (sex chromosomes, and dominance) and I don't think it makes a good article. It should just point this article and/or one about sex chromosomes. AdamRetchless 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is extremely badly named. how do we find our way from all the other similar sections? I think either a merge or some sort of disambiguation page is in order. PLEASEEEEEE! --Manboobies 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- This article is correctly named. The merge will happen as soon as somebody takes the task. I've made a start, but a little help or at least recognition goes a long way. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've noticed this little poorly designed section of Wikipedia several times in my editing. It would be nice to have a good page to link autosomal dominant, recessive, etc. to. I would take up the merge but there's far too many pages to automatically link. I agree with all of the merge icons, though! InvictaHOG 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agree but any merge would ideally need links from other articles pointing to the merged articles to point towards the relevant section in this article. At the moment that is approximately 170 for Autosomal dominant, 7 for Dominant allele, 120 for Recessive gene, 50 for Dominant gene. If a bot owner could be persuaded to relink all these it would make the job a lot simpler. --apers0n 11:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- A redirect~section on each of the merged articles would lead links to the article and section without breaking any links, the double link could probably be fixed by a general purpose bot later Leevanjackson 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, but we need to make sure not to sacrifice the content of each of the articles when we merge four or five of them just to make them shorter. I, as a layperson foreign to this field, know little on the subject and need that little bit of extra information on each topic. Valley2city 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about renaming to Inheritance of dominant and recessive traits instead of "dominance relationship" upon merge of autosomal dominant,dominant allele,dominant gene and recessive allele. "Dominance relationship" sounds more like interpersonal psychology that genetics. Dr d12 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would exclude co-dominance, partial dominance, genetic maternal effects, etc. It is whaat dominance/recessive/partial dominance is known as. I suspect most people would be led to the article through redirection from dominant allele, recessive trait, or others. I see no need for a change. Genetics411 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need evidence to list traits
I think the list of traits that are governed by simple dominant/recessive relationships is sloppy. I understand it's appeal to the lay-person, but I suspect that many items in that list are over-simplified if not wrong. It may be best to erase the whole list until we can link to a good reference describing the genetics of the traits in question (in Wikipedia or externally). AdamRetchless 02:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please mention information on muliple polyploidic organisms... I would write an article but am affraid my technical knowledge is not up to par- not to mention spelling abilities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.242.55 (talk • contribs).
[edit] New categories?
Rather than having endless lists in this article with dominant and recessive disorders/conditions, what about creating new categories Category:Autosomal recessive disorders and Category:Autosomal dominant disorders, perhaps even Category:X-linked disorders? Or else move the lists to a list of dominant and recessive disorders article. --apers0n 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I completely agree. Those categories would be just the trick.
- Creating categories would mean they would all have to have an entry in Wikipedia. Most are too trivial. They, of course, also show a human bias. High school science reports not withstanding, they could probably simply be deleted. Genetics411 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most (or all) of the information under
- "3.4 Genetic diseases can also be carried by dominant or recessive alleles"
and - "3.5 Some genetic diseases inherited as autosomal dominant traits"
- Is convered quite nicely in two other wiki articles Genetic disorder and List of genetic disorders
- I am deleting 3.4 and 3.5 from this article and pasting it into the talk pages of Genetic disorder and List of genetic disorders in case they want to incorporate anything they might have missed.
- I don't see "3.2 Human traits governed by simple dominance" covered elsewhere, so it is now a section in Human genetics Dr d12 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)dr_d12
