Talk:Genetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia CD Selection Genetics is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Paleogenetics

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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.

[edit] Non-mendelian inheritance controversy

Did anyone read/hear about this really odd Arabidopsis genetics paper in Nature last year Entrez PubMed 15785770? There is a really recent paper along the same lines on mice Entrez PubMed 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)

[edit] embryology

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

[edit] 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. – —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.5.35 (talk • contribs).

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hi

why does ask jeeves suck??????

[edit] 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).

[edit] hjyhjyy

yhtryhtrhtr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.41.239 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGenetics_ad0c.html"