Talk:Genomics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] External Link
The National Office of Public Health Genomics, CDC <http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/> This US government site provides updated information on how human genomic discoveries can be used to improve health and prevent disease. It provides insight into important segments of genomics such as Family History, Population Research, and Genetic Testing. Lid6 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)lid6
[edit] Misc
The comments about identity by descent (twins and other family members) should probably be moved to the "Genetics" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.152.196.157 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 September 2002.
- Note: There are two completely different ways that the similarity of genes of two individuals can be measured; identity by descent and identity by sequence. Identity by descent is determined by pedigree, while the other measures of similarity are based upon sequence similarity. Sequence similarity can be measured in a variety of ways, which will produce very different results. While I can't say how genomic similarities were measured for those examples in the article, it does seem that they were all measured in the same way...except that Gorilla should be closer to Human than Mouse. If I get around to it, I could make a table with different measurements of how "close" we are to various species. However, I'd probably ditch most of the data that already exists because most of these species have not had their genomes sequenced. I'll definitely keep Chimps. adam
I added a link to the PLOS primer on Comparative Genomics. Should that link be in the Comparative Genomics section, or at the end of the article with "External Links"? adam
A brief statement of how genomics differs from genetics might be helpful for people who have heard of genetics, but not genomics, and might otherwise assume they are synonyms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.102.74.128 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 June 2004.
Some figures in the table with relative genetic similarities of different species to humans are suspect. In general, the numbers sourced to "Americans for Medical Progress" are suspiciously high. Mouse should not be as similar to human as gorilla, etc. Given that this is an organization that promotes and defends animal-based research, their tendancy is probably toward inflated similarity between animals and humans. Someone who knows more about genomics than I do should find a more definitive source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cfs14 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 March 2006.
[edit] Growth of omics - dropping glycome
It is important to back up statements like that made about glycome with facts. Glycobiology is far and away the preferred term over glycomics. Glycome will perhaps gain in popularity over time but it is not a widely used term in the long running field of glycobiology and it's still a buzzword. To back this up with some numbers take a look at List_of_omics_topics_in_biology where I've done some information gathering on the prevalence of these and related terms in the published literature. I'm basing my statement not only on that (incomplete) piece of work, but also on personal scientific experience. Courtland 02:21, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
[edit] The comparison table
Should Clinton be considered a reliable scientific soure? How many articles did he published in Nature? How may lies did he mixed in his declarations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.56.231 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 October 2005.
- This whole table is on questionable standing, since it invites one to compare numbers that are really not comparable. Nonetheless, the statement that the DNA all humans is 99.9% alike is accurate, subject to certain definitions (see Talk:Human genome which includes what Clinton actually said). --Mike Lin 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The table has gotten enough critizism - I removed the section for now. // habj 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] But... I don't quite see where this article is going?
I'm glad someone took the trouble to write an entry for "genomics". But beyond the first two sections, the information in the article seems a bit randomly assembled.
Generally, a lot of the text in this article puzzles me. For instance it sais, regarding conserved sequence: "Experimental investigation of some of these sequences has shown that some are transcribed into small RNA molecules, although the functions of these RNAs were not immediately apparent." I don't get the point. What RNA are we talking about? What sequences? Of course, functional genes are usually transcribed into RNA (since this is what it means to be coding sequence), but I suppose you mean some third subgroup of conserved sequence, which is non-coding and non-regulatory (as far as is known), and which is then transcribed into some type of RNA of unknown function? Could you provide some sort of reference for the type of phenomenon you refer to?
I think you should get rid of the table too. It seems to be more anecdotal than scientific, judging from the sources, and some of the numbers make no sense at all. 35% genetic similarity between humans and daffodils, for instance? But the daffodil genome isn't fully sequenced, and in any case, how would you align those two genomes? Of course some basic pathways are present in both organisms (as in all eukaryotes, or indeed all organisms!) but a huge number of genes wouldn't even have homologues in the two, and then what would you align? I doubt this was intended as more than a snappy way of saying "all organisms are related"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MetteHHH (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2006.s
[edit] Rewrite of start of article
The opening of the article was unclear, and things had been added to it that was not really genomics. I rewrote the beginning of the article, based on two long articles in my encyclopaedia - which unfortunately is in Swedish. I use the web edition so I could link directly to the articles, but since it is in Swedish I am not sure that will be any good. It should be pretty easy to support the content with a source in English, then we maybe can replace it. // habj 09:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
