Talk:Genetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Genetics is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Comments on images

Morgan's historical diagram of fruit-fly sex-linked genes was changed [1] to a more modern info-dense diagram that I find harder to read — since this is in the historical section, I think preference should be given to the historical image. But because I don't want to "own" the page, I'll just leave my comment here -- if anyone agrees with me, please go ahead and change it back.

The header DNA picture was also changed to something "more pretty" [2] ... I had chosen the one I did because this prettier picture has been criticized as being inaccurate (DNA does not actually have those two spiraling rods on either side). However, since this is also the lead image to the DNA article, it's obviously not a big deal. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with both of these comments, but I am no expert. But I do favor simpler diagrams if at all possible, at least in overview articles. If there is a reason to put a more information dense figure in Wikipedia, put it in one of the subsiduary daughter articles that can accommodate more advanced topics.--Filll (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

  • Can some of the images go to the left?
  • Could you mention the high mutation rates in RNA replication compared to DNA.

This article is close to FA and this was one of the easiest GAs I've done. Another Wikipedia treasure. I loved the images. Well done.--GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I should have done this a long time ago.  :)
About the images, I guess I was worried about ending up with "sandwiched" text. I've moved some images to the left now, people can move them back or around or whatever as they please ... I'll read up on RNA replication and figure out how to add it. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
...did you mean transcription? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Madeleine, no I was thinking about viruses, RNA viruses. They are highly mutable because RNA polymerases do not have the 3' and 5' error correcting, (proof-reading), exo and endonucleases. Hence the high mutaion rate in HIV for example. I recall, but must check, that the error rate in RNA replication is about one base in every 10,000, whereas in DNA the error rate is one in around ten million. I just thought that an FA ready article on genetics should have a couple of sentences about this. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... HIV is a retrovirus, so that's going to be the error rates for Reverse Transcriptase and transcription combined. There are also RNA-dependent RNA polymerases, used by polio virus. It looks like the error rate for RDRPs is basically the same as DNA polymerase without proofreading exonuclease, 10e-4 to 10e-5. (from: [3], search on "error rate") Reverse transcriptase and RNA polymerase also seem to have this error rate. Maybe a general comment on proofreading would be good, and then an aside saying "many viruses use DNA and RNA polymerases that lack proofreading and consequently have increased mutation rates". Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've got it, but it's only really RNA viral polymerases, that lack the proofreading. Herpes (DNA) viruses are relatively stable and ancient. HIV, Hepatitis C virus are rampantly mutable RNA viruses. (But don't put this in the article - no need). Incidently, the Taq DNA polymerase used in PCR also does not proofread, which is why DNA base sequencing results need to be confirmed. (Again don't put this in). The article just needs a bit about proof-reading and RNA viruses. You should consider nominating Genetics for Featured Article. It still needs a little work, but it is closer than many that are currently in the queue, (?can't spell that?). Also as you are clearly and expert geneticist, I suggest a PubMed search on Reanney D. RNA (fascinating stuff about segmented genomes, errors, genetic noise and so forth) -. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AIUI, there's also reverse transcribing viruses with a DNA genome? So I think it's best to just leave it as "many viruses". I'll definitely move towards nominating this for FA, it's really encouraging to have such a positive review. Many thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes of course, Hepatitis B virus is an RT virus with a DNA genome. :)--GrahamColmTalk 11:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOS issues

Thanks for the quick attention to the MoS issues; this is a bigger one. See Wikipedia:MOS#Italics, specifically the "words as words" section. This article has a pervasive overuse of quotes for "words as words"; most of the quotes aren't needed, some of them should be italics, all need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in accessdates: is the article using Retrived on or accessed? Is it linking dates or is it not? Most use Retrieved on, some say accessed. Most dates are linked, a few or not. Some use full dates, some use ISO. See crit 2c, consistent citation style, samples:

^ Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-273180
^ genetics, n., Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. Accessed 2008-03-16.

MANY URL's in the article have no last access date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! It's late here; I'll work on fixing the citations tomorrow. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
no hurry, I've got more :-))

This is awkward and clunky, makes editing hard, and slows down load time, example:

^ a b A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 3 (Chromosomal Basis of Heredity): Mendelian genetics in eukaryotic life cycles
^ A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 2 (Patterns of Inheritance): Sex chromosomes and sex-linked inheritance
^ A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 7 (Gene Transfer in Bacteria and Their Viruses): Bacterial conjugation
^ A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 7 (Gene Transfer in Bacteria and Their Viruses): Bacterial transformation
^ A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 5 (Basic Eukaryotic Chromosome Mapping): Nature of crossing-over
^ A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. Chapter 5 (Basic Eukaryotic Chromosome Mapping): Linkage maps

You can significantly improve the editability of the article and the readability of the sources by listing the basic info on the book once at the top of the References section:

A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller, D.T. Suzuki, R.C. Lewontin, and W.M. Gelbart (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-3520-2.

and then shortening every footnote thusly:

^ a b Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 3 (Chromosomal Basis of Heredity): Mendelian genetics in eukaryotic life cycles
^ Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 2 (Patterns of Inheritance): Sex chromosomes and sex-linked inheritance
^ Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 7 (Gene Transfer in Bacteria and Their Viruses): Bacterial conjugation
^ Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 7 (Gene Transfer in Bacteria and Their Viruses): Bacterial transformation
^ Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 5 (Basic Eukaryotic Chromosome Mapping): Nature of crossing-over
^ Griffiths et al (2000), Chapter 5 (Basic Eukaryotic Chromosome Mapping): Linkage maps

Doing this will also decrease the article size and hence improve the load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done That shaved 4KB off of the refs, makes it easier to get around in the article to edit, and makes the footnotes much more readable. The book chapters, accessed online, are missing retrieval dates, but you can probably argue that they are just convenience links; clicking on each one of them to verify an accessdate was more work than I wanted to undertake :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help! I've learned a lot too, so hopefully I won't make as many mistakes in the future. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetically-Modified (GM) Food

While it's true that the article should try to encompass all things related to genetics, I feel the added section was problematic: it's too specific, it's using a lot of political phrases ("agribusiness") rather than scientific ones, and it's off topic—eg. arguments regarding potential global food shortage. The current article does mention and link to genetically modified organisms and could probably benefit from another sentence or two on that topic, but I feel it should be scientifically descriptive rather than describing the politics of the issue. The politics of GMOs belongs on the GMO page, not the Genetics page.

That's not quite true, though -- social implications / politics related to the science of genetics is a whole high level topic the page could benefit from having, but it would need to also include other things like eugenics and maybe evolution... maybe best to start by making a separate article first and then, once it seems broad enough in coverage, summarize it here. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the content you cut was very out of place in this article. The paragraph said nothing in the context of genetics. In the section titled 'research techniques' GMO's are mentioned and linked to in the context of genetics though, so it seems it might be redundant too. David D. (Talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree too; it doesn't belong here. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New gene expression paragraph

What is the need for this new paragraph added to the gene expression section: [4] ? I don't understand what need it's addressing. It's introducing a lot of jargon and is redundant with the later information. I'd like to know the reason for the addition? -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, it was redundant and confusing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sedgwick?

The article says, "The word genetics itself was coined in 1905 by William Bateson, a proponent of Mendel's work, in a letter to Adam Sedgwick." But if you click on Adam Sedgwick you will read that he died in 1873. Somehow I doubt that Bateson was writing to a guy who'd been dead for over 30 years. NCdave (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The William Bateson article further confuses things by referring to an unlinked "Alan Sedgwick". Alternatively, perhaps Bateson was a secret spiritualist and was trying an unorthodox approach to contact Adam Sedgwick?  ;-) Anyway, looks like there's some digging around to be done to resolve this one. --Plumbago (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! I'm not sure whether the guys name was "Adam" or "Alan". "Adam" was used in this 1998 paper [5] but the site hosting the letter itself [6] names him as "Alan". Either way, it's obviously a different guy from the linked one (maybe a relative?), and not very famous, so I've removed reference to the name. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)