Talk:Macromutation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

"However beneficial macromutations have been known to occur. For example the addition of body segments among arthropods may be regarded as a macromutation."

Can you cite evidence that it actually is a macromutation? Or, taking two animals taxonomically closer together, the human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, the chimpanzee 24. Are the genomes the same except that the human is missing one pair? If so, one would expect humans to be occasionally born to chimps, as Down syndrome people are occasionally born to humans. -phma

• The genomes are not the same in the sense you suggest.--35.10.47.197 18:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] macromutation refers to genome or phenotype?

this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic.

I do not really know, but I think that the "large scale" of macromutations refers only to the phenotypic effect, rather than what´s happening on the genes. That means, the mutation is no molecularly different than one that causes the average minor phenotypic variations on the population. I think I´m right because simple mutations in hox genes are enough to cause the sort of drastic phenotypic changes mentioned on the article, and at the same time, large mutations at the molecular level, such as Robertsonian fusions might have no big phenotypic consequences.

But if it realy refers to something bigger happening with the genes themselves, I think it should be more specific; if not, it should be mentioned. If both happens, should be made explicit that what matters is the phenotypic effect. --Extremophile 03:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally it's referring to genes. However, a large change in phenotype can also be the result of only a small change in base pairs - maybe even just one. This isn't a 'true' macromutation, and it's important to distinguish the two types. Richard001 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)