Talk:Retrotransposon
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 within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Because this area is still developing, estimates for various statistics are likely to change. Right now, I'm adding {{fact}} for all statistics. I don't dispute them, but I do think it is important to cite them. Later, I'll fill in when I can easily find numbers, but I fully expect them to be out-of-date and encourage you to find better ones (along with their citation).
Contents |
[edit] Source for statement?
"This translates to millions of elements, so that on average, every gene in our genome contains around 3 retrotransposons."
This statement doesn't make sense as written, and lacks a source. Anyone have an idea where it came from? Agathman (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Difference between Retrotransposon#LTR_retrotransposons and endogenous retrovirus?
I've heard a version where retrotransposons containing LTR and endogenous retroviruses are one and the same thing. Personally I can't see the difference. I would appreciate if somebody make the difference clear in the text, or write that they are the same thing.Mortsggah 07:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Retroposon
LINEs are not "LTR-retrotransposons"- this is a misconception brought on from one researcher being too incompetent to properly review the literature about his own field of study- then people repeating it because this particular researcher was arrogant enough for other people to believe him. Anyone who continues this misconception should be shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.236.124 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
i love retrotransposons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.75.129 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] portion of the human genome composed of retrotransposons
I'm reading here that roughly 17 percent of the human genome is composed of retrotransposons, not 42%. Can someone check me on this?
Source: Purves et al. Life: the science of Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA 2004.
Greenchilefrog 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Lander et al. (2001) reference cited by this article claims that "about half of the human genome derives from transposable elements". Specifically, [figure 17] in this publication indicates that the actual fraction is 45%, and "DNA transposable fossils" contribute 3% toward that figure. This substantiates the 42% retrotransposon fraction.
- SteveChervitzTrutane 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The 17% figure comes from the portion of the genome composed of LINE-1 retroelements, the reverse transcriptase/endonuclease protein of which is responsible for the retrotransposition of the non-autonomous classes (Alu, SVA) which are responsible for another large portion of the genome. In combination the figure is probably something like 42%. 69.139.19.169 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
