Talk:Rhesus Macaque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Rhesus Macaque is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Macaque / human DNA difference

The article currently says humans and macaques share about 93% of their DNA sequence. The BBC report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6550865.stm says rhesus macaque, chimp and humans share about 97.5% of the same genes and, following the link to Science, I found The average 3% difference between macaque and human genes... in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/216

I've asked on User talk:Warbola if he has a reference for the 93% but it looks like it should be 97%. --Cavrdg 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

LA Times: [1] Macaques and humans share about 93% of their genetic information

Louisiana State University :[2]The rhesus macaque ... still shares about 93 percent of its genome sequence with humans.

VOA News: [3] The macaque genome agrees with the human genome 93 percent, according to Gibbs

National Human Genome Research Institute:[4] Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human

Monkeys In The News: [5] Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 percent to 95 percent of its sequence with humans

Innovations Report, Germany: [6] Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human (Homo sapiens) and more than 98 percent with the chimpanzee.

About the 97.5% in BBC news: Not sure, but it talks about sharing genes, which does not sound same thing to me as sharing genome sequences. Warbola 06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Washington Post has about 97.5 percent similar to those of chimps and humans but I think the nearest thing we have to an original source is the press release from the Human Genome Sequencing Center which has The macaque genome differs by approximately seven percent from that of humans, while chimpanzees are just one to two percent different. I'll add the link to the press release to the article as a reference.--Cavrdg 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The most authoritative source is the Science report itself, although that may require a certain amount of interpretation. According to [7]Science, 13 April 2007, 316(5822);222 - 234, DOI: 10.1126/science.1139247, Research Articles: Evolutionary and Biomedical Insights from the Rhesus Macaque Genome [free], the chimpanzee "alignable sequence" is 1-2% different from human, while the human-macaque sequence identity is ~93%.

(I think all the rhesus macaque genome stories are free on the web.)

I think there are different ways of comparing DNA sequences. Before the days of sequencing entire genomes, they used to mix the different DNAs and measure the hybridization. Now with sequenced species they can line up the actual DNA sequences on computer and compare -- but not all differences are functionally significant. Some coding DNA differences produce the same peptide, while others produce different peptides. Some peptide differences are functionally different, while others don't matter. If a DNA coding sequence in a macaque and a different DNA coding sequence in a human produce the same peptide sequence and presumably the same protein, do you count the DNA sequence as different even though the protein is the same? Or if one peptide is different, but the protein is functionally identical, like insulin, do you count the DNA sequence as different? Suppose 95% of the genes are identical, but 93% of the DNA sequence is identical, including the junk DNA. Which number do you use?

I'd go with 93%, unless somebody comes along who knows better. Nbauman 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rhesus macaque

Rhesus macaque is the accepted common name for Macaca mulata and generally should not, I believe, be capitalized. Rbogle 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BIRD (which is referenced by WP:PRIM) for the reason capitals should be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the lack of need for initial caps. Names of species aren't proper nouns. One doesn't write Cow but cow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the standard for the articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. Please read the section in WP:BIRD so that you can be informed instead of making comments out of ignorance. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] average age

could someone clarify average life expectancy captive and wild. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/211.shtml reports wild average life expectancy is about 4 years, with 30 years being peak captivity age, pretty big discrepancy, so if possible, the average age in this article should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.42.1 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)