Talk:Phenomics

Redirect to phenotype

For discussion, see Talk:Phenome. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

The way "phenomics" and (especially) "phenomes" are defined here, phenome is just used as a plural for phenotype. The C. elegans example could just as well be given in that article and what it is doing here is unclear. --Crusio (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed, now?

It's a pity that even a short, simple page like this can be source of controversy. I have tried to specify better the difference between phenotypes and phenomes. Actually the page presents a clear link to the definition of phenotype, so it is just telling the bare minimum, and rightly so. Please note also that the page says clearly that phenomics is concerned with phenomes AS THEY CHANGE. This makes it clearly distinct from a generic discipline of study of phenotypes. I believe the "disputed" banner should be removed by Crusio, whenever convinced. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.171.48 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

PhenomicDb

The PhenomicDb was referred by the Phenomics page. That is why I try to enrich the wikipedia knowledge with some info about the PhenomicDb database. The database is a free of charge and contains integrated data from publicly available primary databases. I do not understand what is the problem, and why you removed the PhenomicDb from the Phenomics wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenomicdb (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The systemic approach

I've seen there is a clear explanation of the difference between "phenome" and "phenotype" (by comparison with "genome" and "genotype"). What is missing here is the underlying systemic approach in phenomics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology; you'll see there references to "general systems theory"), meaning the view of an organism as a "dynamic system" (dynamic≈changing; sistem ≈a structural integrated "whole") entity which changes, modifies itself under the influence of the exterior factors in the scope of maintaining its internal stability (its "life"). Concerning the internal factors, don't forget a livig entity is, in fact, "a systems of systems" where are the decreasing complexity levels:

   the medical systems (nervous, locomotor etc.)
   the organs (heart, liver, brain etc.)
   the organ components (cerebelum, etc)
   ...
   the cell
   ...
   the atoms
   ...
   the fundamental "bricks" of universe,

and everyone of these sub-systemes, at its own level (biology, chemistry, physics), acts as a dynamic system!
As regards the relation between "phenome" and "phenotype", I think the "phenotype" is the static (at a certain point of time) expression of the "phenome".
So, I think the page must be maintained and improved with the systemic approach.Gillcv (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Phenotype is not necessarily static. There have been genetic analyses of phenotypes like changes during development (weight gain, for example). And, of course, a phenotype is the totality of observable characteristics of an organism. That obviously includes dynamic aspects. --Crusio (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)