Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Latest comment: 2 days ago by XOR'easter in topic Source evaluation requested at Promoter (genetics)

Welcome to the WikiProject Molecular Biology talk page. Please post any comments, suggestions or questions. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

WikiProject Molecular Biology Archives: 1, 2, 3

Taskforce archives:

MCB: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Genetics: 1, 2, 3, 4
Computational Biology: 1, 2
Gene Wiki: 1, 2, 3, 4

Biophysics (inactive): 1, 2
Metabolic Pathways (inactive): 1
Cell Signaling (inactive): 1
RNA (inactive): 1

Appropriate template for gene/protein synonyms

edit

Recently I made some protein or gene (article about protein with title being gene descriptor) synonymous names redirects, and I wonder what would be the appropriate "R from..." tracking category template. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@InternetowyGołąb We have alternatives like {{R from acronym}} and {{R from initialism}} as well as the tracking Category {{R from alternative name}} I see you have used for NAXE. The template pages give guidance on which to use: in some cases more than one is appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Atavism: Real or psuedoscience?

edit

Folks - quick question because I'm not a biologist or scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Is Atavism real or is this a psuedoscience article that has evaded detection? There appears to be a lot of synthesis or original research.--57.140.108.63 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Atavism seems to be a legitimate concept but it wouldn't surprise me if it's sometimes used by fringe claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since it is tagged with {{Original research}}, it does look like the article needs to be bolstered with citations. Peaceray (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Possibly a bit of both. A Google Scholar search for "atavism" in article titles gives over 100 hits since the year 2010, of which this article is a reasonable review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:3α-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase#Requested_move_9_April_2024

edit
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:3α-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase#Requested_move_9_April_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

MID gene

edit

Just a quick question is there any articles about a gene in particular? I’m talking about a gene called MID (minus dominance). There does seem to be a lot of sources about this gene from:

here

here

here

Just asking to make sure it doesn’t go by a different name or something. I’m also wondering if genes here on Wikipedia have a certain style or policies.

Also I am bringing this up to see what y’all think about there being an article on this gene. When researching the evolution of sexes and mating types I noticed a lot of sources keep mentioning this gene.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia intended for a diverse audience. There are 25,000 genes in the human genome and something close to one million different different genes in the biosphere. We do not need to have a separate Wikipedia article for each gene.
But there's another problem that just as important. Any article on an individual genes is certainly going to bring up the definition of a gene and important issues such as regulation, evolution, and alternative splicing. It is proving to be very difficult to get individual editors to stick to the definitions and descriptions of these features that have been thrashed out in the articles specific to those topics. This leads to a lot of confusion and conflict so we should be very cautious about creating any new molecular biology articles unless they are absolutely necessary. Genome42 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello.

Mitochondrial fatty acid synthesis (mtFASII) is not yet well incorporated into the lipid-related articles or is completely missing in some of them. Therefore I ask for your help.

Could someone revise the introductory section of fatty acid synthesis? It should be clearer and earlier in the text that there are 2 different fatty acid syntheses in humans, cytosolic fatty acid synthesis (FASI) and mitochondrial fatty acid synthesis (mtFASII). The other sections of the article are also not quite coherent, you can simply see that the article was written with the knowledge that fatty acid synthesis only takes place in the cytosol.

In the articles on fatty acid and lipid metabolism, mitochondrial fatty acid synthesis is completely missing. Abvdj (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding fatty acyl-CoA esters

edit

Hey there! I've been working on adding sources to the article fatty acyl-CoA esters, but since I haven't much expertise in the subject area, I'd like to get some clarification -- in particular, what's the relation between these esters and acyl-CoA itself? It seems the same process of beta-synthesis in mitochondrial metabolism is described in each. Thanks! DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

My impression is that they are the same thing, with Fatty acyl-CoA esters having a much more confusing name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... if that's the case, then perhaps the page should be merged. I'll put in a merge proposal and see if it can't get consensus. Thanks! DeemDeem52 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Ketone bodies#Requested move 25 May 2024

edit
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ketone bodies#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source evaluation requested at Promoter (genetics)

edit

Over at WikiProject Mathematics, we ran into a citation-spamming issue, where references to a substandard book were inserted by a COI editor. The statements being spammed with these citations were, variously, summaries that didn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, already supported by other references, or not actually supported by the spam reference. The article Promoter (genetics) may also have been affected. It would greatly help if a subject-matter specialist could evaluate the two sources (cited a total of seven times between them) co-authored by P. Gagniuc. Are the claims accurate and worth the words spent on them? Should the statements in question be cited to textbooks instead? XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply