This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BRCA1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hypertechnical, not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.147.73 ( talk) 18:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Some text in this article was originally taken from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=brca1 (public domain)
I altered this article by adding "faulty" into the sentence "Women and men who inherit a copy of this gene...". This is because it is not the gene which causes an increased risk of cancer, but the presence of a faulty copy of the gene. A faulty copy means the gene's tumour-suppressing abilities cannot be expressed.
It is good that at least a stub is present on the BRCA genes. However, it would be best if both of these were extensively modified. As a first pass, I'd like to see the following: 1. Differential between genetic/familial breast csncers in age of onset (BRCA mutations are far more common in early onset disease) 2. Discussion of associated risks including recurrence on the other side, risks to males carrying mutations, and risks to first degree relatives. 3. Discussion of other cancers at increased risk in BRCA mutaion carriers 4. discussion of differences in clinical presentation of BRCA1 vs BRCA2 carriers 5. Increased prevalence of mutations in Ashkenazi jews This is not my specific field, and it would be great for a specialist to edit these.
Anyone have any thoughts on how/if we should merge the existing infobox with the one generated using the ProteinBoxBot (shown at right)?
An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox
AndrewGNF 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
JAMA - Hispanics in Northern California have a lot of BRCA1. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to a forward article, those Hispanics are descendents of conversos who fled the Spanish Inquisition. Further, it refers to BCRA1 is a Jewish marker. See http://www.forward.com/articles/how-do-sephardic-jews-figure-into-the-genetic-equa/ Mulp ( talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The prevalence rates in different parts of the world, and among different ethnicities, should be stated on the article. F W Nietzsche ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that section be turned into a table? E.g. BRCA1 is know to interact with a number of molecules. They are: etc... Calaka ( talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This article would be easier to read and edit if we move this list of interactions (and their many references) to a separate article (BRCA1 interactions ?) ? Rod57 ( talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A general discussion of this topic is found at: Portal:Gene_Wiki/Discussion#Split_out_Interactions. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a lump behind my nipple which very painful itchy, and leaking substance. I have already had 1 course of antibiotics and it hasnt cleared, could this be just an abyss or breast cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazzies123 ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am contemplating creating something like that for following purposes:
Thoughts? Richiez ( talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Frank Ryan claims in Virolution, p. 142, that endogenous retroviral sequences help in the expression of BRCA-1 (and other human genes). Supposedly demonstrated by a Roy J Britten in 1996. Not sure if this useful in this context, though.
I am adjusting the wording in the 3rd paragraph of the "Effect on Gene Testing" section because it is lacking depth and, more importantly, citations.
The old paragraph read:
The new Paragraph will read:
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
just a heads up... there are way too many primary science papers used as sources for this article. It looks like a scientific review article instead of a wikipedia article. As per WP:PSTS secondary and tertiary sources are "go to" - primary sources are "to be avoided". I am going to try to scrape together some time to properly source this doggy. Jytdog ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the Interactions list would look better without commas at the end, see Manual of Style for bulleted lists, if the items on the bulleted list aren't sentences then they aren't necessary Mightyhansa ( talk) 23:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of style, list items should ... not have final punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences.The entire interaction list is a complete sentence (albeit a very long one). Also per Bulleted Lists, it is traditional to include a comma at the end of each fragment of a bulleted list. Boghog ( talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
unless they consist of complete sentences. The entire interaction list is a complete sentence. Boghog ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
unless they consist of complete sentences, but this is refering to
list items. The individual items in this list are not complete sentences, just abbreviations, ergo, they don't need to have final punctuation. In the same section of the MOS, the examples provided also do not have final punctuation. Mightyhansa ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The introduction states BRCA1 is a proto-oncogene. To my knowledge however it is a tumor suppressor gene. This is also stated in the german version of this article.
A proto oncogen is defined as inducing tumor when activated. A tumor suppressor gene is preventing tumorigenesis as long as it is active.
Can anyone else comment on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.54 ( talk) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#brcaexchange.org -- Jytdog ( talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The UniProt database on P38398_1 (see ref. 28) states:"Mutations in BRCA1 are thought to be responsible for 45% of inherited breast cancer. Moreover, BRCA1 carriers have a 4-fold increased risk of colon cancer, whereas male carriers face a 3-fold increased risk of prostate cancer." The range given in the graphic is 50% to 65% (for females). It should be OBVIOUS that if 45% of *inherited* BC is caused by inherited BRCA1 mutations, then it is simply *impossible* that the entire "absolute risk" is greater. (Males' risk is 1/800 and can be ignored here). It's a huge flaw that the graphic mentions ovarian cancer but ignores colorectal cancer (4th most common, 2nd most fatal). (Uterine and pancreatic cancers are 8th & 9th in frequency (US Data)). The basic problem I have with the graphic is that there's likely to be 100's or 1000's of gene variants, some of which will be very dangerous, some of which may be protective. That is, the range of absolute risk should include 0% (and relative risk possibly negative). I think the current graphic should be removed and a better one used, if one can be found. 40.142.183.146 ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BRCA1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hypertechnical, not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.147.73 ( talk) 18:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Some text in this article was originally taken from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=brca1 (public domain)
I altered this article by adding "faulty" into the sentence "Women and men who inherit a copy of this gene...". This is because it is not the gene which causes an increased risk of cancer, but the presence of a faulty copy of the gene. A faulty copy means the gene's tumour-suppressing abilities cannot be expressed.
It is good that at least a stub is present on the BRCA genes. However, it would be best if both of these were extensively modified. As a first pass, I'd like to see the following: 1. Differential between genetic/familial breast csncers in age of onset (BRCA mutations are far more common in early onset disease) 2. Discussion of associated risks including recurrence on the other side, risks to males carrying mutations, and risks to first degree relatives. 3. Discussion of other cancers at increased risk in BRCA mutaion carriers 4. discussion of differences in clinical presentation of BRCA1 vs BRCA2 carriers 5. Increased prevalence of mutations in Ashkenazi jews This is not my specific field, and it would be great for a specialist to edit these.
Anyone have any thoughts on how/if we should merge the existing infobox with the one generated using the ProteinBoxBot (shown at right)?
An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox
AndrewGNF 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
JAMA - Hispanics in Northern California have a lot of BRCA1. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to a forward article, those Hispanics are descendents of conversos who fled the Spanish Inquisition. Further, it refers to BCRA1 is a Jewish marker. See http://www.forward.com/articles/how-do-sephardic-jews-figure-into-the-genetic-equa/ Mulp ( talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The prevalence rates in different parts of the world, and among different ethnicities, should be stated on the article. F W Nietzsche ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that section be turned into a table? E.g. BRCA1 is know to interact with a number of molecules. They are: etc... Calaka ( talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This article would be easier to read and edit if we move this list of interactions (and their many references) to a separate article (BRCA1 interactions ?) ? Rod57 ( talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A general discussion of this topic is found at: Portal:Gene_Wiki/Discussion#Split_out_Interactions. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a lump behind my nipple which very painful itchy, and leaking substance. I have already had 1 course of antibiotics and it hasnt cleared, could this be just an abyss or breast cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazzies123 ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am contemplating creating something like that for following purposes:
Thoughts? Richiez ( talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Frank Ryan claims in Virolution, p. 142, that endogenous retroviral sequences help in the expression of BRCA-1 (and other human genes). Supposedly demonstrated by a Roy J Britten in 1996. Not sure if this useful in this context, though.
I am adjusting the wording in the 3rd paragraph of the "Effect on Gene Testing" section because it is lacking depth and, more importantly, citations.
The old paragraph read:
The new Paragraph will read:
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
just a heads up... there are way too many primary science papers used as sources for this article. It looks like a scientific review article instead of a wikipedia article. As per WP:PSTS secondary and tertiary sources are "go to" - primary sources are "to be avoided". I am going to try to scrape together some time to properly source this doggy. Jytdog ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the Interactions list would look better without commas at the end, see Manual of Style for bulleted lists, if the items on the bulleted list aren't sentences then they aren't necessary Mightyhansa ( talk) 23:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of style, list items should ... not have final punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences.The entire interaction list is a complete sentence (albeit a very long one). Also per Bulleted Lists, it is traditional to include a comma at the end of each fragment of a bulleted list. Boghog ( talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
unless they consist of complete sentences. The entire interaction list is a complete sentence. Boghog ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
unless they consist of complete sentences, but this is refering to
list items. The individual items in this list are not complete sentences, just abbreviations, ergo, they don't need to have final punctuation. In the same section of the MOS, the examples provided also do not have final punctuation. Mightyhansa ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The introduction states BRCA1 is a proto-oncogene. To my knowledge however it is a tumor suppressor gene. This is also stated in the german version of this article.
A proto oncogen is defined as inducing tumor when activated. A tumor suppressor gene is preventing tumorigenesis as long as it is active.
Can anyone else comment on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.54 ( talk) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#brcaexchange.org -- Jytdog ( talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The UniProt database on P38398_1 (see ref. 28) states:"Mutations in BRCA1 are thought to be responsible for 45% of inherited breast cancer. Moreover, BRCA1 carriers have a 4-fold increased risk of colon cancer, whereas male carriers face a 3-fold increased risk of prostate cancer." The range given in the graphic is 50% to 65% (for females). It should be OBVIOUS that if 45% of *inherited* BC is caused by inherited BRCA1 mutations, then it is simply *impossible* that the entire "absolute risk" is greater. (Males' risk is 1/800 and can be ignored here). It's a huge flaw that the graphic mentions ovarian cancer but ignores colorectal cancer (4th most common, 2nd most fatal). (Uterine and pancreatic cancers are 8th & 9th in frequency (US Data)). The basic problem I have with the graphic is that there's likely to be 100's or 1000's of gene variants, some of which will be very dangerous, some of which may be protective. That is, the range of absolute risk should include 0% (and relative risk possibly negative). I think the current graphic should be removed and a better one used, if one can be found. 40.142.183.146 ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)