GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Narayanese ( talk · contribs) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
**(nitpicking, unimportant) "gene predictions": new genes would be discovered by mRNA sequencing or so, not dependent on prediction from dna sequence, right? Gene model
Article history is stable. References and external links look fine. Sasata's tags have point though.
I might edit the article myself, don't be afraid to revert my changes - I don't want to end up approve my very own version for GA. Narayanese ( talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the genomes of other species in the genus like C. brenneri: I think those are already done, I can find files for them at [1]. Narayanese ( talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding '10% of the 20,000 genes in its genome are 'essential', meaning that RNAi knockdown of those genes resulted in "sterility, embryonic or larval lethality, slow post-embryonic growth, or a post-embryonic defect." ': this is not what the cited article says (Nonv is its category of essential genes), and it makes little sense to call genes whose knockdown causes post-embryonic defects or slow growth 'essential' since the worms manage to survive. Narayanese ( talk) 09:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Narayanese ( talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Some large, intergenic regions contain the usually found repetitive DNA sequences. " This is not really true to the spirit of what the source says: "For example, although only 26% of the genome sequence is predicted to be intronic, it contains 51% of the tandem repeats and 45% of the inverted repeats. The 47% of the genome sequence that is predicted to be intergenic contains only 49% of the tandem repeats and 55% of the inverted repeats.", so I would remove that sentence. Narayanese ( talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please fix the deadlink and the bare url citation. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Narayanese ( talk · contribs) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
**(nitpicking, unimportant) "gene predictions": new genes would be discovered by mRNA sequencing or so, not dependent on prediction from dna sequence, right? Gene model
Article history is stable. References and external links look fine. Sasata's tags have point though.
I might edit the article myself, don't be afraid to revert my changes - I don't want to end up approve my very own version for GA. Narayanese ( talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the genomes of other species in the genus like C. brenneri: I think those are already done, I can find files for them at [1]. Narayanese ( talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding '10% of the 20,000 genes in its genome are 'essential', meaning that RNAi knockdown of those genes resulted in "sterility, embryonic or larval lethality, slow post-embryonic growth, or a post-embryonic defect." ': this is not what the cited article says (Nonv is its category of essential genes), and it makes little sense to call genes whose knockdown causes post-embryonic defects or slow growth 'essential' since the worms manage to survive. Narayanese ( talk) 09:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Narayanese ( talk) 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Some large, intergenic regions contain the usually found repetitive DNA sequences. " This is not really true to the spirit of what the source says: "For example, although only 26% of the genome sequence is predicted to be intronic, it contains 51% of the tandem repeats and 45% of the inverted repeats. The 47% of the genome sequence that is predicted to be intergenic contains only 49% of the tandem repeats and 55% of the inverted repeats.", so I would remove that sentence. Narayanese ( talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please fix the deadlink and the bare url citation. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)