A news item involving ENCODE was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 September 2012. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page needs a massive overhaul given that ENCODE is in fourth phase with each phase bigger than the one before. There is a long discussion of ENCODE 1 here that no one pruned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.132 ( talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The article said that 1% of the genome had been selected...and after the "1%" we had "(30mb)" - I checked the reference for that statement and it has "(30Mb)" - so I corrected it (mb==milli-bits! Mb==Megabits). However, I'm unsure whether we are really talking about "Megabits" - as in computer jargon - or is it perhaps "Mega-base-pairs" or something else? The referenced paper doesn't make it clear - presumably because geneticists can infer it from the context...but we have a more general readership - so we really should be more specific. SteveBaker ( talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The 2012-09 results are a new and qualitatively different description of the genome. Human DNA chomosomes were formerly described as being "genes", interspersed with "junk DNA" ( 1% genes, 99% junk.) Now, chromosomes are a set of functional elements of several types. At least 80% of the genome is categorized into a functional type, and statistically the remainder of the genome will almost all be so categorized, leaving little or no junk DNA. How should we address this?- Arch dude ( talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree witnh this. ENCODE's best estimates are that 8% of the genome is influencing gene expression, and they beleive that possibly another 11% may also play a role. However, the vast majority of the rest of the genome is simply being transcribed into non-functional RNA. This was true in 2007, and it seems equaly valid in the 2012 data as well. Microtubules ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the subject to write it myself, but I definitely think this article is missing a "Significance" section. What will this mean for the biological sciences? What are the practical possibilities that ENCODE makes possible? Etc. Leptictidium ( mt) 16:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Do the ERV and pseudogene pages on wiki need to be updated re ENCODE?, pseudgenes looks retardedly outdated....
Jinx69 ( talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah k thanks for the reply, im reading the ENCODE papers now and havnt come across anything about ERV's are they mentioned anywhere in there? Still reading them...
Jinx69 ( talk) 20:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Just ran across this, and thought it might be good for the editors of this article to consider it: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/09/most-of-what-you-read-was-wrong-how-press-releases-rewrote-scientific-history/ • Jesse V. (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There should be discussion in this article about the controversy it caused by the way the results were presented and the delay. [3] [4] Right now it reads like another PR piece. 86.121.137.227 ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, how it inadvertently fueled the ID machine. [5] 86.121.137.227 ( talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A controversy section was added in these edits. While I think adding a controversy section would be useful, the version that was recently inserted was way over the top and does not conform to WP:NPOV. Therefore I have reverted it. Boghog ( talk) 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Has ENCODE oversold the significance of the project results? Absolutely. Are the results of the project useless? Absolutely not. In support of the later statement, the ENCODE results have been invaluable in determining how non-coding region of DNA contribute to disease ( PMID 22955986). Boghog ( talk) 13:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate, I agree that the article should have a controversy section, however the are some serious problems in how the current section is worded. One problem is that it contains synthesis (conclusions that are not directly support by the sources). For example:
A second problem is that it does not maintain a neutral point of view (not all significant view points are presented). For example Michel Eisen admits that the data is useful in some sense (he admits that he himself has used the data) while at the same time he didn't think the results of the project justified the costs. Hence there are a spectrum of opinions. One significant view point holds that while the project has been overhyped, it has generated some useful data. Boghog ( talk) 15:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
A news item involving ENCODE was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 September 2012. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page needs a massive overhaul given that ENCODE is in fourth phase with each phase bigger than the one before. There is a long discussion of ENCODE 1 here that no one pruned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.132 ( talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The article said that 1% of the genome had been selected...and after the "1%" we had "(30mb)" - I checked the reference for that statement and it has "(30Mb)" - so I corrected it (mb==milli-bits! Mb==Megabits). However, I'm unsure whether we are really talking about "Megabits" - as in computer jargon - or is it perhaps "Mega-base-pairs" or something else? The referenced paper doesn't make it clear - presumably because geneticists can infer it from the context...but we have a more general readership - so we really should be more specific. SteveBaker ( talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The 2012-09 results are a new and qualitatively different description of the genome. Human DNA chomosomes were formerly described as being "genes", interspersed with "junk DNA" ( 1% genes, 99% junk.) Now, chromosomes are a set of functional elements of several types. At least 80% of the genome is categorized into a functional type, and statistically the remainder of the genome will almost all be so categorized, leaving little or no junk DNA. How should we address this?- Arch dude ( talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree witnh this. ENCODE's best estimates are that 8% of the genome is influencing gene expression, and they beleive that possibly another 11% may also play a role. However, the vast majority of the rest of the genome is simply being transcribed into non-functional RNA. This was true in 2007, and it seems equaly valid in the 2012 data as well. Microtubules ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the subject to write it myself, but I definitely think this article is missing a "Significance" section. What will this mean for the biological sciences? What are the practical possibilities that ENCODE makes possible? Etc. Leptictidium ( mt) 16:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Do the ERV and pseudogene pages on wiki need to be updated re ENCODE?, pseudgenes looks retardedly outdated....
Jinx69 ( talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah k thanks for the reply, im reading the ENCODE papers now and havnt come across anything about ERV's are they mentioned anywhere in there? Still reading them...
Jinx69 ( talk) 20:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Just ran across this, and thought it might be good for the editors of this article to consider it: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/09/most-of-what-you-read-was-wrong-how-press-releases-rewrote-scientific-history/ • Jesse V. (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There should be discussion in this article about the controversy it caused by the way the results were presented and the delay. [3] [4] Right now it reads like another PR piece. 86.121.137.227 ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, how it inadvertently fueled the ID machine. [5] 86.121.137.227 ( talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A controversy section was added in these edits. While I think adding a controversy section would be useful, the version that was recently inserted was way over the top and does not conform to WP:NPOV. Therefore I have reverted it. Boghog ( talk) 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Has ENCODE oversold the significance of the project results? Absolutely. Are the results of the project useless? Absolutely not. In support of the later statement, the ENCODE results have been invaluable in determining how non-coding region of DNA contribute to disease ( PMID 22955986). Boghog ( talk) 13:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate, I agree that the article should have a controversy section, however the are some serious problems in how the current section is worded. One problem is that it contains synthesis (conclusions that are not directly support by the sources). For example:
A second problem is that it does not maintain a neutral point of view (not all significant view points are presented). For example Michel Eisen admits that the data is useful in some sense (he admits that he himself has used the data) while at the same time he didn't think the results of the project justified the costs. Hence there are a spectrum of opinions. One significant view point holds that while the project has been overhyped, it has generated some useful data. Boghog ( talk) 15:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)