This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
why does post-transcriptional hyperlink to the article on translation?-- Xiaou 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I really wonder how Transposons should posses a function in gene silencing? They are mobile genetic elements and I don't see a connection? Anyone else maybe? CU CoBli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.104.38 ( talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Bit of a late reply, but no harm in me answering the question I suppose. Transposons can cause gene silencing when they're inserted into a gene, hence altering the DNA sequence of that gene. Proteins coded by this gene will then likely be non-functional and so the gene is 'silenced'. Ribrob ( talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! As part of our Molecular Biology course at Johns Hopkins University, Ileana and I will be working to improve this article.
Summary of our suggested improvements:
Any input or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! - Agulati4 ( talk) 03:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The new organization for the article is spot-on, comprehensive and not too narrow. It's stylistically appealing and allows for ease of skimming. The breakdown for research techniques is a very useful section. I personally like how the ribozyme sub-section is written with a brief description of the different known motifs and the common elements of their catalytic mechanisms. A lot of information is condensed but made understandable. The image used is simple (not confusing or overwhelming with too much information) and appropriate. I'm interested in seeing how you summarize antisense oligos and RNA interference. It is shaping up to be a great sub-topic.
It's an interesting approach to break down gene silencing in research by disorder. The wide variety of disorders you have listed shows how powerful silencing techniques are. The section devoted to challenges in research is another useful one, not every Wiki article addresses issues in therapeutic approaches. There are so many related articles on Wikipedia that the section categorizing transcriptional, post-transcriptional and meiotic gene silencing is a practical way to tie them in with gene silencing in general. Maybe some text could be added to preface each grouping for common features or to give more context. Overall, this is a terrific start. The references are properly cited and used appropriately, including a wide range of published third-party articles. The tone is neutral, the language is understandable and the organization makes sense intuitively. If all subsections are filled in using the same standards this will be a top-notch article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnagy2 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
The improvements to this article are looking good so far. Here are some additional recommendations:
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have questions about the above. Neelix ( talk) 01:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The information added to this topic is very plentiful! I like the style of your content and its ability to flow from one subtopic to the other. You seemed to have simplified your information very well. I feel that it is very easy to read and does not contain too much science jargon for those people who are not scientists. I am not very sure of the font size and style of your content, especially under the heading 'Gene silencing in medical research'; however, I understand that this is not the final draft. There are a few things I would like to point out:
Overall, I think this is going to result in a great article! It seems that there will be a substantial amount of information for any topic in relation to the main topic. You guys are going in a great direction with your jargon! I have not observed any plagiarism of information that has been cited. Great job guys. Keep up the good work! Juanquina Thomas ( talk) 03:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
At first glance this article has an excellent outline. I think you have sections for all the necessary topics that should be discussed under this subject. I believe this article is on its way to becoming a great source of references for all readers. You also have lots of references, which is a good thing.
I have to work hard to find improvements for this article. One sticking point for me is that the lead section looks a little light. It may add substance if you summarize key parts of the article in the lead section. The second important aspect of a lead section is to establish noteworthiness, which you have done. Lead section does not need references according to the style guideline.
Additionally, you will improve article by including images. Scientific discussion is almost impossible without images. Furthermore, I think all scientific terms should be wikilinked the first time they appear in the article. This way a lay person can know the meaning of the term before continuation to the rest of the article. I really believe this article is on its way to becoming a B class or better Wikipedia article. Wish you much luck. Galemu2 ( talk) 05:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Agulati4 and Opalite3579,
If I had to sum up the work you have done so far into one word, that word would be “Wow!” I must say that I am thoroughly impressed by how well researched and well written your article is thus far. I know that the same time and effort will be put into the remaining sections, along with the passion you both obviously have for this topic.
I took a page out the book of one of our fellow classmates who analyzed my group’s article during the first round of reviews, and went back to the earliest version of the “Gene Silencing” article I could find. This took me back to the end of October. I would have liked to have gone back to before you chose this article. With that aside, I must say that the contrast is amazing. In a few short weeks, the two of you have really transformed this article. Furthermore, I can only see this article getting better and better in the remaining weeks.
I read over the comments provided by my fellow reviewers from both the first and current review periods. In hindsight, this was a mistake as they basically covered all of my ideas! It is also obvious that you took great care to incorporate these ideas into your writing and presentation. Although it is needless to say at this point, I will say it anyway. I agree with the comments and suggestions put forth my fellow reviewers.
With that said, I am not sure as to how much more I can add. I did, however, do a quick search online and came across two areas of interest that I would like to propose here:
Your article is unfolding beautifully. There is a smooth, logical flow to it, which is greatly aided by your use of well-constructed, well placed transition sentences. Please keep this in mind as you fill in your remaining sections as these transitions help to keep an article from sounding disjointed. Overall, a job well done. I have no doubt that your work will continue to remain as such as the semester comes towards a close. I wish you both the best of luck and I greatly look forward to reading the finished product come mid-December. Madscientist2007 ( talk) 17:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Group 84F! Your article was a great read. Here are a few comments:
Content Coverage: The writing style is helpful and clear, one example being the explanation of gene knockout vs. knockdown in the introduction. There is a diverse amount of information on the role of gene silencing in research and medical research. I also appreciate that you added some of the history and development of the study of gene silencing. For the section of gene silencing in cells, there's a good list of other relevant Wikipedia pages, which is a good feature to have retained from the original stub. Most of these topics (except for a few in the Transcriptional gene silencing section) have their own pages, so the content does not need to be repeated on this page. However, if I were to suggest the addition of any more prose content to the article, it would be in the "Gene silencing in cells" section. For example, a few sentences explaining the features of transcription vs. post-transcriptional vs. meiotic gene silencing. This way, the content of the specific articles wouldn't be repeated, but the user would have an overview of the differences between them.
Writing Organization: Good structuring of the sections and subsections. The content also seems to be evenly distributed, giving the article a balanced look. Dividing gene silencing by location in cells, research, and medical research also helps the user understand the role of gene silencing in different contexts.
Wikilinking: Good job in making diverse and specific wikilinks without repetition. Some more links that could be added are "genome" in the introduction and "RNAi". I see you've already wikilinked "RNA interference" but linking RNAi as well could emphasize the subject. One of the wikilinks is "Escherichia coli", which I believe should be italicized. I wasn't sure if it was form to put wikilinks into italics, but I've seen it done on this page as E.coli.
Illustrations: Nice work in providing your own image for the ribozymes section! Perhaps the RNA interference image could be shown a bit bigger, since it has a number of components and a long caption. To accomodate the large size, the image can be placed in the center under the text of the RNA interference section.
Referencing: Good use of providing citations throughout the article. You seem to have chosen reputable sources, and I appreciate the diversity between journal articles and textbooks. These references, along with the "External links" you provided give the reader some quality options in continuing their reserach on this topic. If you want to tighten the formatting of the references section, you can write
{{reflist|2}}
which presents references as two columns. My group's article shows an example of this.
Great development since the original stub and best of luck with the final contribution! Pinar -- Pozmi ( talk) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am so impressed by your article, you guys have done a great job to cover all aspects of your topic. Here are some general comments about the page:
Thanks, and good luck with the finishing touches! You guys are doing great. Pdholak1 ( talk) 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gene silencing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gene silencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Gene silencing is considered a gene knockdown mechanism since the methods used to silence genes, such as RNAi, CRISPR, or siRNA, generally reduce the expression of a gene by at least 70% but do not completely eliminate it." However, I am not understanding why CRISPR is included in the discussion of reducing expression of a gene - RNAi and siRNA are mechanism that target mRNA and will therefore only reduce expression, whereas CRISPR works with Cas enzymes to cut DNA at a specific location. How does CRISPR only reduce expression? Can someone provide clarification? D Money 16 ( talk) 02:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest removal of transgene silencing as a "type" of silencing - or at least it should be in both TGS and PTGS categories. There's no evidence it involves unique silencing mechanisms, though how/why transgenes are targeted by silencing is still not fully understood. 167.179.189.213 ( talk) 02:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
why does post-transcriptional hyperlink to the article on translation?-- Xiaou 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I really wonder how Transposons should posses a function in gene silencing? They are mobile genetic elements and I don't see a connection? Anyone else maybe? CU CoBli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.104.38 ( talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Bit of a late reply, but no harm in me answering the question I suppose. Transposons can cause gene silencing when they're inserted into a gene, hence altering the DNA sequence of that gene. Proteins coded by this gene will then likely be non-functional and so the gene is 'silenced'. Ribrob ( talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! As part of our Molecular Biology course at Johns Hopkins University, Ileana and I will be working to improve this article.
Summary of our suggested improvements:
Any input or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! - Agulati4 ( talk) 03:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The new organization for the article is spot-on, comprehensive and not too narrow. It's stylistically appealing and allows for ease of skimming. The breakdown for research techniques is a very useful section. I personally like how the ribozyme sub-section is written with a brief description of the different known motifs and the common elements of their catalytic mechanisms. A lot of information is condensed but made understandable. The image used is simple (not confusing or overwhelming with too much information) and appropriate. I'm interested in seeing how you summarize antisense oligos and RNA interference. It is shaping up to be a great sub-topic.
It's an interesting approach to break down gene silencing in research by disorder. The wide variety of disorders you have listed shows how powerful silencing techniques are. The section devoted to challenges in research is another useful one, not every Wiki article addresses issues in therapeutic approaches. There are so many related articles on Wikipedia that the section categorizing transcriptional, post-transcriptional and meiotic gene silencing is a practical way to tie them in with gene silencing in general. Maybe some text could be added to preface each grouping for common features or to give more context. Overall, this is a terrific start. The references are properly cited and used appropriately, including a wide range of published third-party articles. The tone is neutral, the language is understandable and the organization makes sense intuitively. If all subsections are filled in using the same standards this will be a top-notch article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnagy2 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
The improvements to this article are looking good so far. Here are some additional recommendations:
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have questions about the above. Neelix ( talk) 01:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The information added to this topic is very plentiful! I like the style of your content and its ability to flow from one subtopic to the other. You seemed to have simplified your information very well. I feel that it is very easy to read and does not contain too much science jargon for those people who are not scientists. I am not very sure of the font size and style of your content, especially under the heading 'Gene silencing in medical research'; however, I understand that this is not the final draft. There are a few things I would like to point out:
Overall, I think this is going to result in a great article! It seems that there will be a substantial amount of information for any topic in relation to the main topic. You guys are going in a great direction with your jargon! I have not observed any plagiarism of information that has been cited. Great job guys. Keep up the good work! Juanquina Thomas ( talk) 03:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
At first glance this article has an excellent outline. I think you have sections for all the necessary topics that should be discussed under this subject. I believe this article is on its way to becoming a great source of references for all readers. You also have lots of references, which is a good thing.
I have to work hard to find improvements for this article. One sticking point for me is that the lead section looks a little light. It may add substance if you summarize key parts of the article in the lead section. The second important aspect of a lead section is to establish noteworthiness, which you have done. Lead section does not need references according to the style guideline.
Additionally, you will improve article by including images. Scientific discussion is almost impossible without images. Furthermore, I think all scientific terms should be wikilinked the first time they appear in the article. This way a lay person can know the meaning of the term before continuation to the rest of the article. I really believe this article is on its way to becoming a B class or better Wikipedia article. Wish you much luck. Galemu2 ( talk) 05:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Agulati4 and Opalite3579,
If I had to sum up the work you have done so far into one word, that word would be “Wow!” I must say that I am thoroughly impressed by how well researched and well written your article is thus far. I know that the same time and effort will be put into the remaining sections, along with the passion you both obviously have for this topic.
I took a page out the book of one of our fellow classmates who analyzed my group’s article during the first round of reviews, and went back to the earliest version of the “Gene Silencing” article I could find. This took me back to the end of October. I would have liked to have gone back to before you chose this article. With that aside, I must say that the contrast is amazing. In a few short weeks, the two of you have really transformed this article. Furthermore, I can only see this article getting better and better in the remaining weeks.
I read over the comments provided by my fellow reviewers from both the first and current review periods. In hindsight, this was a mistake as they basically covered all of my ideas! It is also obvious that you took great care to incorporate these ideas into your writing and presentation. Although it is needless to say at this point, I will say it anyway. I agree with the comments and suggestions put forth my fellow reviewers.
With that said, I am not sure as to how much more I can add. I did, however, do a quick search online and came across two areas of interest that I would like to propose here:
Your article is unfolding beautifully. There is a smooth, logical flow to it, which is greatly aided by your use of well-constructed, well placed transition sentences. Please keep this in mind as you fill in your remaining sections as these transitions help to keep an article from sounding disjointed. Overall, a job well done. I have no doubt that your work will continue to remain as such as the semester comes towards a close. I wish you both the best of luck and I greatly look forward to reading the finished product come mid-December. Madscientist2007 ( talk) 17:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Group 84F! Your article was a great read. Here are a few comments:
Content Coverage: The writing style is helpful and clear, one example being the explanation of gene knockout vs. knockdown in the introduction. There is a diverse amount of information on the role of gene silencing in research and medical research. I also appreciate that you added some of the history and development of the study of gene silencing. For the section of gene silencing in cells, there's a good list of other relevant Wikipedia pages, which is a good feature to have retained from the original stub. Most of these topics (except for a few in the Transcriptional gene silencing section) have their own pages, so the content does not need to be repeated on this page. However, if I were to suggest the addition of any more prose content to the article, it would be in the "Gene silencing in cells" section. For example, a few sentences explaining the features of transcription vs. post-transcriptional vs. meiotic gene silencing. This way, the content of the specific articles wouldn't be repeated, but the user would have an overview of the differences between them.
Writing Organization: Good structuring of the sections and subsections. The content also seems to be evenly distributed, giving the article a balanced look. Dividing gene silencing by location in cells, research, and medical research also helps the user understand the role of gene silencing in different contexts.
Wikilinking: Good job in making diverse and specific wikilinks without repetition. Some more links that could be added are "genome" in the introduction and "RNAi". I see you've already wikilinked "RNA interference" but linking RNAi as well could emphasize the subject. One of the wikilinks is "Escherichia coli", which I believe should be italicized. I wasn't sure if it was form to put wikilinks into italics, but I've seen it done on this page as E.coli.
Illustrations: Nice work in providing your own image for the ribozymes section! Perhaps the RNA interference image could be shown a bit bigger, since it has a number of components and a long caption. To accomodate the large size, the image can be placed in the center under the text of the RNA interference section.
Referencing: Good use of providing citations throughout the article. You seem to have chosen reputable sources, and I appreciate the diversity between journal articles and textbooks. These references, along with the "External links" you provided give the reader some quality options in continuing their reserach on this topic. If you want to tighten the formatting of the references section, you can write
{{reflist|2}}
which presents references as two columns. My group's article shows an example of this.
Great development since the original stub and best of luck with the final contribution! Pinar -- Pozmi ( talk) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am so impressed by your article, you guys have done a great job to cover all aspects of your topic. Here are some general comments about the page:
Thanks, and good luck with the finishing touches! You guys are doing great. Pdholak1 ( talk) 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gene silencing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gene silencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Gene silencing is considered a gene knockdown mechanism since the methods used to silence genes, such as RNAi, CRISPR, or siRNA, generally reduce the expression of a gene by at least 70% but do not completely eliminate it." However, I am not understanding why CRISPR is included in the discussion of reducing expression of a gene - RNAi and siRNA are mechanism that target mRNA and will therefore only reduce expression, whereas CRISPR works with Cas enzymes to cut DNA at a specific location. How does CRISPR only reduce expression? Can someone provide clarification? D Money 16 ( talk) 02:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest removal of transgene silencing as a "type" of silencing - or at least it should be in both TGS and PTGS categories. There's no evidence it involves unique silencing mechanisms, though how/why transgenes are targeted by silencing is still not fully understood. 167.179.189.213 ( talk) 02:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)