This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Summaries of this article appear in evolution and DNA. |
What are the benefits of genetic recombination? -- Evan 00:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems imprecise to define recombination as separating genes (this is rather the case with transpositions/translocations). Rather alleles are separated. Sboehringer
Does this article, perhaps, need to be merged (or merged and re-split along better lines) with chromosomal crossover?-- ES2 18:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also think these two articles can be merged - unless someone can make the case that crossover and recombination refer to fundamentally different processes. Dr d12 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the use of intra- vs inter-chromosomal recombination here. Ben Carritt 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Cre is a type of Recombinase (read Cyclic Recombinase)which has been found in the Bacteriophage P1. Cre catalyses a reaction between two 'Lox P' (read Loci of X over P1) sites, which are 34 bp sequences, causing splicing of the gene which is flanked by these two Lox P sites, leaving behind just the Lox site. This system is called the Cre-Lox system and has been used in effectively studying Mutations, allelic variations and is currently being used by the Biotechnolgy industry in producing trasgenic species of mice and plants to derive useful biological products. Bold text
Does recombination create new alleles, or does it keep the current ones intact? 5th April 2006
The most likely reason Mr. Hawkins is unaware of research demonstrating that recombination can produce new alleles is that he has not taken the time to research the subject. Allelic recombination is well represented in the scientific literature. For example from PNAS | December 10, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 25 | 16348-16353 we have:
"Meiotic recombination in the anopheline mosquito is the major mechanism for allelic variation of PfMsp-1 (8); thus, intragenic recombination between unlike alleles generates new alleles in the progeny (10). Recombination sites are confined to the 5' and 3' regions of the gene."
Dr. Elsberry's rewrite is concise, accurate, and easy to understand, and should thus be adopted. The references from the quote are (8) Tanabe, K., Mackay, M., Goman, M. & Scaife, J. (1987) J. Mol. Biol. 195, 273-287 and (10) Kerr, P. J., Ranford-Cartwright, L. C. & Walliker, D. (1994) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 66, 241-248. David J. Phippard 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In spite of Dr. Phippard's comments, the sentence, as it stands ...
is a correct statement. Dr. Elsberry is wrong when he states that it is completely incorrect. Note the following quotes from ...
Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:75–97 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.111115 Copyright c° 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved RECOMBINATION IN EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS David Posada1,2, Keith A. Crandall3,4, and Edward C. Holmes5 1Variagenics Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 2Center for Cancer Research,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 3Department of Integrative Biology, 4Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, and 5Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom
So while novel alleles can arise through recombination, these novel alleles are simply the rearrangement of existing genetic material which, the above authors believe, was originally created through mutation.
This article also says ...
"Horizontal exchange of genetic material" is not a phrase which gives the impression of anything truly novel being created.
Dr. Elsberry's proposed wording ...
would lead readers to believe that new genetic information is being created, when in reality, previously existing information blocks are being reshuffled in a way that is not yet completely understood.
I would be interested to see what Albert's most recent textbook (2002 version) has to say about this, since this article was based on the earlier version of his textbook. I will comment on that when I can obtain a copy. -- David W. Hawkins 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I please say, recombination can provide mutations by accidentally duplicating alleles (a duplication event) during homologous recombination. If you want a source, look up 'homologous recombination' and 'gene duplication' on wikipedia and take the sources from there. It is well known that the third cone that contributes to human colour vision came from a duplication event. So, although recombination is not intended to produce mutations, it does on occasion. 129.67.38.36 ( talk) 02:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"...in the first Santino junction..."
What is that? SamEV 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition talks about two parents, and then about "asexually reproducing organisms" in evolutionary biology. Am I missing something? OK, it says that the initially given definition is not commonly used in certain fields (such as evolutionary biology), but it doesn't explain what definition is used in these fields. -- 194.145.161.227 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
David Hawkins inserted the following into the main article:
This is an antievolution talking point. It comes with no substantiation whatsoever, and depends critically on leaving any coherent definition of "information" out of the discussion. While this may not meet the Wikipedia:Vandalism criteria, it comes pretty close to that. I suggest reverting to the previous version. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Elsberry should not be insinuating a user is a vandal on the article discussion page. He also needs to read policy on Vandalism and Dispute Resolution. I followed policy by adding to the article with well supported information (See policy below).
This article is now in dispute and IAW policy, I have entered a detailed but courteous dispute essay on Dr. Elsberry's Talk Page and will take up the discussion with him there until this is resolved. David W. Hawkins 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Dr. Elsberry wants to shift responsibility for the recent changes by pointing out the users who actually implemented the changes. Fine. I will retract my accusation. However, it is Dr. Elsberry who is the driving force behind implementing these changes. I would ask Dr. Elsberry to also retract his statement that I came close to vandalism based upon the following definition ...
This seems to be a contentious remark especially when directed at a new user. I made a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and I am not seeking to insert my POV. From this point forward, I believe policy would dictate that we move any further discussions about rule violations to either of our user Talk Pages.
As for this article, I note that the user "Serephine" states that the definition of "information" needs to be elucidated to return my statement to NPOV status. I submit the following definition for Biological Information from Crick pointed out by Meyer ...
Meyer also says ...
In spite of Dr. Elsberry's incorrect statement that ...
... I do agree with his addition, not because of the reference he cited, but because of David Phippard's citation.
However, my added sentence ...
... is correct and helpful in understanding what is really going on. It is well supported by the Posada article, by a statement from Crick, and by further statements with references to the literature by Meyer. I will wait to hear more discussion before editing further. David W. Hawkins Afdave 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Several points here ...
1) Crick's statement is a very good formal definition of "biological information", which is what is being discussed here and he makes himself quite clear. However, I am not omniscient and I am willing to research the other sources that Meyer and others cite to ensure we achieve accuracy.
2) Dr. Elsberry seems to be using the fact of a later editorial committee not liking Dr. Meyer because they are anti-ID, to somehow reduce the value of the Crick statement.
3) Dr. Elsberry speaks of Dr. Meyer's lack of experience or practice in information theory, yet history is replete with examples of scientists and philosophers who crossed boundaries in varying degrees successfully. Further, is not Crick an authority?
4) Dr. Elsberry says
Why does Dr. Elsberry imagine that Posada et. al. are not cognizant of the mentioned research? Both the Posada article and the PNAS article which admittedly support Dr. Elsberry's added language were both 2002 articles.(note that Dr. Elsberry's original citation did not support changing the article)
5) Note that Dr. Elsberry still does not understand how his early statement was incorrect. He writes ...
Yes. You said that the original sentence was "completely incorrect." But this is not true. It was quite correct as the Posada article clearly shows. Had you said that it was "incomplete" or "could be expanded to include recent research" you would have been correct. But the statement you made was incorrect.
6) But that does not matter WRT the added sentences. I have accepted your added sentence and I am merely asserting that my sentence (or something very similar) should also be added
7) I will answer your last question (or further questions pertaining to rules and etiquette) on your Talk page as that seems to be more in line with Wikipedia rules where it says ...
From a comprehensive reading of the rules it does appear that pros and cons related to the article itself belong here, but that arguments over etiquette and rules should stay on the User Talk pages. David W. Hawkins Afdave 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ said ...
You say there are a variety of definitions of information, yet you don't provide any. In contrast to this, I have provided one from a quite authoritative source. And I have also provided a reliable source that says that these novel alleles simply reshuffle existing variation.
You appear to be quibbling over the exact choice of words - "variation" vs. "information". What authoritative source can you provide that refutes the clear statement from the Posada article above? How is "variation" not equivalent to "biological information" especially in light of the Crick quote?
It appears to me that Dr. Elsberry wants you to disallow my added sentence because of his own Darwinist POV. You have labeled my sentence as Creationist POV which clearly it is not. We even had another editor weigh in and say ...
which I promptly did from an authoritative source. You have two authoritative sources from me which clearly establish the validity of my added sentence.
In my experience, I have found that the only ones confused about the meaning of "biological information" are those seeking to find new mechanisms for Darwinian Evolution POV in the face of accumulating evidence that previously proposed mechanisms such as Random Mutation + Natural Selection are inadequate. It appears that this might the case here with Dr. Elsberry.
A quick Google search of "biological information" turned up this 2005 article ...
It seems that many practicing biologists have a very clear understanding of the meaning of "biological information" and that the notion that my statement is "Creationist POV" is itself "Darwinist POV." You have rightly asserted that Wikipedia should be impartial and not promote POV. It seems that disallowing my sentence would be a clear example of doing just that. David W. Hawkins Afdave 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... interesting how you added "and an increase of information" to the Posada statement. Would you please cite where in the Posada article you found that phrase? Thanks. David W. Hawkins Afdave 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am arguing that it is misleading to say that "recombination ... can produce novel alleles" without further explaining that these novel alleles are created from "existing genetic variation" as the Posada article makes clear.
IOW, we should not be giving readers the impression that there is new biological information (as defined by Crick) being created through this process. You could silence me on this issue by adding the following wording ...
This way we don't get into the debate over the definitions of "biological information", yet we don't mislead our readers by implying that new biological information is being created through this process.
Is that a fair compromise? JoshuaZ, can you please implement this change? Thx. 71.1.124.104 11:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Afdave
That clarification might be redundant, but the opening paragraph is a bit clunky and that little bit of "increased information" might be helpful. I've made the change. Dphippard 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be misleading to readers to pretend that a novel allele, however it comes into existence, is anything other than new biological information. The objection that a novel allele made by rearranging existing genetic information cannot be considered new biological information is parallel to the objection that a book comprised of words found in a dictionary cannot be considered a new literary work. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like analogies also. But I believe Dr. Elsberry's analogy is flawed. His book analogy implies that recombination is responsible for the origination (innovation) of form in addition to the diversification (variation) of form. Muller and Newman address this thoroughly ...
I think the book/dictionary analogy would be good if we compared, for example, Homer's Iliad to the human genome and Gone With the Wind to the horse genome, to pick some higher organisms. I will allow the geneticists here to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that genetic recombination would be analogous to writing a new book using only the existing words in a particular book, such as one of the examples above, NOT the whole dictionary. Yes, the reading frame boundaries are not always respected, implying an analogy of selecting the new word 'HERE' from the previously existing words 'tHE REal story', for example. But this is quite a different analogy from the one given by Dr. Elsberry. Nature does not select a subset of the 'words' in the 'dictionary' to create biological innovation, as Dr. Elsberry's analogy implies. Nature selects ALL the existing 'words' and 'letters' of the genome, recombines them under tight cellular control and produces a new organism displaying relatively minor differences from the previously existing organism. Nothing resembling the creation of biological innovation has ever been demonstrated by recombination. David W. Hawkins Afdave 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I did read you very carefully (Dr. Elsberry I assume?) and it appears that you did indeed offer the literary scenario as an analogy for the genetics. You wrote ...
It would therefore appear that my analysis of your analogy is accurate. Afdave 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A question for both sides of the dispute: how to name this example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180228/ ? Could creation of a fusion gene in the process of recombination count as creation of a novel allele? The above example seems to support Dr. Elsberry's position. 80.240.162.190 ( talk) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has an argument against this, please say something. In fact, I notice now that the argument has been made before now, but no merge tag had been placed on the article. - Madeleine 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence
In evolutionary biology this shuffling of genes is thought to have many advantages, including that of allowing sexually reproducing organisms to avoid Muller's ratchet.
should say asexually instread of sexually.
Bindi13 ( talk) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This extra 'a' has caused me so much trouble... It should in fact be 'sexually', pointing out that asexual organisms must deal with Muller's Ratchet. If you think about it, recombination between two chromosomes in an asexual organism would merely pass a mutated allele from one chromosome to another, it would not deal with it. If only I'd thought about that before I spent about an hour trawling through wikipedia and the internet trying to discover if asexual organisms undergo recombination. 129.67.38.36 ( talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition of recombination used in the article - the breaking and rejoining of DNA strands to form new molecules of DNA - must be wrong. Doesn't recombination includes, in addition to croosing over and the other mechanisms cited in the article, the pairing of homologous chromosomes (and the independent assortment) [1]? By the definition in Griffiths' Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 3, recombination is production of new combinations of aleles (which is made by homologous pairing, too).
I like that this article has attracted more attention over the past several months. Genetic recombination is process of fundamental importance in biology and deserves a brilliant article. Below are a few comments and suggestions.
The current lead seems like it could be improved with regard to accessibility and summary style. I'm a bit biased, but I think a version of the lead from a few years ago fares better in these areas. What are others' thoughts on reverting back to that older version?
Also, when I look at this article and Homologous recombination, I see a high degree of redundancy. For example, compare the diagram in Genetic_recombination#Meiotic_recombination to the second diagram in Homologous_recombination#In_eukaryotes. This article's discussion of crossover and non-crossover products and their relation to the DHJ / DSBR and SDSA pathways is also covered in Homologous_recombination#Models. Genetic_recombination#Recombinational_repair is variously covered in Homologous_recombination#Effects_of_dysfunction, Homologous_recombination#Cancer_therapy and Homologous_recombination#In_viruses.
Some redundancy between this article and the one on homologous recombination would not necessarily be a bad thing. What I think is worth avoiding though is conflating how we discuss the two subjects. Genetic recombination is a broad class of biological process that includes:
Differentiating between these terms could help improve the article's accessibility. I think the article currently dives into too much depth about, for example, the DHJ and SDSA pathways of recombination in meiosis. The homologous recombination article is better suited for that degree of detail. Even then, the degree of detail might be excessive -- that was a chief critique in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homologous_recombination/archive1. I think it would be best for this article to summarize those articles in several paragraphs each, and let those articles discuss their respective topics in greater detail.
This article should be much higher level and more accessible. In my opinion, genetic recombination should be aimed at high school students studying biology and lower-level undergraduates, homologous recombination and V(D)J recombination should be aimed at undergraduates majoring in the biological sciences, and articles about specific biochemical pathways of recombination like RecF pathway should be aimed at upper-level undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers. Emw ( talk) 01:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Genetic recombination/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) The article needs a clearer definition/distinction between meiotic recombination (chromosome crossover) and other types of naturally occuring genetic recombination, e.g. in prokaryotes or in immune cells, yeast mating type determination etc. - tameeria 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is not accessible to a lay audience. It would be a grand thing if someone who understands this material would completely rewrite the article in an accessible way. Strebe ( talk) 16:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How does it cause variation? Sevuloni Marseu ( talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikhil venkat konagala ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nikhil venkat konagala ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If an environment is created to allow Gene Recombinations , will there be any effect on non-targeted structures? Can a (possibly unnecessary) environment as such be redacted or negated promptly if there is risk of unwanted chemical interactions? 71.178.255.180 ( talk) 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead says this
Most recombination occurs naturally and can be classified into two types: (1) interchromosomal recombination, occurring through independent assortment of alleles whose loci are on different but homologous chromosomes (random orientation of pairs of homologous chromosomes in meiosis I); & (2) intrachromosomal recombination, occurring through crossing over.[1]
But the main text says this
Chromosomal crossover involves recombination between the paired chromosomes inherited from each of one's parents,
Please rectify. Thanks. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:E1CE:79A2:7FB2:384A ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Summaries of this article appear in evolution and DNA. |
What are the benefits of genetic recombination? -- Evan 00:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems imprecise to define recombination as separating genes (this is rather the case with transpositions/translocations). Rather alleles are separated. Sboehringer
Does this article, perhaps, need to be merged (or merged and re-split along better lines) with chromosomal crossover?-- ES2 18:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also think these two articles can be merged - unless someone can make the case that crossover and recombination refer to fundamentally different processes. Dr d12 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the use of intra- vs inter-chromosomal recombination here. Ben Carritt 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Cre is a type of Recombinase (read Cyclic Recombinase)which has been found in the Bacteriophage P1. Cre catalyses a reaction between two 'Lox P' (read Loci of X over P1) sites, which are 34 bp sequences, causing splicing of the gene which is flanked by these two Lox P sites, leaving behind just the Lox site. This system is called the Cre-Lox system and has been used in effectively studying Mutations, allelic variations and is currently being used by the Biotechnolgy industry in producing trasgenic species of mice and plants to derive useful biological products. Bold text
Does recombination create new alleles, or does it keep the current ones intact? 5th April 2006
The most likely reason Mr. Hawkins is unaware of research demonstrating that recombination can produce new alleles is that he has not taken the time to research the subject. Allelic recombination is well represented in the scientific literature. For example from PNAS | December 10, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 25 | 16348-16353 we have:
"Meiotic recombination in the anopheline mosquito is the major mechanism for allelic variation of PfMsp-1 (8); thus, intragenic recombination between unlike alleles generates new alleles in the progeny (10). Recombination sites are confined to the 5' and 3' regions of the gene."
Dr. Elsberry's rewrite is concise, accurate, and easy to understand, and should thus be adopted. The references from the quote are (8) Tanabe, K., Mackay, M., Goman, M. & Scaife, J. (1987) J. Mol. Biol. 195, 273-287 and (10) Kerr, P. J., Ranford-Cartwright, L. C. & Walliker, D. (1994) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 66, 241-248. David J. Phippard 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In spite of Dr. Phippard's comments, the sentence, as it stands ...
is a correct statement. Dr. Elsberry is wrong when he states that it is completely incorrect. Note the following quotes from ...
Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:75–97 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.111115 Copyright c° 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved RECOMBINATION IN EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS David Posada1,2, Keith A. Crandall3,4, and Edward C. Holmes5 1Variagenics Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 2Center for Cancer Research,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 3Department of Integrative Biology, 4Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, and 5Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom
So while novel alleles can arise through recombination, these novel alleles are simply the rearrangement of existing genetic material which, the above authors believe, was originally created through mutation.
This article also says ...
"Horizontal exchange of genetic material" is not a phrase which gives the impression of anything truly novel being created.
Dr. Elsberry's proposed wording ...
would lead readers to believe that new genetic information is being created, when in reality, previously existing information blocks are being reshuffled in a way that is not yet completely understood.
I would be interested to see what Albert's most recent textbook (2002 version) has to say about this, since this article was based on the earlier version of his textbook. I will comment on that when I can obtain a copy. -- David W. Hawkins 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I please say, recombination can provide mutations by accidentally duplicating alleles (a duplication event) during homologous recombination. If you want a source, look up 'homologous recombination' and 'gene duplication' on wikipedia and take the sources from there. It is well known that the third cone that contributes to human colour vision came from a duplication event. So, although recombination is not intended to produce mutations, it does on occasion. 129.67.38.36 ( talk) 02:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"...in the first Santino junction..."
What is that? SamEV 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition talks about two parents, and then about "asexually reproducing organisms" in evolutionary biology. Am I missing something? OK, it says that the initially given definition is not commonly used in certain fields (such as evolutionary biology), but it doesn't explain what definition is used in these fields. -- 194.145.161.227 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
David Hawkins inserted the following into the main article:
This is an antievolution talking point. It comes with no substantiation whatsoever, and depends critically on leaving any coherent definition of "information" out of the discussion. While this may not meet the Wikipedia:Vandalism criteria, it comes pretty close to that. I suggest reverting to the previous version. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Elsberry should not be insinuating a user is a vandal on the article discussion page. He also needs to read policy on Vandalism and Dispute Resolution. I followed policy by adding to the article with well supported information (See policy below).
This article is now in dispute and IAW policy, I have entered a detailed but courteous dispute essay on Dr. Elsberry's Talk Page and will take up the discussion with him there until this is resolved. David W. Hawkins 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Dr. Elsberry wants to shift responsibility for the recent changes by pointing out the users who actually implemented the changes. Fine. I will retract my accusation. However, it is Dr. Elsberry who is the driving force behind implementing these changes. I would ask Dr. Elsberry to also retract his statement that I came close to vandalism based upon the following definition ...
This seems to be a contentious remark especially when directed at a new user. I made a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and I am not seeking to insert my POV. From this point forward, I believe policy would dictate that we move any further discussions about rule violations to either of our user Talk Pages.
As for this article, I note that the user "Serephine" states that the definition of "information" needs to be elucidated to return my statement to NPOV status. I submit the following definition for Biological Information from Crick pointed out by Meyer ...
Meyer also says ...
In spite of Dr. Elsberry's incorrect statement that ...
... I do agree with his addition, not because of the reference he cited, but because of David Phippard's citation.
However, my added sentence ...
... is correct and helpful in understanding what is really going on. It is well supported by the Posada article, by a statement from Crick, and by further statements with references to the literature by Meyer. I will wait to hear more discussion before editing further. David W. Hawkins Afdave 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Several points here ...
1) Crick's statement is a very good formal definition of "biological information", which is what is being discussed here and he makes himself quite clear. However, I am not omniscient and I am willing to research the other sources that Meyer and others cite to ensure we achieve accuracy.
2) Dr. Elsberry seems to be using the fact of a later editorial committee not liking Dr. Meyer because they are anti-ID, to somehow reduce the value of the Crick statement.
3) Dr. Elsberry speaks of Dr. Meyer's lack of experience or practice in information theory, yet history is replete with examples of scientists and philosophers who crossed boundaries in varying degrees successfully. Further, is not Crick an authority?
4) Dr. Elsberry says
Why does Dr. Elsberry imagine that Posada et. al. are not cognizant of the mentioned research? Both the Posada article and the PNAS article which admittedly support Dr. Elsberry's added language were both 2002 articles.(note that Dr. Elsberry's original citation did not support changing the article)
5) Note that Dr. Elsberry still does not understand how his early statement was incorrect. He writes ...
Yes. You said that the original sentence was "completely incorrect." But this is not true. It was quite correct as the Posada article clearly shows. Had you said that it was "incomplete" or "could be expanded to include recent research" you would have been correct. But the statement you made was incorrect.
6) But that does not matter WRT the added sentences. I have accepted your added sentence and I am merely asserting that my sentence (or something very similar) should also be added
7) I will answer your last question (or further questions pertaining to rules and etiquette) on your Talk page as that seems to be more in line with Wikipedia rules where it says ...
From a comprehensive reading of the rules it does appear that pros and cons related to the article itself belong here, but that arguments over etiquette and rules should stay on the User Talk pages. David W. Hawkins Afdave 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ said ...
You say there are a variety of definitions of information, yet you don't provide any. In contrast to this, I have provided one from a quite authoritative source. And I have also provided a reliable source that says that these novel alleles simply reshuffle existing variation.
You appear to be quibbling over the exact choice of words - "variation" vs. "information". What authoritative source can you provide that refutes the clear statement from the Posada article above? How is "variation" not equivalent to "biological information" especially in light of the Crick quote?
It appears to me that Dr. Elsberry wants you to disallow my added sentence because of his own Darwinist POV. You have labeled my sentence as Creationist POV which clearly it is not. We even had another editor weigh in and say ...
which I promptly did from an authoritative source. You have two authoritative sources from me which clearly establish the validity of my added sentence.
In my experience, I have found that the only ones confused about the meaning of "biological information" are those seeking to find new mechanisms for Darwinian Evolution POV in the face of accumulating evidence that previously proposed mechanisms such as Random Mutation + Natural Selection are inadequate. It appears that this might the case here with Dr. Elsberry.
A quick Google search of "biological information" turned up this 2005 article ...
It seems that many practicing biologists have a very clear understanding of the meaning of "biological information" and that the notion that my statement is "Creationist POV" is itself "Darwinist POV." You have rightly asserted that Wikipedia should be impartial and not promote POV. It seems that disallowing my sentence would be a clear example of doing just that. David W. Hawkins Afdave 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... interesting how you added "and an increase of information" to the Posada statement. Would you please cite where in the Posada article you found that phrase? Thanks. David W. Hawkins Afdave 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am arguing that it is misleading to say that "recombination ... can produce novel alleles" without further explaining that these novel alleles are created from "existing genetic variation" as the Posada article makes clear.
IOW, we should not be giving readers the impression that there is new biological information (as defined by Crick) being created through this process. You could silence me on this issue by adding the following wording ...
This way we don't get into the debate over the definitions of "biological information", yet we don't mislead our readers by implying that new biological information is being created through this process.
Is that a fair compromise? JoshuaZ, can you please implement this change? Thx. 71.1.124.104 11:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Afdave
That clarification might be redundant, but the opening paragraph is a bit clunky and that little bit of "increased information" might be helpful. I've made the change. Dphippard 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be misleading to readers to pretend that a novel allele, however it comes into existence, is anything other than new biological information. The objection that a novel allele made by rearranging existing genetic information cannot be considered new biological information is parallel to the objection that a book comprised of words found in a dictionary cannot be considered a new literary work. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like analogies also. But I believe Dr. Elsberry's analogy is flawed. His book analogy implies that recombination is responsible for the origination (innovation) of form in addition to the diversification (variation) of form. Muller and Newman address this thoroughly ...
I think the book/dictionary analogy would be good if we compared, for example, Homer's Iliad to the human genome and Gone With the Wind to the horse genome, to pick some higher organisms. I will allow the geneticists here to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that genetic recombination would be analogous to writing a new book using only the existing words in a particular book, such as one of the examples above, NOT the whole dictionary. Yes, the reading frame boundaries are not always respected, implying an analogy of selecting the new word 'HERE' from the previously existing words 'tHE REal story', for example. But this is quite a different analogy from the one given by Dr. Elsberry. Nature does not select a subset of the 'words' in the 'dictionary' to create biological innovation, as Dr. Elsberry's analogy implies. Nature selects ALL the existing 'words' and 'letters' of the genome, recombines them under tight cellular control and produces a new organism displaying relatively minor differences from the previously existing organism. Nothing resembling the creation of biological innovation has ever been demonstrated by recombination. David W. Hawkins Afdave 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I did read you very carefully (Dr. Elsberry I assume?) and it appears that you did indeed offer the literary scenario as an analogy for the genetics. You wrote ...
It would therefore appear that my analysis of your analogy is accurate. Afdave 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A question for both sides of the dispute: how to name this example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180228/ ? Could creation of a fusion gene in the process of recombination count as creation of a novel allele? The above example seems to support Dr. Elsberry's position. 80.240.162.190 ( talk) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has an argument against this, please say something. In fact, I notice now that the argument has been made before now, but no merge tag had been placed on the article. - Madeleine 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence
In evolutionary biology this shuffling of genes is thought to have many advantages, including that of allowing sexually reproducing organisms to avoid Muller's ratchet.
should say asexually instread of sexually.
Bindi13 ( talk) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This extra 'a' has caused me so much trouble... It should in fact be 'sexually', pointing out that asexual organisms must deal with Muller's Ratchet. If you think about it, recombination between two chromosomes in an asexual organism would merely pass a mutated allele from one chromosome to another, it would not deal with it. If only I'd thought about that before I spent about an hour trawling through wikipedia and the internet trying to discover if asexual organisms undergo recombination. 129.67.38.36 ( talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition of recombination used in the article - the breaking and rejoining of DNA strands to form new molecules of DNA - must be wrong. Doesn't recombination includes, in addition to croosing over and the other mechanisms cited in the article, the pairing of homologous chromosomes (and the independent assortment) [1]? By the definition in Griffiths' Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 3, recombination is production of new combinations of aleles (which is made by homologous pairing, too).
I like that this article has attracted more attention over the past several months. Genetic recombination is process of fundamental importance in biology and deserves a brilliant article. Below are a few comments and suggestions.
The current lead seems like it could be improved with regard to accessibility and summary style. I'm a bit biased, but I think a version of the lead from a few years ago fares better in these areas. What are others' thoughts on reverting back to that older version?
Also, when I look at this article and Homologous recombination, I see a high degree of redundancy. For example, compare the diagram in Genetic_recombination#Meiotic_recombination to the second diagram in Homologous_recombination#In_eukaryotes. This article's discussion of crossover and non-crossover products and their relation to the DHJ / DSBR and SDSA pathways is also covered in Homologous_recombination#Models. Genetic_recombination#Recombinational_repair is variously covered in Homologous_recombination#Effects_of_dysfunction, Homologous_recombination#Cancer_therapy and Homologous_recombination#In_viruses.
Some redundancy between this article and the one on homologous recombination would not necessarily be a bad thing. What I think is worth avoiding though is conflating how we discuss the two subjects. Genetic recombination is a broad class of biological process that includes:
Differentiating between these terms could help improve the article's accessibility. I think the article currently dives into too much depth about, for example, the DHJ and SDSA pathways of recombination in meiosis. The homologous recombination article is better suited for that degree of detail. Even then, the degree of detail might be excessive -- that was a chief critique in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homologous_recombination/archive1. I think it would be best for this article to summarize those articles in several paragraphs each, and let those articles discuss their respective topics in greater detail.
This article should be much higher level and more accessible. In my opinion, genetic recombination should be aimed at high school students studying biology and lower-level undergraduates, homologous recombination and V(D)J recombination should be aimed at undergraduates majoring in the biological sciences, and articles about specific biochemical pathways of recombination like RecF pathway should be aimed at upper-level undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers. Emw ( talk) 01:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Genetic recombination/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) The article needs a clearer definition/distinction between meiotic recombination (chromosome crossover) and other types of naturally occuring genetic recombination, e.g. in prokaryotes or in immune cells, yeast mating type determination etc. - tameeria 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is not accessible to a lay audience. It would be a grand thing if someone who understands this material would completely rewrite the article in an accessible way. Strebe ( talk) 16:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How does it cause variation? Sevuloni Marseu ( talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikhil venkat konagala ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nikhil venkat konagala ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If an environment is created to allow Gene Recombinations , will there be any effect on non-targeted structures? Can a (possibly unnecessary) environment as such be redacted or negated promptly if there is risk of unwanted chemical interactions? 71.178.255.180 ( talk) 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead says this
Most recombination occurs naturally and can be classified into two types: (1) interchromosomal recombination, occurring through independent assortment of alleles whose loci are on different but homologous chromosomes (random orientation of pairs of homologous chromosomes in meiosis I); & (2) intrachromosomal recombination, occurring through crossing over.[1]
But the main text says this
Chromosomal crossover involves recombination between the paired chromosomes inherited from each of one's parents,
Please rectify. Thanks. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:E1CE:79A2:7FB2:384A ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)