![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction to the articles says "The genome for several organisms have been sequenced and genes analyzed, ...". This reflects the usage of the word "organism" established earlier in the paragraph. This seems quite odd, as if the organisms perhaps are me and my auntie Sarah. Is there a good reason for not using the word "species" instead? -- Willbown ( talk) 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The number of genes stated in the article about that organism said that its 17000 genes while page said that it has 60,000 genes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.42.135 ( talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information, which includes the genes. And, information is uncountable. tosendo ( talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone correct/clarify the library example? For instance, it claims the genes/pages range from (400-3340), but supposedly Chromosome 11 has only 379, and Chromosome 1 has 4220, (379-4220) according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.218.46 ( talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This page really needs to be improved. Is anyone planning on taking on the job? Right now it is very basic, disjointed, and even repetitious. Not trying to crticize what has been done, but to look forward to what still needs to be done. Evolver 13:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of Biology says about genomes:
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=461212&secid=.-&hh=1
That definition, while brief, supports my idea of genome (and that of the molecular geneticist sitting next to me), which is that plasmids don't count (b/c they aren't chromosomes and they're optional). 168...
Then again, opinions seem to differ. This is from a FAQ at the Web site of TIGR
What place do microbial plasmids have in defining the
genome of microbes? It seems as though the term "microbial genome" refers solely to the microbial chromosome. How are plasmid genes, that often define key traits, included, or are they not included?
By definition, a genome is all the DNA contained in an organism or a cell. A chromosome is the main DNA structure that contains the genes required for life. In microbial genomes, most often there is a single circular or linear chromosome and there are may be many extra-chromosomal, self-replicating, linear or circular DNA known as plasmids. In eukaryotic genomes, the chromosomes are within the nucleus and the extra chromosomal DNA is in the mitochondria as well as plastids in plants. In our genome projects of organisms that contain plasmids, ei. Borrelia borgdorferi, Methanococcus jannaschii, and Deinococcus radiodurans, the sequencing, finishing and annotation are done for the entire genome, chromosome and plasmids.
http://www.tigr.org/about/faq.shtml
But to me the question, which was expressed in words that don't sound naive, proves that the traditional sense of genome is that it's the chromosomes. The definition in the answer above disagrees with the usage of "genome" in humans and other eukaryotes: "All the DNA" would include mitochondrial DNA, which is typically considered its own genome (the "mitochondrial genome") 168...
Plus there's the issue that it's really only half of the chromosomal DNA in diploid cells. I guess the article needs work. Not tonight from me though. 168...
I've never encountered "chimera" being used like you used it (in the uses I know, people talk about two "genes" being spliced together, which proves there's some looseness in the use of the word "gene," [strictly I guess it's "alleles" that are spliced], but that doesn't mean people are equally loose with "genome"). I suppose I can imagine I've read news stories that say things like "once doctors have your own genome sequence" (even though nine times out of ten it's "THE human genome" the stories talk about). But that imagined or remembered phrase has the words "your own" in it, which I think is because you have to overcome the natural sense of genome as something general and impersonal. Is your chimera quote an actual excerpt from a magazine article, or just your recollection of the kind of thing you've read or heard? 168... 00:38 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
O.K., I remember now this other context of chimeras. I think it's related to how they make transgenic mice--manually combining embryoes. Also I was confused before and thought you were talking about spliced genomes, not about individuals who are genetic "mosaics" (which I think is the more common way people talk about this kind of chimera-ness). Your subspecies question sounds reasonable to me, though I'm not sure it's a problem for the "genome" concept (my hunch is that subspecies would be spoken about as having different versions of the same genome, b/c they are the called the same species, and one species has one genome, I believe). I can't disagree with your philosophy of usage and how the article should accomadate it, but I'm just not sure we aren't talking about an idiosyncratic usage. e.g. If it were only your biology teacher who talks about mosaics having two genomes, I don't think it would be time yet to update the dictionary. I guess according to that usage regarding mosaics, it takes two sets of chromosomes to make a genome, and in a mosaic it takes at least four. Hmmm. I guess a reasonable person could hold that view. But besides your biology teacher, is anyone out there publishing it? 168.150.238.72 00:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the article's opening definition: "the genome of an organism is it's whole hereditary information." This is flatly wrong. In eucaryotes, of course, mitochondrial DNA (not part of the genome) is also heritable from mother to daughter. And then there is that whole category of epigenetic information that is also heritable, but isn't encoded in DNA at all. The concept of "whole hereditary information" is changing rapidly, and it's now quite clear that it goes beyond the genome. RobPol 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for improvement - If possible, could the number of mutations be added to the list of gene size? Comparing gene size to mutation might show a correlation. 99.235.162.164 ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Somebody stuck the following on the front of the genome article.
": Genome is also a popular science book by Matt Ridley."
Looked like shameless book promotion to me, so I took it out. Would one start an article on relativity by a reference to the latest Einstein Biography? I would hope not. If somebody is still convinced of the importance of Ridley's contribution, perhaps mention of his book could be added further down.
Hate mail to: Nickthompson@earthlink.net
I have heard and read the word geneOME used as a synonym for gene pool, meaning all the possible variants of all the genes carried by all the organisms in a population, rather than referring to all the genes carried by an individual. I am pleased to see the narrower usage defended here. However, I am wondering if there is any significant body of opinion out there that the term ought to have the broader meaning. If so I would like to hear it.
nickthompson@earthlink.net
does the genome count include base pairs from both strands or just one side? Since both would be mirror images of each other. - Omegatron 23:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am removing (again) the book added as a reference by 70.31.67.60. Please explain why this book, as opposed to many others out there, should be added as a reference, considering that 1) the text was written well before the reference was added, 2) the addition is coming from an anonymous user, 3) the link goes to an Amazon page to help people buy the book, 4) the history of 70.31.67.60 shows that not only has the user created a page on the book, but is inserting it as a reference in other pages on Wikipedia as well ( example one) ( example two) Turnstep 19:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
This page is sorely lacking in references and links to further published material. I have added some in the section discussed above, but we need to insert more throughout. Hopefully as this page grows, we will incorporate citations of primary sources as much as possible, as this is one area where people will definitely need to look for more detail than Wiki pages can ever provide. Note that I have included a link to the book discussed above -- I think that is appropriate since a page exists. If people make pages for the other books, I will link to them also. However, I agree that linking to Amazon is not a good move. Note: please only put references cited in the text in the "References" section. Relevant but uncited publications could be provided in a "Further reading" section if need be. Evolver 15:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Human genome has been voted Science Collaboration of the Week. - Samsara contrib talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article could use a section on genome stability, as I don't think the subject as a whole warrants it's own article. It's not exactly my area of expertease hence why I am mentioning here rather than doing it myself! Million_Moments 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The OED citation is a conjecture onto what went through the mind of an individual, and cannot be cited as more reliable than any other linguistic conjecture. The OED has been known to be wrong on such issues, and does offer corrections. The citation provided is enough to shine reasonable doubt. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The definition given by this page is:
In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information.
But the article on Common_misunderstandings_of_genetics says:
Epigenetic inheritance. In the widest definition this includes all biological inheritance mechanisms that do not change or involve the genome.
They can't both be right. Ethyr ( talk) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article says:
In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the genetic material of an organism. It consists of DNA (or RNA in RNA viruses). The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.[1]
Considering the fact that DNA is a genetic material and a gene is a segment of DNA (according to the Wikipedia article), the above sentence can be rewritten as:
.., the genome is DNA. It consists of DNA. DNA includes both DNA segments and non-coding sequence of DNA/RNA.
Well, it is intentionally made weird a bit, but the meaning of the definition really is as such.
So far I remember, the definition here used be like:
.., the genome is a heredity unit of genetic material of an organism. (snip)
It can be rewritten as
.., the genome is a heredity unit of DNA of an organism. (snip)
I think this instance is more reasonable. Why was the definition rewritten?
BTW, isn't there an expression of Genomic DNA any more? If it is still alive, it would mean DNA's DNA. Uh-oh.
In my opinion genome is not DNA itself, rather it is the information contained. This is much simpler to explain. Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 09:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits by IP user (sorry I'm using mobile device and uneasy to refer) states genome includes genes and non-protein-coding information. Though agreed partly, I feel it a bit misleading because it implies any gene is protein-coding. Unsure, but some expression like non-genic information might cause less misunderstanding. Does anybody know more appropriate expression? -- Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking into the actual references for the human genome size, the Science paper estimate the size to 2.91 Gbp (Table 11), and the Nature paper to 3.289 Gbp (Table 8). Note what matters is genome size, not length of what was sequenced. The table of this page has a single value for the estimated human size.
Anyway, the problem is on the reference to the Nature paper. It's referencing a FAQ at ornl.gov which no longer exists and I had to check on web.archive.org. That website had the, incorrectly rounded, value of 3.2 Gbp and reference the Nature paper. Could someone that understands references on mediawiki fix it? Specially for papers with a thousand authors? The reference should be for this paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
Also, those were estimates for the draft of the human genome, there's likely better estimates nowadays.
-- Carandraug ( talk) 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genome. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gracey099.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genome. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genome. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the importance of the section on genome compression? As it's currently presented without context, it seems like a technical topic without broad appeal. ThokozileA ( talk) 21:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In the list of genome sizes, there should be some Archaea as well.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I am shadha alghurbani i want to edit this article ,because i am assigned this to my course in istanbul,Turkey. Shadha AlGhurbani ( talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The composition of the human genome pie chart was added to this article on Nov. 9, 2017. It was inaccurate then and it's even more inaccurate today. It's time to remove this figure. If there are no objections from people who are monitoring this article, I will remove it in a few days.
Here are some of the major inaccuracies.
1. There's no mention of important functional regions such as regulatory sequences and noncoding genes.
2. The chart perpetuates the common confusion between coding regions and protein-coding genes. The coding region occupies about 1% of the genome (not 2%) but protein-coding genes (exons + introns) take up almost 40%.
3. The chart doesn't mention virus-related DNA sequences (~4%).
4. There is considerable overlap between introns and repetitive DNA; they are not separate categories as implied in the chart. (About 40% of intron sequences is transposon-related.)
5. Segmental duplications are not a separate category.
6. Heterochromatin is not a separate category.
Genome42 ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The prokaryotic cell diagram was created by Ulissesrp and inserted into this article on May 29, 2020.
The label under the diagram says, "A label diagram explaining the different parts of a prokaryotic genome" but the diagram does not explain the different parts of a prokaryotic genome. Instead it describes different parts of prokaryotic cell but some of those labels are incorrect.
The prokaryotic cell diagram stacks on top of the Genetics series banner, which should normally be at the top of the article.
I propose deleting the prokaryotic cell diagram in a few days unless anyone objects.
Genome42 ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The definitions in the respective Wikipedia pages do not appear to differ between genotype and genome. This is also evident in most definitions I found. Is there a difference? Clarification would help - and perhaps a mention in the Introduction to Genetics article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics). “The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material”( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype). There is a somewhat different definition of genotype from the NHGRI at NIH ( https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genotype). “a genome is all the genetic information of an organism” ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) It would also be informative to discuss the genetic information of the entire population of an organism. Does it have a name? How many more genes are present in the population of an organism than in a single individual? Presumably unknown but the current academic thoughts (or lack of) would be interesting. QuietJohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
If you know and you think the article should discuss it: how big is the (haploid) human genome, as measured in centimorgans? — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 23:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Tmesipteris oblanceolata at 160 Gb Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction to the articles says "The genome for several organisms have been sequenced and genes analyzed, ...". This reflects the usage of the word "organism" established earlier in the paragraph. This seems quite odd, as if the organisms perhaps are me and my auntie Sarah. Is there a good reason for not using the word "species" instead? -- Willbown ( talk) 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The number of genes stated in the article about that organism said that its 17000 genes while page said that it has 60,000 genes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.42.135 ( talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information, which includes the genes. And, information is uncountable. tosendo ( talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone correct/clarify the library example? For instance, it claims the genes/pages range from (400-3340), but supposedly Chromosome 11 has only 379, and Chromosome 1 has 4220, (379-4220) according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.218.46 ( talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This page really needs to be improved. Is anyone planning on taking on the job? Right now it is very basic, disjointed, and even repetitious. Not trying to crticize what has been done, but to look forward to what still needs to be done. Evolver 13:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of Biology says about genomes:
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=461212&secid=.-&hh=1
That definition, while brief, supports my idea of genome (and that of the molecular geneticist sitting next to me), which is that plasmids don't count (b/c they aren't chromosomes and they're optional). 168...
Then again, opinions seem to differ. This is from a FAQ at the Web site of TIGR
What place do microbial plasmids have in defining the
genome of microbes? It seems as though the term "microbial genome" refers solely to the microbial chromosome. How are plasmid genes, that often define key traits, included, or are they not included?
By definition, a genome is all the DNA contained in an organism or a cell. A chromosome is the main DNA structure that contains the genes required for life. In microbial genomes, most often there is a single circular or linear chromosome and there are may be many extra-chromosomal, self-replicating, linear or circular DNA known as plasmids. In eukaryotic genomes, the chromosomes are within the nucleus and the extra chromosomal DNA is in the mitochondria as well as plastids in plants. In our genome projects of organisms that contain plasmids, ei. Borrelia borgdorferi, Methanococcus jannaschii, and Deinococcus radiodurans, the sequencing, finishing and annotation are done for the entire genome, chromosome and plasmids.
http://www.tigr.org/about/faq.shtml
But to me the question, which was expressed in words that don't sound naive, proves that the traditional sense of genome is that it's the chromosomes. The definition in the answer above disagrees with the usage of "genome" in humans and other eukaryotes: "All the DNA" would include mitochondrial DNA, which is typically considered its own genome (the "mitochondrial genome") 168...
Plus there's the issue that it's really only half of the chromosomal DNA in diploid cells. I guess the article needs work. Not tonight from me though. 168...
I've never encountered "chimera" being used like you used it (in the uses I know, people talk about two "genes" being spliced together, which proves there's some looseness in the use of the word "gene," [strictly I guess it's "alleles" that are spliced], but that doesn't mean people are equally loose with "genome"). I suppose I can imagine I've read news stories that say things like "once doctors have your own genome sequence" (even though nine times out of ten it's "THE human genome" the stories talk about). But that imagined or remembered phrase has the words "your own" in it, which I think is because you have to overcome the natural sense of genome as something general and impersonal. Is your chimera quote an actual excerpt from a magazine article, or just your recollection of the kind of thing you've read or heard? 168... 00:38 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
O.K., I remember now this other context of chimeras. I think it's related to how they make transgenic mice--manually combining embryoes. Also I was confused before and thought you were talking about spliced genomes, not about individuals who are genetic "mosaics" (which I think is the more common way people talk about this kind of chimera-ness). Your subspecies question sounds reasonable to me, though I'm not sure it's a problem for the "genome" concept (my hunch is that subspecies would be spoken about as having different versions of the same genome, b/c they are the called the same species, and one species has one genome, I believe). I can't disagree with your philosophy of usage and how the article should accomadate it, but I'm just not sure we aren't talking about an idiosyncratic usage. e.g. If it were only your biology teacher who talks about mosaics having two genomes, I don't think it would be time yet to update the dictionary. I guess according to that usage regarding mosaics, it takes two sets of chromosomes to make a genome, and in a mosaic it takes at least four. Hmmm. I guess a reasonable person could hold that view. But besides your biology teacher, is anyone out there publishing it? 168.150.238.72 00:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the article's opening definition: "the genome of an organism is it's whole hereditary information." This is flatly wrong. In eucaryotes, of course, mitochondrial DNA (not part of the genome) is also heritable from mother to daughter. And then there is that whole category of epigenetic information that is also heritable, but isn't encoded in DNA at all. The concept of "whole hereditary information" is changing rapidly, and it's now quite clear that it goes beyond the genome. RobPol 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for improvement - If possible, could the number of mutations be added to the list of gene size? Comparing gene size to mutation might show a correlation. 99.235.162.164 ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Somebody stuck the following on the front of the genome article.
": Genome is also a popular science book by Matt Ridley."
Looked like shameless book promotion to me, so I took it out. Would one start an article on relativity by a reference to the latest Einstein Biography? I would hope not. If somebody is still convinced of the importance of Ridley's contribution, perhaps mention of his book could be added further down.
Hate mail to: Nickthompson@earthlink.net
I have heard and read the word geneOME used as a synonym for gene pool, meaning all the possible variants of all the genes carried by all the organisms in a population, rather than referring to all the genes carried by an individual. I am pleased to see the narrower usage defended here. However, I am wondering if there is any significant body of opinion out there that the term ought to have the broader meaning. If so I would like to hear it.
nickthompson@earthlink.net
does the genome count include base pairs from both strands or just one side? Since both would be mirror images of each other. - Omegatron 23:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am removing (again) the book added as a reference by 70.31.67.60. Please explain why this book, as opposed to many others out there, should be added as a reference, considering that 1) the text was written well before the reference was added, 2) the addition is coming from an anonymous user, 3) the link goes to an Amazon page to help people buy the book, 4) the history of 70.31.67.60 shows that not only has the user created a page on the book, but is inserting it as a reference in other pages on Wikipedia as well ( example one) ( example two) Turnstep 19:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
This page is sorely lacking in references and links to further published material. I have added some in the section discussed above, but we need to insert more throughout. Hopefully as this page grows, we will incorporate citations of primary sources as much as possible, as this is one area where people will definitely need to look for more detail than Wiki pages can ever provide. Note that I have included a link to the book discussed above -- I think that is appropriate since a page exists. If people make pages for the other books, I will link to them also. However, I agree that linking to Amazon is not a good move. Note: please only put references cited in the text in the "References" section. Relevant but uncited publications could be provided in a "Further reading" section if need be. Evolver 15:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Human genome has been voted Science Collaboration of the Week. - Samsara contrib talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article could use a section on genome stability, as I don't think the subject as a whole warrants it's own article. It's not exactly my area of expertease hence why I am mentioning here rather than doing it myself! Million_Moments 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The OED citation is a conjecture onto what went through the mind of an individual, and cannot be cited as more reliable than any other linguistic conjecture. The OED has been known to be wrong on such issues, and does offer corrections. The citation provided is enough to shine reasonable doubt. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The definition given by this page is:
In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information.
But the article on Common_misunderstandings_of_genetics says:
Epigenetic inheritance. In the widest definition this includes all biological inheritance mechanisms that do not change or involve the genome.
They can't both be right. Ethyr ( talk) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article says:
In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the genetic material of an organism. It consists of DNA (or RNA in RNA viruses). The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.[1]
Considering the fact that DNA is a genetic material and a gene is a segment of DNA (according to the Wikipedia article), the above sentence can be rewritten as:
.., the genome is DNA. It consists of DNA. DNA includes both DNA segments and non-coding sequence of DNA/RNA.
Well, it is intentionally made weird a bit, but the meaning of the definition really is as such.
So far I remember, the definition here used be like:
.., the genome is a heredity unit of genetic material of an organism. (snip)
It can be rewritten as
.., the genome is a heredity unit of DNA of an organism. (snip)
I think this instance is more reasonable. Why was the definition rewritten?
BTW, isn't there an expression of Genomic DNA any more? If it is still alive, it would mean DNA's DNA. Uh-oh.
In my opinion genome is not DNA itself, rather it is the information contained. This is much simpler to explain. Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 09:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits by IP user (sorry I'm using mobile device and uneasy to refer) states genome includes genes and non-protein-coding information. Though agreed partly, I feel it a bit misleading because it implies any gene is protein-coding. Unsure, but some expression like non-genic information might cause less misunderstanding. Does anybody know more appropriate expression? -- Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Wordmasterexpress ( talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking into the actual references for the human genome size, the Science paper estimate the size to 2.91 Gbp (Table 11), and the Nature paper to 3.289 Gbp (Table 8). Note what matters is genome size, not length of what was sequenced. The table of this page has a single value for the estimated human size.
Anyway, the problem is on the reference to the Nature paper. It's referencing a FAQ at ornl.gov which no longer exists and I had to check on web.archive.org. That website had the, incorrectly rounded, value of 3.2 Gbp and reference the Nature paper. Could someone that understands references on mediawiki fix it? Specially for papers with a thousand authors? The reference should be for this paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
Also, those were estimates for the draft of the human genome, there's likely better estimates nowadays.
-- Carandraug ( talk) 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genome. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gracey099.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genome. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genome. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the importance of the section on genome compression? As it's currently presented without context, it seems like a technical topic without broad appeal. ThokozileA ( talk) 21:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In the list of genome sizes, there should be some Archaea as well.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I am shadha alghurbani i want to edit this article ,because i am assigned this to my course in istanbul,Turkey. Shadha AlGhurbani ( talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The composition of the human genome pie chart was added to this article on Nov. 9, 2017. It was inaccurate then and it's even more inaccurate today. It's time to remove this figure. If there are no objections from people who are monitoring this article, I will remove it in a few days.
Here are some of the major inaccuracies.
1. There's no mention of important functional regions such as regulatory sequences and noncoding genes.
2. The chart perpetuates the common confusion between coding regions and protein-coding genes. The coding region occupies about 1% of the genome (not 2%) but protein-coding genes (exons + introns) take up almost 40%.
3. The chart doesn't mention virus-related DNA sequences (~4%).
4. There is considerable overlap between introns and repetitive DNA; they are not separate categories as implied in the chart. (About 40% of intron sequences is transposon-related.)
5. Segmental duplications are not a separate category.
6. Heterochromatin is not a separate category.
Genome42 ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The prokaryotic cell diagram was created by Ulissesrp and inserted into this article on May 29, 2020.
The label under the diagram says, "A label diagram explaining the different parts of a prokaryotic genome" but the diagram does not explain the different parts of a prokaryotic genome. Instead it describes different parts of prokaryotic cell but some of those labels are incorrect.
The prokaryotic cell diagram stacks on top of the Genetics series banner, which should normally be at the top of the article.
I propose deleting the prokaryotic cell diagram in a few days unless anyone objects.
Genome42 ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The definitions in the respective Wikipedia pages do not appear to differ between genotype and genome. This is also evident in most definitions I found. Is there a difference? Clarification would help - and perhaps a mention in the Introduction to Genetics article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics). “The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material”( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype). There is a somewhat different definition of genotype from the NHGRI at NIH ( https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genotype). “a genome is all the genetic information of an organism” ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) It would also be informative to discuss the genetic information of the entire population of an organism. Does it have a name? How many more genes are present in the population of an organism than in a single individual? Presumably unknown but the current academic thoughts (or lack of) would be interesting. QuietJohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
If you know and you think the article should discuss it: how big is the (haploid) human genome, as measured in centimorgans? — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 23:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Tmesipteris oblanceolata at 160 Gb Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)