Mutation received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 6 errors. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
Summaries of this article appear in evolution and gene. |
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HKR ARS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damonie667.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dishabhavsar. Peer reviewers: Ddoerflinger, HadeelBinomar.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Beneficial mutations": "Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful[citation needed], some... " Can we remove [citation needed]? How often do you see undesired changes to a complex code result in a positive change? It's common knowledge that mutations cause countless diseases and syndromes. Positive or even neutral mutations are negligible compared to the damage they cause. Precise wording: "Although mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful; on occasion, they can have neutral or positive effects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.192.11 ( talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, most mutations are very slightly harmful, in the sense that they lead away from adaptation to current circumstances. A good citation for this would be ISBN 978-0198569732, which uses similar words to say this point. This could be good to include in the arguments about beneficial vs deleterious mutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.225.7 ( talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The "error" link redirects to the "Singularity is Near" book by Ray Kurzweil. That can't possibly be correct. Qed ( talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following quotation from the description is misleading: "Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out." Mutation is NOT the mechanism through which natural selection acts. Differential reproductive success is the mechanism; mutation is necessary in that it is the source of the variation, but it is definitely not the mechanism. To suggest so seems vaguely Lamarkian (i.e., Natural Selection somehow forces a mutation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.7 ( talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, was wondering if the section on beneficial mutations can be edited to include something about natural selection, since along with the example cited, CC5R, this possible explanation accompanies it. "One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased." Since this explanation is one of natural selection of the fitter, would it be fit (pun not intended) to add something about natural selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimpSpider ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing I've been trying to figure out for a while: I know that mutations can sometimes be beneficial...but the question is, can they actually INCREASE THE LENGTH of DNA molecules? I looked online, and people say opposite things...are there scientist that have opinions on this? 72.80.198.221 ( talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Could something be added into the first sentence of the introduction to clarify whether or not mutations are always inheritable? Genetically malformed individuals whose genetic malformation, for instance was the result of their mother's ingestion of thalidomide, do not I believe necessarily have similarly affected offspring. I raise the point as this article is referred to, as the primary source in another article here, as being one of the four primary sources of genetic change in pupulations. LookingGlass ( talk) 08:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone clarify this in relation to the page subject? Because this important point is not discussed at all. Are mutations directly observable (e.g. with a telescope) or are they inferred?
The following source says: "Here, the focus is on mutations that affect only single genes and are not microscopically observable." [2] FossilMad ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The section Somatic mutations includes the sentence "When analyzing somatic mutations present in the cells of multicellular organisms, can know its origin and its past."
Can someone fix this sentence? What is the subject of the verb "can know", please? And what is the antecedent of the pronoun "its"? Dirac66 ( talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mutation/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.
Importance rating adjusted to "top" as highschool/SAT biology content, important basis for genetics, evolution, and occurence in popular culture. - tameeria 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
At several points, the article uses the term "novel mutation" to talk about new mutations, as opposed to inherited ones. The National Cancer Institute defines the term "novel mutation" as one that as been previously undiscovered/unreported, and scientific literature uses the term as such, while "new" or "de novo" mutations to refer to a mutation present in an organism that was not present in the parent. (Apologies for the drive-by flagging.) [1] 199.217.4.94 ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
“By effect on protein sequence” mentions frameshift, nonsense, missense, neutral, and silent mutations, which were discussed in “By effect on structure.” Can these sections be combined?
"Replication timing quantitative trait loci affects DNA replication" does not mention how DNA replication is affected.
The final paragraph of the “Beneficial mutations” section lists sickle-cell disease as an example of a harmful mutation. I believe sickle-cell disease should be discussed in “Harmful mutations,” while the sickle-cell trait should be covered in “Beneficial mutations.”
Finally, I believe there needs to be more information related to how mutations are located and fixed within organisms. I.e., Photoreactivation repair, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, etc.
JJCim ( talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
These two subsections were a complete mess, full of duplications and contradictions, and it was not clear how the content was divided between them. I have substantially revised their organization and nested the classifications in a way that I believe is more logical. Ted.tem.parker ( talk) 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I like how the article is organized. It covers many aspects related to mutation, so if anyone does not have an idea about mutation he is going to find all the sources. Another great thing about the article is that it describes a different kind of mutation, the causes and it provides links to other articles which would be helpful to the reader, also the article is well resourced. Halhamdan ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a currently really long section, with following subheadings:
3.1 By effect on structure (3.1.1 Small-scale mutations 3.1.2 Large-scale mutations) 3.2 By effect on function 3.3 By effect on fitness (3.3.1 Distribution of fitness effects) 3.4 By impact on protein sequence 3.5 By inheritance 3.6 Special classes 3.7 Nomenclature
Would it make sense to rearrange this into multiple sections? I think many of these are of more than enough importance to warrant it. HFHah ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"In December 2017, the U.S. government lifted a temporary ban implemented in 2014 that banned federal funding for any new "gain-of-function" experiments that enhance pathogens "such as Avian influenza, SARS and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS viruses."[47]"
This sentence from the paragraph on gain-of-function mutations is pretty obviously superfluous and intended to push some kind of political agenda. It should be removed. 2001:569:BD89:A00:1CB9:93A9:8DB7:FC21 ( talk) 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe somatic mutation warrants spin off into its own article. See Draft:Somatic mutation
Some reasons in favor of spin-off:
These distinct issues include:
Downsides: Many of these topics have mention in other articles [in varying amounts of detail]; some could use further elaboration. Benefits to gathering information in one place to understand overarching role of somatic mutation?
HFHah ( talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article about "gain-of-function" experiments, especially as regards viruses, is needed. The coverage in this article (which redirects from Gain of function) does not properly explain how such experiments are done, or for what purpose. Do any of the editors of this page have the knowledge and expertise to do this? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:38, 17 January 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): AndrewDunham14, BurgulaNiharika ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by AndrewDunham14 ( talk) 01:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
A list of things to do, following up on the review below Dabs ( talk) 08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Below is my review of this article. I will make a list of major and minor suggestions and get to work on those presently Dabs ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This article has some bright spots but generally its a mess with a low content/length ratio. It often repeats basic knowledge found in other articles, and is full of statements that lack context. The organization and the topic headings often are not justified by the content. The history section is irrelevant and is copied from another wikipedia article.
Given the existence of other articles on Wikipedia, I think it would be smart to focus this article mainly on mutation as the genetic perturbation of a biological system, characterized by the structure of the change, and by its effects, with suitable examples given along the way, as distinct from (1) mutation as the mechanistic consequence of DNA replication and repair or (2) mutation as a process that contributes to evolution. That is, given a biological system with an inheritable component, there are some enumerable ways to change the inheritable component, and these have some known and unknown consequences to consider for this article.
Material to deconvolute or keep separate vis a vis other articles
Material to integrate into target article
Material to carve off into a separate article
Error-prone replication bypass (sub-heading of Causes)
Errors introduced during DNA repair (sub-heading of Causes)
Induced mutation (sub-heading of Causes)
Germline mutation.
Somatic mutation
Dabs ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Mutation received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 6 errors. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
Summaries of this article appear in evolution and gene. |
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HKR ARS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damonie667.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dishabhavsar. Peer reviewers: Ddoerflinger, HadeelBinomar.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Beneficial mutations": "Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful[citation needed], some... " Can we remove [citation needed]? How often do you see undesired changes to a complex code result in a positive change? It's common knowledge that mutations cause countless diseases and syndromes. Positive or even neutral mutations are negligible compared to the damage they cause. Precise wording: "Although mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful; on occasion, they can have neutral or positive effects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.192.11 ( talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, most mutations are very slightly harmful, in the sense that they lead away from adaptation to current circumstances. A good citation for this would be ISBN 978-0198569732, which uses similar words to say this point. This could be good to include in the arguments about beneficial vs deleterious mutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.225.7 ( talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The "error" link redirects to the "Singularity is Near" book by Ray Kurzweil. That can't possibly be correct. Qed ( talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following quotation from the description is misleading: "Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out." Mutation is NOT the mechanism through which natural selection acts. Differential reproductive success is the mechanism; mutation is necessary in that it is the source of the variation, but it is definitely not the mechanism. To suggest so seems vaguely Lamarkian (i.e., Natural Selection somehow forces a mutation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.7 ( talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, was wondering if the section on beneficial mutations can be edited to include something about natural selection, since along with the example cited, CC5R, this possible explanation accompanies it. "One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased." Since this explanation is one of natural selection of the fitter, would it be fit (pun not intended) to add something about natural selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimpSpider ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing I've been trying to figure out for a while: I know that mutations can sometimes be beneficial...but the question is, can they actually INCREASE THE LENGTH of DNA molecules? I looked online, and people say opposite things...are there scientist that have opinions on this? 72.80.198.221 ( talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Could something be added into the first sentence of the introduction to clarify whether or not mutations are always inheritable? Genetically malformed individuals whose genetic malformation, for instance was the result of their mother's ingestion of thalidomide, do not I believe necessarily have similarly affected offspring. I raise the point as this article is referred to, as the primary source in another article here, as being one of the four primary sources of genetic change in pupulations. LookingGlass ( talk) 08:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone clarify this in relation to the page subject? Because this important point is not discussed at all. Are mutations directly observable (e.g. with a telescope) or are they inferred?
The following source says: "Here, the focus is on mutations that affect only single genes and are not microscopically observable." [2] FossilMad ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The section Somatic mutations includes the sentence "When analyzing somatic mutations present in the cells of multicellular organisms, can know its origin and its past."
Can someone fix this sentence? What is the subject of the verb "can know", please? And what is the antecedent of the pronoun "its"? Dirac66 ( talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mutation/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.
Importance rating adjusted to "top" as highschool/SAT biology content, important basis for genetics, evolution, and occurence in popular culture. - tameeria 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
At several points, the article uses the term "novel mutation" to talk about new mutations, as opposed to inherited ones. The National Cancer Institute defines the term "novel mutation" as one that as been previously undiscovered/unreported, and scientific literature uses the term as such, while "new" or "de novo" mutations to refer to a mutation present in an organism that was not present in the parent. (Apologies for the drive-by flagging.) [1] 199.217.4.94 ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
“By effect on protein sequence” mentions frameshift, nonsense, missense, neutral, and silent mutations, which were discussed in “By effect on structure.” Can these sections be combined?
"Replication timing quantitative trait loci affects DNA replication" does not mention how DNA replication is affected.
The final paragraph of the “Beneficial mutations” section lists sickle-cell disease as an example of a harmful mutation. I believe sickle-cell disease should be discussed in “Harmful mutations,” while the sickle-cell trait should be covered in “Beneficial mutations.”
Finally, I believe there needs to be more information related to how mutations are located and fixed within organisms. I.e., Photoreactivation repair, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, etc.
JJCim ( talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
These two subsections were a complete mess, full of duplications and contradictions, and it was not clear how the content was divided between them. I have substantially revised their organization and nested the classifications in a way that I believe is more logical. Ted.tem.parker ( talk) 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I like how the article is organized. It covers many aspects related to mutation, so if anyone does not have an idea about mutation he is going to find all the sources. Another great thing about the article is that it describes a different kind of mutation, the causes and it provides links to other articles which would be helpful to the reader, also the article is well resourced. Halhamdan ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a currently really long section, with following subheadings:
3.1 By effect on structure (3.1.1 Small-scale mutations 3.1.2 Large-scale mutations) 3.2 By effect on function 3.3 By effect on fitness (3.3.1 Distribution of fitness effects) 3.4 By impact on protein sequence 3.5 By inheritance 3.6 Special classes 3.7 Nomenclature
Would it make sense to rearrange this into multiple sections? I think many of these are of more than enough importance to warrant it. HFHah ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"In December 2017, the U.S. government lifted a temporary ban implemented in 2014 that banned federal funding for any new "gain-of-function" experiments that enhance pathogens "such as Avian influenza, SARS and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS viruses."[47]"
This sentence from the paragraph on gain-of-function mutations is pretty obviously superfluous and intended to push some kind of political agenda. It should be removed. 2001:569:BD89:A00:1CB9:93A9:8DB7:FC21 ( talk) 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe somatic mutation warrants spin off into its own article. See Draft:Somatic mutation
Some reasons in favor of spin-off:
These distinct issues include:
Downsides: Many of these topics have mention in other articles [in varying amounts of detail]; some could use further elaboration. Benefits to gathering information in one place to understand overarching role of somatic mutation?
HFHah ( talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article about "gain-of-function" experiments, especially as regards viruses, is needed. The coverage in this article (which redirects from Gain of function) does not properly explain how such experiments are done, or for what purpose. Do any of the editors of this page have the knowledge and expertise to do this? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:38, 17 January 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): AndrewDunham14, BurgulaNiharika ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by AndrewDunham14 ( talk) 01:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
A list of things to do, following up on the review below Dabs ( talk) 08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Below is my review of this article. I will make a list of major and minor suggestions and get to work on those presently Dabs ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This article has some bright spots but generally its a mess with a low content/length ratio. It often repeats basic knowledge found in other articles, and is full of statements that lack context. The organization and the topic headings often are not justified by the content. The history section is irrelevant and is copied from another wikipedia article.
Given the existence of other articles on Wikipedia, I think it would be smart to focus this article mainly on mutation as the genetic perturbation of a biological system, characterized by the structure of the change, and by its effects, with suitable examples given along the way, as distinct from (1) mutation as the mechanistic consequence of DNA replication and repair or (2) mutation as a process that contributes to evolution. That is, given a biological system with an inheritable component, there are some enumerable ways to change the inheritable component, and these have some known and unknown consequences to consider for this article.
Material to deconvolute or keep separate vis a vis other articles
Material to integrate into target article
Material to carve off into a separate article
Error-prone replication bypass (sub-heading of Causes)
Errors introduced during DNA repair (sub-heading of Causes)
Induced mutation (sub-heading of Causes)
Germline mutation.
Somatic mutation
Dabs ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)