![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Phenome page were merged into Phenotype#Definition on 22 July 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Prior Discussions by Topic |
Just a request, I've stumbled into this area by accident, and I'd like to do what I can to calm things down a bit. Could we not force the redirect for the time being, and have some further discussion? I don't have a sense as to whether the redirect is a good or bad idea, but this is approaching an edit war. Thoughts? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I've archived the prior discussion here, just for housecleaning purposes. There is a lot of good information in there, it's worth reading through.
Second, I'm not an expert in this topic--my prior field of study was philosophy of language and literary criticism, and I work in IT. So I'm very familiar with jargon.
In terms of defining the problem, I believe we have two basically independent issues to consider:
I note that User:Colonel Warden has made some edits, and found a reference that dates to 1949, so it is clear that the term has a long history. I also note that User:Crusio has made some compelling arguments in the archive that the term is essentially jargon, and really just a synonym of Phenotype. There's also a third related term, Phenomics, and from what I've read, it seems that there is justification for that article, if only for the reason that there are now centers and groups using that term in their titles.
I also think at this point we have three main options:
Given User:Colonel Warden's recent edit, my inclination is to maintain this page and improve it. What does everyone else think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to see that the page has been restored, but am a bit concerned that some of the original useful information on the page got deleted in the process. Anyway, I have no axe to grind, and hope that the more expert users will help restore more of the original useful information.-- Pfjoseph ( talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've seen, in the Talk page, there is a clear explanation of the difference between "phenome" and "phenotype" (by comparison with "genome" and "genotype"). What is missing here (and in the Phenome explanation!) is the underlying systemic approach in phenomics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology; you'll see there references to "general systems theory"), meaning the view of an organism as a "dynamic system" (dynamic≈changing; sistem ≈a structural integrated "whole") entity which changes, modifies itself under the influence of the exterior factors in the scope of maintaining its internal stability (its "life"). Concerning the internal factors, don't forget a livig entity is, in fact, "a system of systems" where are the decreasing complexity levels:
the medical systems (nervous, locomotor etc.) the organs (heart, liver, brain etc.) the organ components (cerebelum, etc) ... the cell ... the atoms ... The fundamental "bricks" of universe,
and everyone of this sub-systemes, at its own level (biology, chemistry, physics), acts as a dynamic system!. As regards the relation between "phenome" and "phenotype", I think the "phenotype" is the static (at a certain point of time) expression of the "phenome". So, I think the page must be maintained and improved with the systemic approach. Gillcv ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
So this is a philosophycal (linguistic reflected) distinction between the "object" (phoneme) and its "description" (phenotype).It is essential to distinguish the descriptors of the organism, its genotype and phenotype, from the material objects that are being described. The genotype is the descriptor of the genome which is the set of physical DNA molecules inherited from the organism's parents. The phenotype is the descriptor of the phenome, the manifest physical properties of the organism, its physiology, morphology and behavior
Systems biology is an emerging field of biological research that aims at a system-level understanding of genetic or metabolic pathways by investigating interrelationships (organisation or structure) and interactions (dynamics or behaviour) of genes, proteins and metabolites.
Genomics is the field of biological research taking us from the DNA sequence of a gene to a structure of the product for which it codes (usually a protein) to the activity of that protein and its function within a cell and, ultimately, the organism. Crossing several scale-layers from molecules to organisms, we find that organisms, cells, genes and proteins are defined as complex structures of interdependent and subordinate components whose relationships and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole. This definition coincides with the most general definition of a system as a set of components or objects and relations among them. Systems theory is then the study of organisation and behaviour per se and a natural conclusion is therefore to consider systems biology as the application of systems theory to genomics.
A significant amount of 21st century research focuses on systems (e.g., genomic, cellular, organismic, and ecological/global). Systemic Darwinism is emerging in this context. It follows a ‘‘compositional paradigm’’ according to which complex systems and their hierarchical networks of parts are the focus of biological investigation. Through the investigation of systems, Systemic Darwinism promises to reintegrate each dimension of Darwin’s original logical space. Moreover, this ideally and potentially unified theory of biological ontology coordinates and integrates a plurality of mathematical biological theories (e.g., self-organization/structure, cladistics/history, and evolutionary genetics/function). Integrative Systemic Darwinism requires communal articulation from a plurality of perspectives. Although it is more general than these, it draws on previous advances in Systems Theory, Systems Biology, and Hierarchy Theory.
Hello, I don't want to reignite what was obviously a very heated debate as to whether phenome was an individual "thing" or a synonym of phenotype, but I work for the MRC-NIHR National Phenome Centre which opened in 2013 and the question we most often get asked is "what is a phenome"? We have some descriptions which we use to explain to both expert and lay audiences and also our Director has published some articles on it explaining the use of a person's phenome as a useful tool in patient and population stratification. I am happy to have a go and edit the page, but do not want to do so if 1. people feel there is a conflict of interest here and 2. it will cause massive issues. Advice/comments gratefully received please. DancingBal ( talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Phenome page were merged into Phenotype#Definition on 22 July 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Prior Discussions by Topic |
Just a request, I've stumbled into this area by accident, and I'd like to do what I can to calm things down a bit. Could we not force the redirect for the time being, and have some further discussion? I don't have a sense as to whether the redirect is a good or bad idea, but this is approaching an edit war. Thoughts? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I've archived the prior discussion here, just for housecleaning purposes. There is a lot of good information in there, it's worth reading through.
Second, I'm not an expert in this topic--my prior field of study was philosophy of language and literary criticism, and I work in IT. So I'm very familiar with jargon.
In terms of defining the problem, I believe we have two basically independent issues to consider:
I note that User:Colonel Warden has made some edits, and found a reference that dates to 1949, so it is clear that the term has a long history. I also note that User:Crusio has made some compelling arguments in the archive that the term is essentially jargon, and really just a synonym of Phenotype. There's also a third related term, Phenomics, and from what I've read, it seems that there is justification for that article, if only for the reason that there are now centers and groups using that term in their titles.
I also think at this point we have three main options:
Given User:Colonel Warden's recent edit, my inclination is to maintain this page and improve it. What does everyone else think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to see that the page has been restored, but am a bit concerned that some of the original useful information on the page got deleted in the process. Anyway, I have no axe to grind, and hope that the more expert users will help restore more of the original useful information.-- Pfjoseph ( talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've seen, in the Talk page, there is a clear explanation of the difference between "phenome" and "phenotype" (by comparison with "genome" and "genotype"). What is missing here (and in the Phenome explanation!) is the underlying systemic approach in phenomics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology; you'll see there references to "general systems theory"), meaning the view of an organism as a "dynamic system" (dynamic≈changing; sistem ≈a structural integrated "whole") entity which changes, modifies itself under the influence of the exterior factors in the scope of maintaining its internal stability (its "life"). Concerning the internal factors, don't forget a livig entity is, in fact, "a system of systems" where are the decreasing complexity levels:
the medical systems (nervous, locomotor etc.) the organs (heart, liver, brain etc.) the organ components (cerebelum, etc) ... the cell ... the atoms ... The fundamental "bricks" of universe,
and everyone of this sub-systemes, at its own level (biology, chemistry, physics), acts as a dynamic system!. As regards the relation between "phenome" and "phenotype", I think the "phenotype" is the static (at a certain point of time) expression of the "phenome". So, I think the page must be maintained and improved with the systemic approach. Gillcv ( talk) 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
So this is a philosophycal (linguistic reflected) distinction between the "object" (phoneme) and its "description" (phenotype).It is essential to distinguish the descriptors of the organism, its genotype and phenotype, from the material objects that are being described. The genotype is the descriptor of the genome which is the set of physical DNA molecules inherited from the organism's parents. The phenotype is the descriptor of the phenome, the manifest physical properties of the organism, its physiology, morphology and behavior
Systems biology is an emerging field of biological research that aims at a system-level understanding of genetic or metabolic pathways by investigating interrelationships (organisation or structure) and interactions (dynamics or behaviour) of genes, proteins and metabolites.
Genomics is the field of biological research taking us from the DNA sequence of a gene to a structure of the product for which it codes (usually a protein) to the activity of that protein and its function within a cell and, ultimately, the organism. Crossing several scale-layers from molecules to organisms, we find that organisms, cells, genes and proteins are defined as complex structures of interdependent and subordinate components whose relationships and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole. This definition coincides with the most general definition of a system as a set of components or objects and relations among them. Systems theory is then the study of organisation and behaviour per se and a natural conclusion is therefore to consider systems biology as the application of systems theory to genomics.
A significant amount of 21st century research focuses on systems (e.g., genomic, cellular, organismic, and ecological/global). Systemic Darwinism is emerging in this context. It follows a ‘‘compositional paradigm’’ according to which complex systems and their hierarchical networks of parts are the focus of biological investigation. Through the investigation of systems, Systemic Darwinism promises to reintegrate each dimension of Darwin’s original logical space. Moreover, this ideally and potentially unified theory of biological ontology coordinates and integrates a plurality of mathematical biological theories (e.g., self-organization/structure, cladistics/history, and evolutionary genetics/function). Integrative Systemic Darwinism requires communal articulation from a plurality of perspectives. Although it is more general than these, it draws on previous advances in Systems Theory, Systems Biology, and Hierarchy Theory.
Hello, I don't want to reignite what was obviously a very heated debate as to whether phenome was an individual "thing" or a synonym of phenotype, but I work for the MRC-NIHR National Phenome Centre which opened in 2013 and the question we most often get asked is "what is a phenome"? We have some descriptions which we use to explain to both expert and lay audiences and also our Director has published some articles on it explaining the use of a person's phenome as a useful tool in patient and population stratification. I am happy to have a go and edit the page, but do not want to do so if 1. people feel there is a conflict of interest here and 2. it will cause massive issues. Advice/comments gratefully received please. DancingBal ( talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)