Talk:Essential gene

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Human essential gene measurements

I'm editing the essential gene section of the main gene article and I noticed that here, the human essential genes estimate is listed as 118 from a 2003 reference.[1] A couple of other papers quote much higher numbers (although the second is housekeeping, rather than essential).[2][3] Either way, the table might need a more recent references for humans. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Liao, B. -Y.; Zhang, J. (2008). "Null mutations in human and mouse orthologs frequently result in different phenotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (19): 6987–6992. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800387105. PMC 2383943. PMID 18458337.
  2. ^ Georgi, B; Voight, BF; Bućan, M (May 2013). "From mouse to human: evolutionary genomics analysis of human orthologs of essential genes". PLoS genetics. 9 (5): e1003484. PMID 23675308.
  3. ^ Eisenberg, E; Levanon, EY (October 2013). "Human housekeeping genes, revisited". Trends in genetics : TIG. 29 (10): 569–74. PMID 23810203.
I agree, I have added the Georgi reference, even though it uses a prediction based on mouse orthologs.Peteruetz (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In the meantime, I have added a few additional recent papers from 2015 and 2016, so that the section on human essential genes should be quite up to date. Peteruetz (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality rating

I took the liberty to remove the "C" quality rating, which was assigned 3 days after I started the page in August 2013. The "C" rating is defined as "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."

Obviously, the article has been much expanded and improved since its creation and there is no indication what is "missing" or "irrelevant". I am happy to work on that. Let me know. Peteruetz ; (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've read it though and upgraded the assessment from C class to B class, retaining its Mid importance rating. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essential gene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Essential gene/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Amir.azhieh: – Interesting and important topic. The first thing I noticed is that the article needs some work to comply with the WP:MOS (good article criterion 1b). The issue is that the article does not follow the standard structure and layout of Wikipedia articles, which makes it harder for people to read and understand, and use the content. Instead, the article has elements of scholary articles.

A few points here:

  • References in the lead should be avoided. All information in the lead should be given in the body as well. In this case, I suggest to create an Background section providing the reader with the necessary basics, and give some basic information.
  • we need to avoid bold and underlined text.
  • Bacteria: genome-wide studies – not a good title, since Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive. This title suggests that there are studies that are not genome-wide, so I would expect another section on these. If such a section is not warranted, I would just use "Bacteria" as section title.
  • Two main strategies have been employed to identify essential genes on a genome-wide basis – This is not specific to bacteria, so it should not be within the section "Bacteria", but could be explained in the introductory section I suggested above.
  • Large table captions as for "Table 1" are not the standard in Wikipedia. The background is better given in the main text, and the table column titles should ideally be self-explaining (at least in the context of the text). Avoid referring to tables and figures from the text, as they cannot be displayed correctly on all devices, and we also have to stay accessible for blind people who use screen readers.
  • Is table 1 an exhaustive list of studies? Is it a selection?
  • Sections Quantitative gene essentiality analysis, "Synthetic lethality" and "Essential protein domains" are very short to warrant their own section. Also, this seems to be very basic information that is better explained at the beginning of the article?
  • Same with "Conditionally essential genes" – I would discuss this before going into details about Bacteria, Eucaryota and viruses.
  • avoid "et al.", which is too technical for a general encyclopedia, better use "and colleagues".
  • Check for excessive spaces before references and dots. Two instances in this example: microarrays [2] or through transposon sequencing .
  • For some of the given information the source is not clear. To be verifiable, each paragraph needs at least one reference at its end. Section "Quantitative gene essentiality analysis" is completely without source.
  • For section "Prediction", please consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Embedded lists.

Good article criteria 1b and 2 (Verifiable with no original research) are not yet fulfilled, and significant work is needed here. I therefore think it is best to fail the article for now, and suggest a wp:peer review. If you have any questions/need help with fixing these issues, I am happy to assist. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Essential_gene"