Talk:Paternal mtDNA transmission
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- The main source on this topic now has twenty-seven citations. It seems to be time to bring things up to date.:-)--RebekahThorn 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Consider this paragraph, which appears in the current version.
Many sources, notably companies that sell genealogical DNA tests, state that paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring. However, a mounting number of studies show that paternal mtDNA can be inherited. This belief is central to mtDNA genealogical DNA testing and to the theory of mitochondrial Eve. However, there is evidence that in sexual reproduction, the tail of the sperm does enter the egg, and thus paternal leakage may occur.
This implies that the idea that paternal mtDNA can be inherited is "central to mtDNA genealogical DNA testing and to the theory of mitochondrial Eve". This is clearly a nonsense. The section reeks of having been edited in stages by people of opposing viewpoints. It needs to be edited to say something sensible.Ordinary Person 08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. How about: Many sources state state that human paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring. This belief is central to mtDNA genealogical testing and also to the theory of mitochondrial Eve. There are studies though that show that paternal mtDNA can be inherited. There is also evidence that, in sexual reproduction, the tail of the sperm does enter the egg and thus paternal leakage may occur. It is still rough but at least the ideas are in the right order.--RebekahThorn 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please Rebekah, edit boldly, 27 citations is strong verification, and the only authority you need to serve Wiki by reporting it. You know about these things, most of us don't, please keep us informed, just cite the source(s). Alastair Haines 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC):D
- Hmmm, seems RT has left us. The article is theoretically good if not great, but needs rampant copyediting; the logical structure looks like mincemeat. I wouldn't be up to it, since in articles that are likely to see major changes in the next 1-2 years I rather not use < ref > tags, to make future edits easier and maintain a nice ordered reference section... in the present case I wouldn't be able to resist to kill all the ref tags dead as the references themselves need to be propered up (layout, data such as DOI etc).
- So if anyone would like to do some cleanup work, shoot away! I have found some new material and annotated this in the reference section sourcecode.
- But I warn you: I'll keep an eye on this, and if nobody touches the article, I'll do.
- You have been warned. ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's a link to human mitochondrial genetics further down in the page that doesn't seem to be working as a link; instead of seeing a link, I see the two brackets, then the words, then the brackets. How can I fix that? --NellieBly (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I do not know how to edit wiki very well, but one of the citations here, however valid in some respects, appears to have a particular pseudoscientific creationist bent to it: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondria.html THis is citation 1 in the paper, but the last two paragraphs are clearly tainted by creationist pov, and the website on which it is contained: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html "A Creation Perspective", opens with a quote from the bible. On the citation in question, the following page is recommended as further reading: http://www.rae.org/clocks.html I quote the last sentence of this paper: "This is in line with the biblical time frame. " I'm not sure what the wiki rules are for this, but I just wanted to point this out, because as a biology student, this makes me think twice about taking pages like this seriously. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In the current edit:
However, there has been only a single documented case of human paternal mitochondrial DNA transmission, and it was linked to infertility.
This would be a major change, so I don't want to make it alone. I may be repeatedly missing something in the article.
I have re-read the article cited - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa020350 - several times and don't see infertility treatment or infertility itself linked to the presence of paternal mtDNA in this patient. Infertility is mentioned in the context of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) but does not say that the patient was conceived using ICSI or similar methods. (It does mentions that paternal mtDNA has been seen in abnormal embryos produced this way, but states that this has not been seen in infants born after ICSI. No "until now" - I don't find any hint of this anywhere relating to the patient himself.)
I propose that "However, there has been only a single documented case of human paternal mitochondrial DNA transmission, and it was linked to infertility" have the words "and it was linked to infertility" removed.