Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Antonipetrov (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Welcome to the WikiProject Molecular Biology talk page. Please post any comments, suggestions or questions. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

Please remain civil, be respectful, and assume good faith.
Put new text under old text. (Start a new topic ).
Threads older than 90 days are automatically archived.

WikiProject Molecular Biology Archives: 1, 2, 3

Taskforce archives:

MCB: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Genetics: 1, 2, 3, 4
Computational Biology: 1, 2
Gene Wiki: 1, 2, 3, 4

Biophysics (inactive): 1, 2
Metabolic Pathways (inactive): 1
Cell Signaling (inactive): 1
RNA (inactive): 1

Fantastic Databases and where to find them: Web applications for rushed (busy?) researchers

List of Biological Databases

National Center of Biotechnology Information - NCBI [1]
Omictools [2]

- Kurop1n (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2020‎

Discussion at WP:RSN concerning a paper about COVID origins and bioengineering

There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the paper and those that cite it to give a summary of my thoughts over at the discussion there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for PNPO

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—PNPO —has been proposed for merging with Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Biochemistry

There is a deletion discussion underway at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene vs encoded-protein article guideline?

Is there a guideline for whether there should be separate articles for a gene and the protein it encodes, vs a unified article? And if unified, whether the gene or the protein should be the actual article (vs redirect to it)? DMacks (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have MOS:MCB as a style guideline (at the essay-level) to gene and protein articles. For a combined article, it generally recommends using the protein name for the title. My two cents is that it is probably best to start a combined article. Then if there is sufficient sourcing and development that the article becomes unwieldy, a gene/protein split might be considered. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't see that (or the parent Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Style guidelines) linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology (is how I got here). Should it have a "Resources" section similar to the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology? DMacks (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The linking is a little indirect--Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology/Molecular_and_Cell_Biology has an advice & resources link to a resources page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology/Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/Resources which has the MOS:MCB link. I'd be in favor of putting the resource links directly on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology/Molecular_and_Cell_Biology page.

Status of Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment page

Maybe my perspective is unusual, but to me the Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment is one of _the_ pivotal experiments that underpin our whole understanding of how molecular biology ties together genotype and phenotype.

Clicking to the article's Talk page, I see its status currently listed as Start-Class and Low-importance. That sounds .. odd. Who can change that? Are there specific complaints about the article as it stands? It looks pretty good to me.

I just reverted some vandalism there that had lasted for three months. I have trouble understanding the mind-set of someone who thinks that Wikipedia should present corrupted foundations of biology. But somehow this article has attracted at least three such actions in this past year. Does this rise to the level of needing semi-protection? Or would it be enough for a few members of this WikiProject pay a bit more attention to this article? Larry Doolittle (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Doolittle: For the rating, it's not uncommon for them to get out of date, or sometimes to have been done in a rush. Anyone is allowed to update the rating so please feel free to take a quick look at this summary of the rating scale for similar pages and update the rating in the template at the top of the article's talk page! I'm not very knowledgeable about semi-protection on wp, so others will have to weigh in on that! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call me paranoid if you want, but I see evidence of methodical biology article vandalism. Other articles affected are Poly(A)-binding protein and Translation (biology). Maybe someone else can step in there. Larry Doolittle (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Drum RNA motif & hundreds of others

Hi folks, you may be interested in participating in discussions for pages relating to Rfam, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Hundreds of RNA motif pages --Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting about this problem here! Here is a quick summary: several hundred of wiki articles describing RNA genes are nominated for deletion because supposedly they do not have a secondary source and do not meet the notability criteria, despite being linked to and updated by the team maintaining the Rfam database of RNA families. If these pages are deleted, Rfam would be forced to stop a decade-long collaboration with Wikipedia and move to a separate wiki, creating a barrier between scientists and the general public. As a result, the information about RNA genes will be harder to find and fewer people will maintain in the future. This would be a huge step backwards so I would like to bring this issue to the attention of a wider community of Wikipedians interested in Molecular Biology. Any input will be greatly appreciated! Antonipetrov (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both for flagging this here. I think it's highly relevant not only to RNA motif articles in particular, but also to some broader concepts:

relationships between WP and external databases (e.g. the way Pfam & Rfam transclude content, vs the way that Cazypedia keeps all their summaries separate)
inherent notability (relevant to motifs, genes, proteins etc)
source use for scientific topics (in particular use of primary vs secondary sources and what type of source a database is)
many stubs vs single lists

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to everyone who contributed to the discussion! The AfD request has been closed as there was no consensus, so the articles are safe. We will aim to review these and other articles that correspond to Rfam families to avoid such situations in the future. Feel free to get in touch if anyone is interested in this effort. Thanks again! Antonipetrov (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]