Talk:Gene duplication

Template:Wikiproject MCB

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gene duplication article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarification

The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that if a gene is under natural selection, many mutations will lead to loss of functionality and thus are selected against. When a gene is duplicated selection may be removed from one copy and now the other gene locus is free to mutate and discover new functions.

I don't understand this part at all, can someone try to explain it in other words? Thank you, --Abdull 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, don't read "The Selfish Gene", a college level genetics text will be much better. Science popularizers usually have agendas, and none as shameless as Dawkins.

Firstly, the wording does make sense. Let's say you have one copy of a gene that makes an important protein necessary in metabolism. Mutations in that gene that alter its functionality are subject to natural selection and so are weeded out of the population. If however, there is a gene duplication, a mutation in one copy is not selected against because the other copy of the gene is still making that protein. The mutated protein is then available to be co-opted into other uses. Oh and read The Selfish Gene! — Dunc|☺ 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change your see aslo

Change you see also it is offensive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.8.45.86 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Process or phenomenon?

Is gene duplication a process or a phenomenon that is the result of a process (or both)? It is a phenomenon if you can talk about a sequence where there is gene duplication, or a gene is an example of gene duplication, as opposed to the results of gene duplication. The article introduction is currently ambiguous about this. Please amend it accordingly. -Pgan002 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check correctness after copy-edit

I have made major copy-edits to the article. Please check the correctness of the article in this version. -Pgan002 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi - I checked it. It is correct - I have been doing research in this area for several years.
  --194.94.44.4 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication free species?

A large part of the mathematical literature on genome rearrangements deals with permutations, which model genomes under the assumptions that they all contain the same genes once, only in different orders. Is this duplication-free model directly usable in real world studies, i.e. are there species, datasets, ... where no gene duplications occur? Or, if this is not true, is that simple model still usable in some way by biologists? Thanks a lot 87.64.11.159 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]