Talk:DPANN

Suggestion for improved language

I do NOT claim any expertise in this area, which is why I am not going to modify the lead myself. I have deleted my explanation(s) for my suggested improvements: far too long. Here's what I suggest to replace the not-so-good, run-on, sentence:"The monophyly of DPANN is not considered established until now, due to the high mutation rate of the included phyla, which can lead to the artifact of the long branch attraction (LBA) where the lineages are grouped basally or artificially at the base of the phylogenetic tree without being related." I suggest:: "As of 2020, the monophyly of DPANN has not been firmly established.[add reference 5 & 6 here] The high mutation rate of the phyla included may have led to long branch attraction (LBA) error (in which lineages are grouped at the base of the phylogenetic tree without actually being closely related), and so there is considerable uncertainty in their taxonomy." I didn't check if the references actually validated the statement. 174.130.71.156 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirects

Only a few of the links to the DPANN phyla on this page actually go somewhere. Most of them are redirects to the same page, which is unhelpful at this point. Even other places, if I click on a phylum, I want to know about the phylum, not the superphylum. Better to leave the red links so we know we need those pages. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are still candidate phyla, I think, or phyla whose taxonomic structures are still being developed. I remember reading an early article at another science site, around eight years ago, about the Archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms group (a subgroup of DPANN), where it was claimed that "at least 38 new phyla" (!) had been established from this limited local viotope alone. I don't think that ordering has quite stood up...

If I've got it right, the DPANN group as such, and many of its phyla, are survivors from the dawn of biological life on Earth. but many of the actual genera and species that have been identified are nowhere near as old, because these linegaes are highly prone to mutating and forming new species, new families etc., yes? 188.150.64.57 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]