This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.
This subject is featured in the Outline of genetics, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Genes correspond to regions within DNA, a molecule composed of a chain of four different types of nucleotides—the sequence of these nucleotides is the genetic information organisms inherit.
This definition seems to be rather for a locus. Truly inheritable material comprise rather alleles which carry individual genetic differences. So what is a gene? The current consensus does not give a clear definition. This is because the term gene was given for a theoretical entity. The reality, revealed later, was much more complicated than the theory and a gene turned out not simply a stretch of DNA. Since clear and adequate definition cannot be given in any way, the idea of locus and allele should also be shown with the very ambiguous and vague term gene. -- tosendo (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence you've quoted is intended as a definition of genes, which are introduced in the previous paragraph. It's just a statement about genes' physical nature. Personally I think the subtle differences between genes, alleles and loci are too much detail for the lead of this article ("Genetics", not "Gene"), and would be too confusing for lay readers – best leave all that to be discussed more fully in the History section. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. New threads go down the bottom.
I trust that readers are smart enough to understand that 'gene' is a dynamic term that has changed over the years and currently has a 'working definition' that is subject to change in the future. Readers simply need to be told that this is the case, and need to be provided with that working definition. It should also be noted that it almost impossible to learn something if you are not familiar with the jargon, and since the term gene is so loosely thrown around with many (and sometimes contradictory) definitions, it would be a boon to learners everywhere to define it in its modern sense. I agree with tosendo that the gene definition should be clarified. --Russot1 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously there's disagreement here--among editors and more generally. But I'd opt for treating genetics as a subsicipline of biology, which is itself a discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garychartier (talk • contribs) 05:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the word viruses from the second paragraph because viruses are not traditionally said to be 'living,' as was prefaced in the sentence. If viruses needs to be mentioned, please create a new sentence. --Russot1 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What!!!??? Accused of Vandalism for editing "gene"!
The phrase "This property is what gives DNA its semi-conservative nature where one strand of new DNA is from an original parent strand" is a bit clumsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Useful sources for updating this and related articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The image and description of a pedigree does not include notation for a heterozygote, a person of unknown sex, twins (neither fraternal nor identical), or consanguineous matings. I believe a new image with examples of all of these cases as well as a brief description of each should be added to this section to give a better understanding of the utility of pedigrees. -Estephe9 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that sort of detail is warranted in this article, which ought to give an overview of the entire broad field of genetics, but such a diagram would be highly valuable at Pedigree chart. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 22:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The section on “The Gene” immediately makes wonder what exactly is wrong with analogy of the genes as they are described with words, as it is evident that something is wrong. The answer arises after a quick thought: genes have meanings (if they don't, then so worse), words don't. Meanings of genes exist, meanings of words don't. That is, words act on the soul by themselves, there is no thing that is referenced by the word, is described via other laws than the word is, and acts on the soul. At least, there is no evidence that such thing exists; by all evidence that is visible to an average reader, words act on the soul by themselves, not via anything else. While it looks that what acts on the cell are not genes, but amino-acids after translation, which are described by laws other than those laws that describe genes themselves. In one word, I suggest that maybe itisbetter toformulate thissection differently, not viaanalogies; at the very least, such formulation would evade objections like “'electrophysiology' are three words, not one!” — 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we look at what the genes translate to, then that thing might seem similar to words, but the action of words on the soul is not determined, as it looks, through composition of the actions of letters; words consist also of some other elements that compose their laws of direct action. In any case, I find it is very weird to explain what is unknown through what is unknown, it only raises questions and does not let understand anything. I suggest to give an idea in brief words what the action of genes is, not what it may seem to be similar to. What do they act upon? What are results of their actions? As this section lets notice, sometimes those results are null, sometimes those are a construction of some protein molecules, perhaps sometimes they are something else; the type of constructed molecule may depend on many factors in the sequence of the genes, as well as the further action of the molecules on the cell may depend on many factors. I think the section needs to explain it in plain words, with no dubious analogies that only complicate the matter, and substituting all “perhaps” and “many” for more precise data. - 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)