Talk:Genomic imprinting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Genomic imprinting:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : *Expand the lead sentence to at least a solid paragraph or two.
Priority 4


That article never says "imprinting" in citation 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes[edit]

This page also has some relevant and useful information on Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. genetics play an important role also


Request to expand the explanation of the word "imprint"[edit]

As it stands, this article seems to miss explaining the central topic: what the term "imprint" actually refers to.

On a page related to Ref 1, there's a discussion of why this phenomenon is called "imprinting". Apparently "imprinting" refers to marks added (printed) to a gene in either egg or sperm which disable this gene. The idea that marks are added in an egg to particular genes, and in a sperm to other genes, goes a long way to explaining the rest of the story.

This nugget of explanation ties everything else together, it seems to me. I hope someone savvier than me could incorporate this into the article. Gwideman (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Revamp of Article - Fair Warning[edit]

Hello, all. I intend on reviewing and editing this article in the near future. I'm placing this advance notice to allow anyone interested in collaborating to say so, and also to collect comments on what should be improved. I've already noted that the text is not accessible to the wide audience, and will try to edit it as to be more user-friendly. Further comments and advice would be much appreciated. Shiningheart (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PLease read the following paragraph from the genomic imprinting article. Could some one either correct or delete the line from the NOEY2 paragraph:

Therefore, if a person inherits both chromosomes from the mother, the gene will not be expressed and the individual is put at a greater risk for breast and ovarian cancer

How does someone inherit both chromosomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonpack (talkcontribs) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, suggest that a small paragraph be included on when and where imprinting takes place, esp for humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an article[edit]

In trying to make sense of this encyclopedia "article," I find that it consists of a collection of aphorisms lifted from various sources and loosely pasted together. There is no overarching sense being made, such that a reader can become familiar with the subject by reading the article. It is the "too many cooks" syndrome, with each author dropping a small contribution into the pot, and then leaving. If Wikipedia is to be a useful encyclopedia, its articles should have the capacity to educate a person who is not already grounded in the subject. I assume that each sentence in the article is true on its own; however, small bits of truth do not magically combine to form a useful article on their own.

Without some effort being made to organize this mess, it is pretty useless. Volunteers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Any article that includes a heading "Overveiw" is usually a mess, and this one is no exception. A good beginning would be to create a readable lead section. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Genomic Imprinting[edit]

Recently I've some minor editing dispute with user: with the definition of imprinting. It is clearly stated in the article cited that:

"Genomic imprinting is a remarkable epigenetically regulated process that causes genes to be expressed in a parental-origin-specific manner".

I'm not a native level English speakers but it seems to me that the definition written in the article by using preposition such as "by which" raising some problems. Although in this context it might be correct, it will raise confusion especially for non-native speakers. Is it possible rephrase the definition in more sensible manner without reducing the meaning? I would suggest just to follow the cited article cited because it is simpler and I'm open to any suggestion.

I also had added an explanation that this terms is often used interchangeably with parent-specific-gene expression. Adeuss (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you see the need to change a sentence structure that makes perfect sense and has existed in this form for years, and since you are the one proposing the change, it should be you that discusses the issue and seeks consensus instead of reverting. But alas I cannot be bothered to argue. As for your assertion that imprinting and parent specific expression are interchangeable terms, this is simply not true. The terminology is 'genomic imprinting' or simply imprinting/imprinted, what this process achieves is parent specific expression of genes. 2A00:23C4:6E08:7000:800A:4EC8:5319:4A3A (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi 2A00:23C4:6E08:7000:800A:4EC8:5319:4A3A, thanks for the kind suggestion. I apologized to be so keen. But I have my reason.
I agreed with you that it should not be interchangeably, thanks for the correction.
The reason why I'm so keen is, as you can see in one journal that I cited, the line between this two terminology started to blur.
Especially for non-native English speaker, there are a lot of author that consider this two different terminology as a same thing.
For example:
And even in this (they have two different version of the definition in the abstract)
I guess this is rooted from:
Hall 1997: "Genomic imprinting is the differential expression of genetic material depending on whether it was inherited from the male or from the female parent."
or Wilkins & Haig 2003 because they put this sentences "Parent-specific gene expression (genomic imprinting)...."
That is why I want to propose to rephrase the definition in a straight manner. I'm satisfied with the definition now as what it is. Thank you very much for helping me out with the editing. Adeuss (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)