Talk:BRCA1

message: Hypertechnical, not useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.147.73 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone have any thoughts on how/if we should merge the existing infobox with the one generated using the ProteinBoxBot (shown at right)?
AndrewGNF 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and replaced the existing protein box with the GNF_Protein_box.  The later contained all the information in the former with the exception of information domains and motifs.  The the domain and motif information has been included in a new structure section.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding [[User:ProteinBoxBot|ProteinBoxBot]] content 

message: JAMA - Hispanics in Northern California have a lot of BRCA1. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanics 

message: The prevalence rates in different parts of the world, and among different ethnicities, should be stated on the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic distribution

message: May I suggest that section be turned into a table? E.g. BRCA1 is know to interact with a number of molecules. They are: etc...Calaka (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the interactions have been controversial (BRCA1 interacting with Xist comes to mind).  Perhaps going over the list is in order.--Pjlmac (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yikes, what a mess.  I second changing it to a table, and perhaps reviewing it (does each one really need 6 or 7 references?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.155.40 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have converted the interaction list into a bulleted list and wrapped in a  template specifying a fixed column width such that the number of columns dynamically adjusts to the width of the browser window.  Does it look OK  now?  Boghog (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that spliting out an interaction article is a good idea.  For one thing, this creates extra work in creating and maintaining the new article with little if any benefit.  One of the justifications for adding lists of known protein-protein interactions to Gene Wiki pages was to reduce the number of orphan articles.  BRCA1 is an extreme example that interacts with many other proteins.  The interaction section is confined to its own section in the article, therefore I don't see how including this section in the BRCA1 article interferes with editing of the rest of the article. The readability problem may be a problem, especially when viewing with Internet Explorer before version 8 where the list is not displayed in columns.  The reference list on the other hand is very long.  This could be condensed somewhat by grouping citation and perhaps restricting the citation to review articles. Boghog (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactions 

message: I have a lump behind my nipple which very painful itchy, and leaking substance. I have already had 1 course of antibiotics and it hasnt cleared, could this be just an abyss or breast cancer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazzies123 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  breast cancer 

message: I am contemplating creating something like that for following purposes:
* easy entry/link point for articles such as breast cancer
* gathering epidemiologic and treatment relevant information as much of the available publications deal with all variants or do not distinguish them
* giving pointers to stuff like jewish ashkenazi inteligence theory that would seem somewhat offtopic in either BRCA1/2 articles
Thoughts? Richiez (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mikael H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m was quicker and created BRCA mutation :) Richiez (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create BRCA_mutations_overview? 

message: I am adjusting the wording in the 3rd paragraph of the "Effect on Gene Testing" section because it is lacking depth and, more importantly, citations. 
The old paragraph read: 
:"However, the patents have yet to be enforced in Europe, where BRCA research and testing is becoming more widely available, and several laboratories are currently offering their own BRCA testing. The UK firm NewGene offers the test at a very competitive price, to the NHS, its owner, only."
The new Paragraph will read:
:"However, the patents have yet to be enforced in Europe, where BRCA research and testing is becoming more widely available, and several laboratories are currently using their own genetic tests rather than pay expensive fees to Myriad.   Controversial issues surrounding European laboratories operating in violation to Myriad’s patents are absent because it seems that Myriad is not interested in actively enforcing their patents in Europe. Peter Meldrum, CEO of Myriad Genetics, affirms his stance that Myriad has “other competitive advantages that may make such [patent] enforcement unnecessary.” Jwalkfour (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Gene Testing Edit 

message: just a heads up... there are way too many primary science papers used as sources for this article.  It looks like a scientific review article instead of a wikipedia article.  As per WP:PSTS secondary and tertiary sources are "go to" - primary sources are "to be avoided".  I am going to try to scrape together some time to properly source this doggy.Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think secondary sources are more critical for the clinical parts of this article (Mutations and cancer risk and Germ line mutations and founder effect) than the scientific (gene, function, structure, interactions) (compare WP:MEDRS with WP:SCIRS). Please keep in mind that a secondary source is not automatically better than a primary source (e.g., a superficial review article published in an obscure journal vs a highly cited primary source in a peer reviewed journal). Of course, if relevant high quality review articles published in high impact journals are available, those should be used in preference to primary sources. Boghog (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks BogHog.  I will source it well - we have no need to get into a pre-fight.   Quick note, though.  WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy or guideline.  The policies in WP:PSTS govern sourcing in all articles;  the guidelines in WP:MEDRS are within WP:PSTS and add additional requirements to WP:PSTS.  I'm guessing that one reason that WP:SCIRS only has essay status is because of the way it would promote primary sources beyond what policy allows.Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Boghog - MEDRS is relevant for the clinical aspects but much less for underlying biology or etiology and pathogenesis sections. Even for the clinical aspects we need primary sources from time to time. Secondary sources are preferred but not when they are clearly outdated or insufficient. The clinical aspects should be in BRCA mutation though. Richiez (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really not the place to have a sourcing debate; nor is it time yet b/c I haven't done anything. I will apply WP:PSTS and we will see what happens!Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, it wasn't me who deleted that citation. :) Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is clear. :-)  Boghog (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I think that the Interactions list would look better without commas at the end, see Manual of Style for bulleted lists, if the items on the bulleted list aren't sentences then they aren't necessary Mightyhansa (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MOS:BULLETLIST,   The entire interaction list is a complete sentence (albeit a very long one). Also per Bulleted Lists, it is traditional to include a comma at the end of each fragment of a bulleted list. Boghog (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is reference to the APA style guidelines irrelevant here? Thousands of organisations have their own style manuals, with differing rules for bullet punctuation, but for Wikipedia content, surely only Wikipedia style manual should be consulted? The 'complete sentence' element of the wikipedia guidelines is refering to individual items within the whole list. None of the individual items in this list are complete sentences, so my interpretation of Wikipedia style is that no final punctuation is required. If this section is indeed one complete sentence, then should it not be written in continuous prose form with the necessary punctuation to seperate the list items? It is much easier for the reader to digest the list in its current bulleted form, this is also why I removed the final punctuation without consultation, because I felt they didn't help the reader in evaulating the list as well as being contrary to Wikipedia style. This isn't a massive deal, I'm sure the article will survive either way, it was only because a message was left on my user talk page, which I felt was better discussed here. Mightyhansa (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for being so insistent here, but the Wikipedia and APA style guides are in complete agreement.  To reiterate, the Wikipedia guideline states .  The entire interaction list is a complete sentence. Boghog (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  For background, the original list was added as a single comma delimited sentence here.  I then converted this sentence to a bulleted list preserving the commas in this edit. Boghog (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia guidelines do indeed state , but this is refering to . The individual items in this list are not complete sentences, just abbreviations, ergo, they don't need to have final punctuation. In the same section of the MOS, the examples provided also do not have final punctuation. Mightyhansa (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Interactions list

message: The introduction states BRCA1 is a proto-oncogene. To my knowledge however it is a tumor suppressor gene. This is also stated in the german version of this article.
A proto oncogen is defined as inducing tumor when activated. A tumor suppressor gene is preventing tumorigenesis as long as it is active.
Can anyone else comment on that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.54 (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note. The first paragraph of this article also states that BRCA1 us a tumor suppressor gene.  The second paragraph doesn't state that BRCA1 is a proto-oncogene, but rather BRCA1 has been described as a breast cancer susceptibility gene. So far so good as there are reliable sources that support that claim (e.g., ).  The paragraph then goes on to state that cancer susceptibility genes in turn have been described as proto-oncogenes and then disputes this claim (first introduced in this edit).  To me, this sounds like a straw man argument.  As far as I can tell, a cancer susceptibility gene are not restricted to proto-oncogenes (where gain of function mutations cause cancer) but also include tumor suppressor genes (where loss of function mutations cause cancer).  This makes for rather confusing reading and should be simplified. Boghog (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have tried to remove the confusion in this edit.  I hope it is clearer now. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oncogene or Tumorsuppressorgene? 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#brcaexchange.org -- Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to brcaexchange.org 

message: The UniProt database on P38398_1 (see ref. 28) states:"Mutations in BRCA1 are thought to be responsible for 45% of inherited breast cancer. Moreover, BRCA1 carriers have a 4-fold increased risk of colon cancer, whereas male carriers face a 3-fold increased risk of prostate cancer." The range given in the graphic is 50% to 65% (for females). It should be OBVIOUS that if 45% of *inherited* BC is caused by inherited BRCA1 mutations, then it is simply *impossible* that the entire "absolute risk" is greater. (Males' risk is 1/800 and can be ignored here). It's a huge flaw that the graphic mentions ovarian cancer but ignores colorectal cancer (4th most common, 2nd most fatal). (Uterine and pancreatic cancers are 8th & 9th in frequency (US Data)). The basic problem I have with the graphic is that there's likely to be 100's or 1000's of gene variants, some of which will be very dangerous, some of which may be protective. That is, the range of absolute risk should include 0% (and relative risk possibly negative). I think the current graphic should be removed and a better one used, if one can be found.40.142.183.146 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk graphic