Talk:Zygosity

message: I believe that there is a nullizygosity where both alleles of a gene or chromosome are deleted or missing. It has implications in many cancers. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/12/3021
cobalt 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nullizygous seems to be a fusion of the words homozygous and null (complete loss of function or gene knockout). For example, a p53 nullizygous mouse is homozygous mutant for a null allele of p53. Dr d12 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nullizygous 

message: This is not a subject I'm very familiar with, but I suspect the wording could be much improved. The opening paragraphs appear to give conflicting definitions of zygosity. The word, if I understand correctly, can be used in several senses and applied to (1) loci, (2) genes, (3) organisms, (4) genomes, (5) chromosomes, (6) twins, (7) alleles, and perhaps other things. The full range of its uses should be mentioned in the opening sentence.
I suspect, too, that zygosity can be used generally to refer to all the qualities expressed by adjectives ending in -zygous and nouns ending in -zygote.
Finally, the sentences beginning with a term followed by "is when" really ought to be reworded. That's no way to characterize a noun. D021317c 09:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: I agree with what other editors on this talk page have allready stated. The terms homozygous, heterozygous and hemizygous require three seperate articles. At the very least section redirects. I guess it just needs someone to be bold.Sting_au | Talk 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article

message: I think clarity would be helped tremendously if some simple examples were added. Like how it would be when combining different eye colors or something. Because as it is now, there is a lot of jargon without much connection to how these things come to people via the media. I would do it myself if I would feel qualified.  212.153.56.10 (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: simple examples would help

message: I've just completed a major re-work of this article.  In addition to fixing mechanics (grammar, punctuation, etc), I tried to organize the information better and make it more readable and understandable for people who are not familiar with the topic.  In the course of doing so, I've made a couple of changes that might be questioned, so I'll address them here.
First, I completely changed the section on the terms autozygous and allozygous, including removal of any mention of convergent evolution.  I could be wrong, but if I understand correctly the two are not related.  Convergent evolution results in emergence of similar structures, called analogous structures, in completely different types of organisms that do not share a common ancestor (or at least not one who passed on the trait in question).  This is completely different from emergence of similar structures, called homologous structures, resulting from a shared ancestor that passed the trait to two or more branches of the evolutionary tree.  Allozygotic homozygosity (wow, there's a good tongue twister!) can, I suppose, result from convergent evolution in some cases, but I really think it's a stretch to connect it as firmly as it was in the previous version of this article.  But that's just based on my own reasoning in an attempt to make logical connections among a wide array of diverse facts that I know.  If I've made any mistakes either here or in the article, I'd love to discuss it.
Second, I completely removed the section called "Inheritance of traits".  As far as I could tell, everything that was in it was either (1) already covered elsewhere in the article or (2) not particularly relevant to this specific topic.  Again, if anyone disagrees I'll be happy to discuss a compromise.
Third (and far less controversial, I'd guess), I added a section for nullizygosity.  I know very little about it but I wrote what I do know, and I added a tag for expansion of the section.
In addition to those things, I thought I'd throw in my two cents about splitting the article.  I'd be pretty strongly opposed to doing so because I just don't know that there's enough to say about any individual term within this article to warrant the splitting.  I think that any article that's written about an individual term from this one is going to end up being a perpetual stub.  I feel so strongly about this that if no one disputes it within a week or two I'm planning to remove the "split" tag.  As always though, if anyone disagrees I'm happy to discuss it.
And finally, I'd just like to point out that the article still has zero sources cited.  I'm a pretty decent writer and copy-editor but I really suck at sourcing so I'm going to leave it like this for now.  However, I'm hereby issuing a plea for anyone who is able to do so to add a few reliable sources.  I think it's a great article and I believe that all the information is good, but I also believe that we need to have a foundation for the information we place here.  I appreciate anything that can be done to help. -- edi(talk) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I just noticed the "technical" tag at the top of this page.  I think I've improved that aspect a fair bit, but that may just be my perception.  I'd appreciate hearing from others to know whether the tag should be removed or whether more work is needed on the technical language. -- edi(talk) 16:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to give one last notice just to be absolutely sure that I've at least attempted to find consensus: As I mentioned above, I think the "split" and "technical" tags can be removed from this article, and I plan to do so if no one objects in the next few days.  If anyone disagrees, I'm happy to discuss it.  Thanks. :) -- edi(talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie doke, no response at all, so both tags have been removed.  If anyone wants to discuss this with me, I'll be happy to talk about it, no problem.  Thanks. :) -- edi(talk) 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Since the bias here is painfully obvious, I trust that no one will object when I edit the lead to read:
Most organisms have a single circular chromosome...
Right?  Hcobb (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eukaryote bias 

message: Substituted at 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment