Talk:Genome project

message: I think we can be a little vitriolic, for the sake of humanity.
Moon - a rock which orbits earth - end transmission.
I reverted that change; I can history be in the future?  The essense of what you are trying to say wasn't wrong - just the wording. Stewart Adcock 22:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Should the (partial?) list of projects be listed into some sort of taxonomic order? 203.34.41.43 04:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of projects 

message: somebody please define ORF.  I follow this stuff and even I don't know what it is.  Thanx!  Sys Hax 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page linked to open reading frame. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome annotation 

message: hey, shouldn't HIV be on this list?  They HAVE sequenced it, right?  I'm not adding it myself because I don;t know for sure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sys Hax (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example genome projects 

message: In every individual it's different. Whose DNA did they map? Whatever they say is on chromosome 22, mine's gotta be different by a few C's and T's, and maybe a G.
:I agree with this statement.  Sample sizes are not significant in the case of humans.  Further complicated by all the cells in the same subject not having the same sequence with somatic mutations and class switch recombitation being notable normal examples in lymphocytes.  In any case polymorphisms are found and listed and periodically the known genome is rebuilt.  It has not changed much recently.  I do find it annoying that at ncbi there are in fact three different builds Celera1 Celera2 and the reference genome.  I guess there are issues merging the two or three builds.
done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you map the DNA of a species? 

message: Line 1 uses the word organism and then gives an awkwardly phrased list of examples one of which is the virus. Wikipedia defines organism as living ( although the usual uncertainty about whether viruses qualify as living appears in that article), but viruses are not living, thus the term organism does not technically apply, so technically there is an error there. Since it makes perfect sense to list viruses in the list of categories of sequenced "entities", perhaps the word organizm should be changed or some sort of re-wording. Also is it really necessary to parenthetically list all the "kingdoms" in a tiring list of 'be its' ?
Netrapt (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a virus is not an organism; "be it" 

message: there is an annotation on the article asking 'who?' says the era of genomics is one of the most fundamental in human history. While the term 'era of genomics' and 'fundamental' may not appear, there are plenty of praises heaped on the human genome project, to wit:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/draft2000/mainrelease.shtml
http://www.todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/H_Cat/HumanGenome-Quotations.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/805803.stm
Netrapt (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a specific statement that needs to be attributed to a specific source that should use very similar wording. Miscellaneous praise is not equivalent.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  references for praises 

message: Why is SOAP the only example mentioned?  The assembly software section appears to be advertising for one out of a plethora of software. Ketil (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BGI/SOAP advertisement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genome project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928054058/http://www.nrcpb.org/content/nrcpb-scientists-succeeded-decoding-arhar-dal-genome to http://www.nrcpb.org/content/nrcpb-scientists-succeeded-decoding-arhar-dal-genome
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified