Talk:Arabidopsis thaliana

message: I was wondering what the reasoning was behind the latest revert? 
Adenosine | Talk 18:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The current version:
*It plays the role for agronomy that mouse and fruit fly (Drosophila) play in human biology.
The version I reverted:
*It plays the role in botany that the mouse and the fruit fly (Drosophila) play in zoology.
:The idea of a model system is to use a simple system to get clues as to how the complex (however you define this) system works.  My reasoning is that Drosophila is a model system as is mouse, but for zoology?  This is technically correct but, in my view too broad. The real reason that NIH is pouring money into these model system research programs is because it helps us understand disease and development with regard to human biology.  Using that rationale then the equivalent of human biology in botany is agronomy.
:I believe that the same argument for agronomy can be made as above for human biology. Arabidopsis research is heavily funded by USDA as well as NSF.  There is no doubt that this has huge implications for botany but again I think that is too broad.  The fact is that this model system is being used as a starting point to understand crop plants.  Consequently it is a model system to understand plant biology with regard to having a better understanding agronomic crops.
:So in essence, I think that human biology/agronomy is more relevent to the actual research goals of these model systems.  As an aside the broad goals of zoology and botany are to sequence as many genomes as possible.  To understand ecosystems and diversity.  I don't think the model systems of Arabidopsis and Drosophila are useful from this regard. I hope this makes sense.  David D. 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: agronomy/botany human biology/zoology

message: I noticed that there is significant overlap between the Arabidopsis page and this (Arabidopsis thaliana) page.  I think this might lead to confusion with people coming into wikipedia to edit the Arabidopsis page or linking to the incorrect page.  I propose we strip out the thaliana specific info on the Arabidopsis page or merge the two together.  If we keep them separate the Arabidopsis page should be discussing the whole genus and redirect to the Arabidopsis thaliana page for specific infomation about the genetic model system.David D. 16:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabidopsis vs Arabidopisis thaliana 

message: Many journals use Arabidopsis to refer to the species Arabidopsis thaliana. In other words, they are taking the common name from the generic (ie, the genus) name. This is quite typical,  common names for lots of plants are taken from their genus (iris, camelia, rhododendron, to name just three). It is so common that the Council of Biology Editors established a rule for this practice: Common names taken from the genus are neither capitalized nor italicized, and form plurals as in English. This rule makes a lot of sense. Scientific names (binomials) are set in italic to recognize the fact that they are Latin, by definition (Linneus decreed that all binomials be Latin so they would be Universal), and English printing recognizes words that are in a foreign language by setting them in italic font. Common names are common, that is they are in the common language and so equally by definition must be taken as no longer foreign, whatever their origin.  Likewise, Linneus also established the convention that the generic name is capitalized. This is useful, it makes there be no ambiguity when writing about a genus. For some reason, modern journal editors ignore this sensible rule and capitalize Arabidopsis even when it is used as a common name. Indeed, some journals even capitalize AND italicize Arabidopsis when it is used as the common name. In matters of regular usage, something that starts out as a mistake, with enough repetition, becomes correct. However, in matters of nomenclature, a mistake is always a mistake. Please use arabidopsis (small a, Roman font) to refer to Arabidopsis thaliana (a usage that is far far more widespread than using thale or mouse-ear cress). Strike a blow for the wisdom of Linneus.
:This person knows what they're talking about. My dad is a botanist, and he is always complaining about this. Amphion 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabidopsis vs. arabidopsis

message: How is arabidopsis pronounced and which syllable gets the stress?
:Something like this A (as in had)-ra (a as in had)-bid-op-sis I'm not sure how to use the offical nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the article specificatelly to see what is the correct pronunciation, namely the th group (th like this, dh like that or t like thyme?), but I did not find what I was looking for... Could an IPA pronunciation be given? --Squidonius (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found out that it is a "th" in thale from thale-cress (so /θeɪl/), so I think it should be /ə.rɑ.bɪ.'dɒp.siːs θeɪ.'lɪɑ.nə/, but I am not that good at IPA vowels. --Squidonius (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm a student in both Plant Science and Linguistics, and I am new to having a Wikipedia account, but I think I can help here. The IPA would be: /əˌræbɨ'dapsɪs ˌθeiliˈanə/ (the ei is a diphthong) or, as I am familiar with it, /ˌθæliˈanə/. In conveyance to English speakers, I'd write it as uh-Rab-uh-DOP-sis Thal-ee-AH-nuh where the 'a' in Thal is like the 'a' in at and the syllables in all caps are primary stress and the syllables in initial caps are secondary stressed. Josiah (Talk) 04:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to pronounce "Arabidopsis"? 

message: "A collaboration between researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the University of California at Los Angeles captured the genome-wide DNA methylation pattern of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana - the "laboratory rat" of the plant world - in one big sweep..."69.6.162.160 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabidopsis thaliana study has significant implications 

message: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2821 89.58.168.184 23:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: link

message: Maybe it's not a big deal but I wonder if it might make more sense to rate this topic high importance rather than top importance in the plants wikiproject. This is the only plant species in :Category:Top-importance plant articles; pretty much everything else in there covers a very broad botany topic (e.g. tree, leaf, pollen, etc.)--Eloil 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the first plant genome to be sequenced.  That alone should classify it as top importance. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top importance? 

message: It feels like this article is missing an important section on Arabidopsis t. biology in general: life cycle, growing reqirements, and other related bits of information. Also, there is a whole bunch of reasons it was selected to be a model organism to beging with, which are not discussed here. Some of this can be easily googled up:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/seminar/2004/GMevents/MT/MTArabidopsis.html
http://www.arabidopsis.org/info/growth.jsp
-- User:Denger 9 Sept. 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denger (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article needs a lot of work in these areas.  Since you see the omission so clearly, why not fix the article?  KP Botany 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a description of the plant and its distribution - MPF 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, that helps a lot.  I wish I had noticed how poorly this article was done earlier, considering how important the plant is.  KP Botany 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete article? 

message: If we are to describe the a plant, we should talk about the whole flower, has four white petals is not enough. I could do it, but I think we should instead make a good description of flowers on the article Brassicaceae about its family. Their structure is very consistent within the family. Then we could list what makes them peculiar on this page the pages of the single species. The fruit is not a capsule, but a siliqua, which is a particular kind of capsule. Aelwyn 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! Agreed - MPF 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Brassicaceae will be my 'next victim'. You can watch my edits if you want, or we can fix it together or ask for collaboration. This evening I'll start (you are English, so 'this evening' has the same meaning for us!). We should work more this way. Aelwyn 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree to this idea.  Would work for a number of families, and seems obvious and important for this article.  KP Botany 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. This is not the first time we say family articles need more attention, but there have been only few major improvements since then. Little interest on this point, perhaps. I'd like to see articles like Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Poaceae reach a decent level, but more cooperation is needed, I can't write all myself (after the simple-English wikipedia, the awkward-English wikipedia!). Revamping the most important articles is more difficult than posting a comment now and then, but much more useful. Aelwyn 08:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know our family level article are dreadful--I can't even bear to look at the Fabaceae article. I just don't have any time right now. Brassicaceae, however, would be a great place to start--thanks. KP Botany 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the flower and fruit 

message: Should clearyl be 135 Mbp, who came up with 157?
https://www.arabidopsis.org/portals/genAnnotation/gene_structural_annotation/agicomplete.jsp
I believe it should be 125 Mbp
Nature 408, 796-815 (14 December 2000) | doi:10.1038/35048692; Received 20 October 2000; Accepted 15 November 2000
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6814/full/408796a0.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.35.243 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome size 

message: :Leaves are covered with small, unicellular hairs (called trichomes).
Is this unusual, if so to what extent, and what are the hairs there for?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaf hairs 

message: ... needs to be replaced or updated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 25... 

message: There appears to be a typo in the last sentence under the Distribution section:
"It is frequently be found in Belfast."
Rather it should be "It is frequently found in Belfast."
Brainbowboy (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: I was wondering if these references would be a good study on the Arabidopsis Thailana resistance to plant pathogens
1. Zipfel, C., Robatzek, S., Navarro, L. 2004. Bacterial disease resitance in Arabidopsis through flagellin perception. Nature. 428: 764-767.
2. Delaney, T., Uknes, S., Vernooij, B. 1994. A Central Role of Salicylic Acid in Plant Disease Resistance. Science. 266: 1247-1252.
3. Bent, AF., Kunkel, BN., Dahlbeck, D. 1994. RPS2 of Arabidopsis thaliana: a leucine-rich repeat class of plant disease resistance genes. Science. 265: 1856-1860.
4. Lawton, K., Friedrich, L., Hunt, M. 1996. Benzothiadizaole induces disease resistance by a citation of the systemic acquired resistance signal transduction pathway. The Plant Journal. 10: 71-82.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade7869 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Study Plant Resistance in Arabidopsis Thaliana. 

message: Mainly, this sections talks about the impact of environmental forces on plant pathogen resistance evolution, as it allowed plants to develop ways to counteract the pathogens that may have come up while living in their dynamic environments. Two of the variations of plant pathogen resistance include those that go through the signal transduction pathway as well as that of the systemic acquired resistance. 
Fireblade7869Fireblade7869 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Aspect of Plant-Pathogen Resistance Summary. 

message: It would be helpful to clarify in your first paragraph whether Arabidopsis Thaliana has any unique forms of pathogen resistance. I understood the paragraph as a general overview of plant pathogen resistance, rather than a discussion that is specific to Arabidopsis Thaliana. I liked that you clearly connect plant pathogen resistance to its significance and use. Evolution43 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: This page has had a note on it since February 2016
indicating that the article relies too much on primary sources.
This is a shame,
given the very large number of review articles
and historical perspective pieces on A. thaliana,
including an entire special issue of The Plant Journal in 2010.
A long review by Provart et al. (2015),
a recent eLife review by Krämer,
and an older perspective piece by Koornneef and Somerville (2002)
also come to mind.
I think there should be separate page
on the history of A. thaliana as a reference plant
and perhaps a separate page
on its use as a model for plant-microbe interactions,
given how much current text the page currently has
on (evolution of) disease resistance.
The current section entitled 'Light emitting'
seems trivial and out-of-date to me.
A single Kickstarter campaign
(out of a number of different efforts
to develop commercially viable luminescent plants)
does not seem notable,
especially given that luciferase reporter genes
are now routine tools
than have yielded many fundamental insights,
particularly in studies of the A. thaliana circadian clock.
I will try to add some references alluded to above,
but the current structure of the page
has inhibited work on this.
JS Hoyer (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. This article has accumulated a lot of cruft during the years, as the plant is a common target for primary research. As far as I can tell, this article has no "core" editors curating its contents, so a lot of passers-by just came along and inserted the material about the research that they or somebody close to them was working on, with variable levels of quality and scientific weight. The article should be based on review articles indeed. I have done some formatting and structuring on the article, but evaluating the research is out of my league. I agree that the article should be split, with large chunks of material moved to e.g. Research on Arabidopsis thaliana, briefly summarized in this article per Wikipedia:Summary style. Consider placing a notice at WT:WikiProject Plants, which is pretty active – somebody might be interested in helping out and reviewing. No such user (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I started a Draft:History of research on Arabidopsis thaliana, and included some of the citations mentioned above.  Some of it is currently patchy, uneven, and under-referenced. JS Hoyer (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review articles; Ideas for splitting article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arabidopsis thaliana. 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/20071208204350/http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/BIS/flora.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=2273 to http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/BIS/flora.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=2273
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) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by Briannabanana0 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023