Talk:Omics

message: Removed Omics.org — The -omics wiki from links as it opens a blank page. --apers0n 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: (was Merge -ome?)
Would -ome be better off merged here, since this has plenty of content already? My impression is that most -omes will have an -omics, and vice versa. - IMSoP 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The statement "For example, translationomics does not have any distincive value at the moment while it should correspond to transcriptomics." is wrong and should be removed.
There are a lot of DNA sequences which are transcribed but do not code for proteins (e.g. siRNAs, miRNAs, snoRNAs). Thus the translationome doesn't correspond to the transcriptome.
--84.75.156.125 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-omics and Nonsensomics 

message: This article contains many statements with strong claims of "firsts", "early" events and so on. Much of it is not sourced and seems to present POV original research. I've tagged a good deal of what needs to be fixed, but overall, I don't think the article makes a strong enough case even for the idea that omics is a word (as opposed to the ending -omics). -Harmil 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, Original research and unsourced statements 

message: This page was full of unreferenced statements, speculation, waffle and was badly written and organised. I have slashed through it with a machete - hopefully it actually reads well now, and the excess content has been removed. Fences and windows (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy edit 

message: Since reference 2 is a link to a database, it's hard to verify that it really rules out the proposed meaning of the suffix. 
One example of -ome indicating something related to "collection of" is rhizome which the dictionaries state was a word first used in 1845 and derived from the greek word rhizōma meaning "mass of tree roots". It depends on rhizoun meaning "cause to strike root" and rhiza meaning "root". 
In any case, the omics-issue has a possible parallell in the use of the -oma suffix in medicine . It is claimed that it was derived in a similar way from the word carcinoma. The pages on helkôma  and helkos  may offer some further clues to someone more versed in grammar than myself. :-) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative explanation and related suffix 

message: Consider adding cistromics to this page - the 'omics technique that measures genome wide DNA sequence occupancy by a specific trans-acting transcriptional regulatory factor - either a transcription factor or enzyme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.96.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cistromics 

message: The statement "The association with chromosome in molecular biology is by false etymology" looks dubious to me.  Since the modern productivity of -omics in medical and biological sciences seems to bear little relationship to classical Greek grammar, it will be difficult to say there was not a particular route.  I cannot see a source which says the combination of chromosome and gene to give genome did not happen, and plenty which say it did.  The -ics extension to genomics is a standard adaptation and all the others seem to then be modelled on that. 09:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  False etymology 

message: Is this suffix really talked about in general terms as "Omics", or is it just a suffix? It seems to me that the more appropriate title (some 12 years later) is in fact -omics. I don't know much about the topic, and am a mere passer-by, seeking to make suffix articles consistent. Please inform me if I am on the wrong track.  — HTGS (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  -omics VS Omics 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Omics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Berg2020":
From Plant microbiome: Berg, Gabriele; Daria Rybakova, Doreen Fischer, Tomislav Cernava, Marie-Christine Champomier Vergès, Trevor Charles, Xiaoyulong Chen, Luca Cocolin, Kellye Eversole, Gema Herrero Corral, Maria Kazou, Linda Kinkel, Lene Lange, Nelson Lima, Alexander Loy, James A. Macklin, Emmanuelle Maguin, Tim Mauchline, Ryan McClure, Birgit Mitter, Matthew Ryan, Inga Sarand, Hauke Smidt, Bettina Schelkle, Hugo Roume, G. Seghal Kiran, Joseph Selvin, Rafael Soares Correa de Souza, Leo van Overbeek, Brajesh K. Singh, Michael Wagner, Aaron Walsh, Angela Sessitsch and Michael Schloter (2020) "Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges". Microbiome, 8(103): 1–22. .  Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
From Microbiome:   Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Omics]]