lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Recombination hotspot

message: The article states
"Linkage disequilibrium has identified more than 30,000 hotspots within the human genome.[3] In humans, the average number of crossover recombination events per hotspot is one crossover per 1,300 meioses, and the most extreme hotspot has a crossover frequency of one per 110 meioses.[4]"
If I try to calculate the number of crossovers over the full single genome per single meiosis event, I get (30,000 hotspots / genome) * ( 1 / 1,300 crossovers per hotspot per meiosis) = 23.0769230769 hotspot crossovers per meiosis per genome. Note how closes this is to the number of homologous chromosomes (23). Is this coincidence? More specifically if we group the 30,000 hotspots per homologous chromosome type or number, will the following be true for each of the 23 groups of hotspots: the sum of the crossover frequencies over all hotspots within the same group or homologous chromosome will sum to 1 per meiosis? If this conjecture is true it explains why the bulk 30,000 (over the whole genome) divided by 1300 equals nearly 23, (since 23 homologous pairs times exactly one crossover per pair necessarily results in 23 total).
Also note I'm not a biologist or geneticist, just a curious individual...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.7.172 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there exactly one crossover per homologous chromosome pair per meiosis?
Talk:Exon shuffling

message: I just created the lovely diagram that you see on the page. This is a pretty obscure subject, and I'm not sure that the graphic improves things. If you have any suggestions on what to include to make it a little more understandable, I'd be glad to update the picture. —shoecream 12:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The first paragraph has links for "exon" and "ecotopic" but not for "transposon" which is linked in the "Helitron" section instead.  Breedentials (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Use of Links in Sections
Talk:Site-specific recombinase technology

message: At present this article exclusively deals with Cre-loxP recombination and as such could be merged into that page. On the other hand, perhaps this article could be expanded to talk about other site-specific recombination systems being utilised in molecular biology such as Flp-FRT or Xer-cer. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suggest a merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site-specific_recombination  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.75 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Site-specific recombination
Talk:FOXC2

message: ==Untitled==
So apparently (according to this article, at least) FOXC2 has something to do with having a second row of eye-lashes, and it is claimed that Elizabeth Taylor had that mutation. Is any of this true at all? 138.16.114.228 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth Taylor

message: So apparently (according to this article, at least) FOXC2 has something to do with having a second row of eye-lashes, and it is claimed that Elizabeth Taylor had that mutation. Is any of this true at all? 138.16.114.228 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:FOXP3

message: The contents and structure of this page are a bit confused. Might an alternative structure to enhance clarity be a good idea? Possible headings: Structure, Function, Mechanism of action, Relevance (with subheadings: Role in autoimmunity, Role in cancer), Interactions. This structure would be similar to chaperone protein Hsp90.Phytat (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Update to structure of article?

message: Article says it is a transcription factor so it probably spends some time floating in the nucleus - but does it spend time outside the nucleus ? and what regulates its level or activity ? and what shape is it ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it found in the cell 

message: This article contains sections about regulatory T cells, which express Foxp3 and is frequently not specifically about Foxp3 the molecule. Work needs to be done to disambiguate content on regulatory T cells and the molecule Foxp3.Phytat (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article confuses the molecule 'Foxp3' and regulatory T cells that are Foxp3+

message: A good article that reviews the origins and role of regulatory T cells.Phytat (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for first paragraph

message: The article refers to the FOXP3 as also being known as Scurfin in the first line, but this is not referenced until later in the article. This term is not in common use any more so really it is questionable whether it should be referred to in the first line of the article. I suggest that  is used to reference the term Scurifin in the first paragraph as this is one the key articles in the discovery of the function of the FOXP3 gene. This reference is currently number 4 in the references list for the article. - Phytat (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scurfin reference 

message: Currently the article refers to  as the primary review article in the first paragraph. It would be better perhaps to refer to primary articles that first showed how FOXP3 programs the development and function of regulatory T cells? These articles are currently referenced later in a less accurate way . - Phytat (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More accurate referencing of T regulatory cell development and function? 

message: Currently references 9 and 10 in the article are incomplete RomagnaniStockinger. These references could be updated to references that more closely match the topic . I suggest that  could be used as the reference for the unreferenced section at the end of the the physiology paragraph. - Phytat (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for CD4 T cell lineage plasticity 

message: Does anyone have a ribbon diagram of this that could be used? Jimw338 (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribbon Diagram Image?
Talk:Chromosomal fragile site

message: The listing of fragile sites is in my opinion (at least in this form) useless and just expands the table of content.
Change to a list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgOliverie (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, 126 items in the TOC makes no sense. On top of that, most of them are empty. Amir-rakhimov (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing fragile Sites
Talk:G banding

message: in daily talks man are said to have only halve a chromosoom being a Y. yet a DNA is always double.
Where is the totaly unfolded DNA string? the female X cannot attach on an "empty" string
or is the XY helix HALFWAY suddenly FROM duplo into a mono nuclide?
so, where is the COMPLETE string in this story ???85.149.83.125 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  single or double helix
Talk:Gene cassette

message: I think that Cassette (genetics) should be merged into Gene cassette.  Both articles seem to describe the same concept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowyourider (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 June 2007
:If there continues to be no dissent on this issue in the next few days, I'll perform the merger.--Iknowyourider (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like a good idea to merge Cassette (genetics) into this article and redirect. -R. S. Shaw 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Iknowyourider (t c) 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger
Talk:Restriction site

message: Perhaps "palindromic" should link to the palindromic sequence article rather than the palindrome article? The latter is mentioned in the former, but it's certainly not obvious.Tim (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is there really any point to having this stub-article separate from Restriction enzyme ? --JonathonSimister (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Restriction enzyme 

message: It's clear that this article is lacking in the amount of information being represented. Although the two presented sources are reliable, more information can be employed from multiple sources involving the many applications of DNA restriction sites. Alongside with this, an addition of diagrams to show the sites of restriction could assist readers in understanding the topic in more depth. This article does a good job staying unbiased and giving the information in an educated manner. --Balld2 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Article Improvements
Talk:George Mountain

message: Michel de Montaigne was born in 1533 and died in 1592. The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685. Therefore: either the link to the famous Michel de Montaigne or the reference to the Edict of Nantes should be cancelled.
74.15.200.90 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montaigne 

message: Michel de Montaigne was born in 1533 and died in 1592. The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685. Therefore: either the link to the famous Michel de Montaigne or the reference to the Edict of Nantes should be cancelled.
74.15.200.90 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montaigne 
Talk:Gene delivery

message: Clarifying some things in the intro such as mentioning genetic material instead of just DNA. Also mentioning that not all foreign genetic material needs to be integrated into the genome, there are other methods where it replicates independently. Sources added.Sdbaney (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding sub

message: I will be focusing on the expansion of this stub. The header will be expanded to encompass the importance of gene delivery in several fields and a fuller summary of its basic definition. Include brief links to and explanations of viral and non-viral methods in header but move the listing of the various techniques of each to a new section which will be second, Methods which will have sub-sections of viral and non-viral methods that include a fuller summary of mechanism and touch on future advances in each area. First section after table of contents will be Key steps for gene delivery that will include basic principles required to successfully complete the process that that makes it a term which encompasses the various different forms of viral and non-viral transfection. My third section will be Applications which expands current and future uses of gene delivery. Possible goals include providing informative graphics for viral and non-viral methods as well as a Ethical implications which will touch on effects and possible concerns around gene delivery outside of genetics.
Any suggested references that would improve the quality of this article are appreciated. I intend to focus on textbooks and academic reviews for my references and will add to the following list of intended references as I continue.
Possible references:
Kirktk (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirktk Happy editing and   DennisPietras (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding stub 

message: Hi! A friend of mine used to work on the mdx mouse model of DMD. There is a new open paper entitled "Muscle-specific CRISPR/Cas9 dystrophin gene editing ameliorates pathophysiology in a mouse model for Duchenne muscular dystrophy". http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14454  You might want to mention it on this article and perhaps include all or parts of some of their figures, which is acceptable under CC BY 4.0   DennisPietras (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouse DMD paper 
Talk:Gene dosage

message: Uhhh... I don't know anything about genetics really, but this sure /sounds/ important. As it stands, it can hardly be called be called a stub, it's half a wikitionary article. 08:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am going to rewrite the definition of gene dosage and provide sources in the next couple days. Stay tune! Marr1203 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting gene dosage stub 

message: I'm from Western University, and for my Advanced Genetics class I plan on contributing to this article by adding many of the associated diseases relating to gene dosage. I will also add a subheading about haploinsufficiency and haplosufficiency, because these are also relevant in the topic of gene dosage. Supriyabehl (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  My contributions 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tsenz (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics
Talk:Achill Sound

message: If the official name is a different and the more common name is the same as the official name, why doesn't Achill Sound redirect to the Gaelic name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.37 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Negative probability

message: Well, I guess Pr{A} < 0 sort of rules out Lebesgue measure theory, eh? Let's see – if Pr{A} = 0 means that the event A cannot possibly occur, then Pr{A} < 0 must mean that it will unhappen with some regularity. So time can flow backwards, and entropy need not increase. Wonderful!
I don't know how this one got a Math tag stuck on it, so I'm sending it to Physics.  DavidCBryant 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This isn't mathematics

message: The work by Espen Haug is more or less a clever joke, there is no application of "negative probabilities" in Finance as far as I know.  It impresses only those who don't understand the subject, IMHO. 67.243.54.129 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't Mathematical Finance either 

message: Both edits of  58.152.201.165  today appear to virtually obliterate the entire page. Likely Vandalism.  Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: I'm not a Wikipedian so I'm not sure if this application of negative would be appropriate. There are references at the bottom but I can't say if the work is published: Negative probability interpretation of Bell's Theorem George Dishman (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative probability as means of falsification of hidden variables in Aspect's Experiment 

message: I have checked the work of Gábor J. Székely about "half coins" ("Half of a Coin: Negative Probabilities"). The original article says that if X is a signed probability distribution, we can find oridinary random variables with X + Y = Z (in distribution). But Székey says that in this decomposition X and Y are independent, otherwise the the article in wikipedia says that Y and Z are independent. I'm not sure if the two conditions are equivalent, and maybe, the wikipedia article contains a misinterpretation of the original work of Székely. Maybe it is necessary to check it --Davius (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error 
Talk:Andrew C. Thornton II

message: Andrew C. Thornton II is correct, Andrew C. Thornton III is incorrect - suggest merge/removal of Andrew C. Thornton III page. Ancjr 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Please do not re-add potentially defamatory information about living people without acceptable proof for each and every person added. Also, please bring acceptable sources that define the relationship and association for every person listed. Lastly, please read WP:BLP which outlines our policies regarding living people. Thank you. -- Avi 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially defamatory information about living people
Talk:Jane Campbell, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton

message: Anybody an Idea when she was born? --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Date? 

message: There are little to no references for “Early life.”  This section should be amended or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.2 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up
Talk:Germline mutation

message: The lead of this article provides an insightful understanding for the definition of a germline mutation, while also providing a brief description for each of the article's major components. Although vague in detail, the mention of it's occurrence, causes, clinical implications, and current therapies were present. This allows for viewers, like myself, to be informed of the exact content that is expected to follow. On a side note, this article can still be improved in some areas. There were a few sentences that could have been reworded for a better understanding. For example, the sentence, "This damage is rarely repaired imperfectly, but due to the high rate of germ cell division, can occur frequently." I had to go over this sentence numerous times to understand what was trying to be conveyed. It would have been easier to understand if it was written as, "Because of the high germ cell division rate, the damage occurs frequently, however, this damage is usually perfectly repaired." I would recommend adding more information about how common germline mutations occur and provide statistics to give viewers an idea of how many individuals are affected by such a mutation.
Another improvement that could be made involves creating two different sub-headings underneath the "Clinical Implications" heading. One for the role it plays in genetic diseases and another for the role it plays in different types of cancer. Not only would this help distinguish which category each of the conditions fall under, but it also allows for better organization of the article. In general, more information about how a germline mutation leads to different types of cancer would be a good improvement to this article. This section of the article did not contain enough detailed information and could be expanded upon. Nonetheless, this article possesses content that is up-to-date. While scrolling through the references, I noticed that a good portion of the cited sources were retrieved/published a few years ago. I found myself looking through these recent references that were cited, the latest one retrieved from 2018. Kaira Hosnedl (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation
Talk:High-mobility group

message: I'm taking a nervous system development class currently, and this page isn't very informative. I thought that there was some kind of functional reason for the high mobility group domain. Why is it called high mobility in the first place?  I was trying to figure out the information given on this brief page.   what does it mean to be a "chromosomal protein?"   there is not a wiki page defining that term. i gathered from my textbook that having a high mobility group might mean that this family of proteins can cross into the nucleus easily and/or bind directly to DNA.  Is that correct?  In the "function" section of this page, it only mentions some examples of what can happen when these transcription factors get messed up.  What do they do when they are working correctly? 
thanks, 
Jeremy Eagles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.253.217 (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm

message: Identical. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[HMG protein]] 
Talk:Environment of Australia

message: Welcome to the new Environment of Australia page, started on 17 February 2007. Anything you can do to assist in helping to properly establish and link this page would be wonderful. dinghy 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment of Australia page started 

message: From the outline of this article it looks like there will be considerable overlap with conservation in Australia. --Peta 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap

message: Environment in Australia should be merged with this page, which I think is the better title.  We certainly don't need two articles on the same topic.--Grahamec (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: A merge should definately occur, with the page name following whatever convention has been set for other countries (which seems to be "Environmental issues of x") or it should be just "Environment of" (my preference) because that is what is used for the following links. The article should not duplicate information on Climate of Australia and Geography of Australia and it should be distinct from Conservation in Australia which is a process, not a description of a countries environmental status. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  Have merged in information from the Environment in Australia article, and will add a redirect now to this page.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I noticed that Pollution in Australia redirects to this article, but it is barely discussed at all here. Will this be resolved soon? Jarble (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution in Australia 

message: Many sections are lacking in citations and have been marked as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 
Talk:John Strachan

message: I've taken the Category for Members of Legislature for the Province of Canada off the Bishops article. This is my reasoning:
While the Bishop did run against William Tiger Dunlop in the election for the Huron seat after Tiger's brother Robert died, Strachan did not win. I provide a direct quotation:
"In the election later that year (after the union of Upper and Lower Canada), William ran in his place against the Canada Company’s choice, James McGill Strachan*, son of the bishop and brother-in-law of Jones. Despite the British Colonist’s assertion that Strachan had “no more chance, than a stump tailed ox in fly time,” at the close of the vote he was declared elected. Dunlop, however, protested and was awarded the seat; in the general election of 1844 Dunlop ran unopposed." Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. 2000 University of Toronto
CJ_WeißSchäfer  00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories -- Members of Legislature 

message: The lead paragraph of this article is confusing, because it cites "Craig" as an authority on Bishop Strachan without offering a first name, profession, or any other pertinent identifying information. Could someone sort this out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.182.224 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To address the issue, "Craig" refers to CRAIG, G.  M. Professor of history, University of Toronto, Ontario.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in the Lead Paragraph 

message: the James McGill linked in the section about his children is not the correct James McGill. The linked James was born in 1744, several decades before John Strachan himself was born. This section needs to be edited to reflect the correct James. Kylamj (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was added by  back in June but as you note, James McGill, the founder of McGill University, was obviously not John Strahan's son. The correct James is James McGill Strachan. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect linkage of James McGill
Talk:Indy (gene)

message: Hi,
I'll be editing Indy (gene) for Advanced Genetics 3595 at Western University. Please feel free to make suggestions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlee626 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Indy (gene) 

message: Can we verify that the link for reference #2 (Clever Drosophila gene names) is still a valid link? Pikalax 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 2 

message: It would be nice to add WHO was the first to have coined that name, and WHEN exactly. We can infer a bit from the linked in articles/references, but it would be better to give the exact date as well. Right now I have to dig through the references, and it would be neat if someone would just state when it was first named within the main article. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the term and WHEN