Talk:Mutation

message: Under "Beneficial mutations": "Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful[citation needed], some... "
Can we remove [citation needed]?  How often do you see undesired changes to a complex code result in a positive change?  It's common knowledge that mutations cause countless diseases and syndromes.  Positive or even neutral mutations are negligible compared to the damage they cause.
Precise wording:
"Although mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful; on occasion, they can have neutral or positive effects."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.192.11 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, citation is necessary because it is an assertion.  You only read about the mutations that causes disease because they are worth studying, most mutations probably don't make any significant difference. Hzh (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The problem it seems is that people seem to be concentrating on mutations within genes.  There are studies that show that mutations outside of genes are mostly harmless.  Mutation does not mean mutation in genes only or change in protein sequence, and that needs to be made clearer.  Hzh (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for "mutations are generally harmful" ? 

message: The "error" link redirects to the "Singularity is Near" book by Ray Kurzweil.  That can't possibly be correct. Qed (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers to the DNA error link in "as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication" in the lead. Since 5 November 2011, that page is a redirect to The Singularity Is Near. Here is a  to how the page looked at 30 July 2011. It's probably best to simply remove the link from "errors" as the topic seems insufficiently sourced for a mention here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA_error redirects to Kurzweils "Singularity is Near" 

message: The following quotation from the description is misleading:
"Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out."
Mutation is NOT the mechanism through which natural selection acts.  Differential reproductive success is the mechanism; mutation is necessary in that it is the source of the variation, but it is definitely not the mechanism.  To suggest so seems vaguely Lamarkian (i.e., Natural Selection somehow forces a mutation)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.7 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I changed it. Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: mutation as mechanism of natural selection

message: Hi guys, was wondering if the section on beneficial mutations can be edited to include something about natural selection, since along with the example cited, CC5R,  this possible explanation accompanies it.
"One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased."
Since this explanation is one of natural selection of the fitter, would it be fit (pun not intended) to add something about natural selection?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimpSpider (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Beneficial Mutations Section 

message: One thing I've been trying to figure out for a while: I know that mutations can sometimes be beneficial...but the question is, can they actually INCREASE THE LENGTH of DNA molecules? I looked online, and people say opposite things...are there scientist that have opinions on this?72.80.198.221 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutations can increase the length of DNA such as with gene duplication and transposable elements. Whether it is beneficial depends on the mutation. Telomere lengthening may prolong cell life (which may be beneficial, or harmful if its cancer). The insertion of transposable elements after a promoter could inactivate a gene. This article needs work.Fundon1 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding DNA 

message: Could something be added into the first sentence of the introduction to clarify whether or not mutations are always inheritable?   Genetically malformed individuals whose genetic malformation, for instance was the result of their mother's ingestion of thalidomide, do not I believe necessarily have similarly affected offspring.  I raise the point as this article is referred to, as the primary source in another article here, as being one of the four primary sources of genetic change in pupulations. LookingGlass (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always inherited? 

message: Can someone clarify this in relation to the page subject? Because this important point is not discussed at all. Are mutations directly observable (e.g. with a telescope) or are they inferred? 
The following source says: "Here, the focus is on mutations that affect only single genes and are not microscopically observable." FossilMad (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You would probably get a good answer at WP:Reference desk/Science. You might find Nylon-eating bacteria of interest. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are mutations observable? 

message: The section Somatic mutations includes the sentence "When analyzing somatic mutations present in the cells of multicellular organisms, can know its origin and its past." 
Can someone fix this sentence? What is the subject of the verb "can know", please? And what is the antecedent of the pronoun "its"? Dirac66 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defective sentence 

message: Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: At several points, the article uses the term "novel mutation" to talk about new mutations, as opposed to inherited ones. The National Cancer Institute defines the term "novel mutation" as one that as been previously undiscovered/unreported, and scientific literature uses the term as such, while "new" or "de novo" mutations to refer to a mutation present in an organism that was not present in the parent. (Apologies for the drive-by flagging.) http://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/genetics-dictionary?cdrid=460200 199.217.4.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Novel Mutation" --> New Mutation 

message: “By effect on protein sequence” mentions frameshift, nonsense, missense, neutral, and silent mutations, which were discussed in “By effect on structure.” Can these sections be combined?
"Replication timing quantitative trait loci affects DNA replication" does not mention how DNA replication is affected. 
*A good source found on the rtQTL Wikipedia page, relating to mutation types based on replication timing. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929712005770
The final paragraph of the “Beneficial mutations” section lists sickle-cell disease as an example of a harmful mutation. I believe sickle-cell disease should be discussed in “Harmful mutations,” while the sickle-cell trait should be covered in “Beneficial mutations.”
Finally, I believe there needs to be more information related to how mutations are located and fixed within organisms. I.e., Photoreactivation repair, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, etc.
JJCim (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutation review

message: These two subsections were a complete mess, full of duplications and contradictions, and it was not clear how the content was divided between them. I have substantially revised their organization and nested the classifications in a way that I believe is more logical. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized and clarified "By effect on structure" and "By impact on protein sequence" subsections 

message: I like how the article is organized. It covers many aspects related to mutation, so if anyone does not have an idea about mutation he is going to find all the sources. Another great thing about the article is that it describes a different kind of mutation, the causes and it provides links to other articles which would be helpful to the reader, also the article is well resourced.Halhamdan (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation Evaluation 

message: This is a currently really long section, with following subheadings:
3.1	By effect on structure
(3.1.1	Small-scale mutations
3.1.2	Large-scale mutations)
3.2	By effect on function
3.3	By effect on fitness
(3.3.1	Distribution of fitness effects)
3.4	By impact on protein sequence
3.5	By inheritance
3.6	Special classes
3.7	Nomenclature
Would it make sense to rearrange this into multiple sections? I think many of these are of more than enough importance to warrant it. HFHah (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Classification of Types" be divided into multiple sections? 

message: "In December 2017, the U.S. government lifted a temporary ban implemented in 2014 that banned federal funding for any new "gain-of-function" experiments that enhance pathogens "such as Avian influenza, SARS and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS viruses."[47]"
This sentence from the paragraph on gain-of-function mutations is pretty obviously superfluous and intended to push some kind of political agenda. It should be removed. 2001:569:BD89:A00:1CB9:93A9:8DB7:FC21 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Addition 

message: I believe somatic mutation warrants spin off into its own article. See Draft:Somatic mutation 
Some reasons in favor of spin-off:
* Somatic mutations have important and distinct traits/effects/roles from germline mutations and mutations as a whole.
* Mutation is already a long article. 
* some evidence of notability: plug "somatic mutation" into google scholar and you get a whole lot of journal articles back - topics include: cancers (#1 by far), other diseases, mitochondrial mutations, healthy cell mutations.
These distinct issues include:
* Rates of mutation [compared to germline, comparison between different somatic tissues, causes of different rates at molecular and evolutionary scale]
* instances of inheritance (e.g. in plants, in some animals)
* role in immune function (somatic hypermutation)
* how many cells a mutation affects (e.g. did it occur early in development? did it occur in a post-mitotic cell or in a rapidly dividing cell?); general somatic mosaicism of tissues (especially somatic brain mosaicism).
* accumulation of mutations: role in disease (well studied: cancer, maybe: neurodegenerative diseases), as potential cause of aging.
* techniques used in research, e.g. single cell sequencing.
Downsides: Many of these topics have mention in other articles [in varying amounts of detail]; some could use further elaboration. Benefits to gathering information in one place to understand overarching role of somatic mutation?
HFHah (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft looks OK to me, I see no issue with it being a separate article, the topic is notable enough.  Splitting the article is fine, and not necessary to merge. Hzh (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is done, do we need the template anymore? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Somatic mutation, merge or split?

message: A Wikipedia article about "gain-of-function" experiments, especially as regards viruses, is needed. The coverage in this article (which redirects from Gain of function) does not properly explain how such experiments are done, or for what purpose. Do any of the editors of this page have the knowledge and expertise to do this? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, editorship is much lower than it used to be so if you have the expertise, consider writing an article or adding a section about the topic. Be sure to cite everything. If you need help, reach out! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia article about "gain-of-function" experiments needed

message: — Assignment last updated by AndrewDunham14 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics

message: A list of things to do, following up on the review below Dabs (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action items 

message: * repeats comments from the lede about a drosophila study that are not germane here
==== Inherited disorders ====
* repeats basic information on mutation without providing a broad substantive statement on the topic of inherited disorders
==== Role in carcinogenesis ====
* repeats basic info about mutation ("Point mutations may arise from spontaneous mutations that occur during DNA replication.") without a substantive overview of the topic of carcinogenesis
==== Prion mutations====
* if mutations are changes to the genetic material, but prions are not genetic, then how can they be said to have mutations?
:I know nothing about this but this concept does have sufficient literature support . — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, prions are real.  The issue is how to describe them without confusing the reader or contradicting the definition given earlier in the article. In this case, one answer is that heredity in the case of prions is protein-mediated, so that a change in the protein can be considered as a kind of mutation.  Dabs (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease causation

message: * if mutations are changes to the genetic material, but prions are not genetic, then how can they be said to have mutations?
:I know nothing about this but this concept does have sufficient literature support . — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, prions are real.  The issue is how to describe them without confusing the reader or contradicting the definition given earlier in the article. In this case, one answer is that heredity in the case of prions is protein-mediated, so that a change in the protein can be considered as a kind of mutation.  Dabs (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prion mutations