Talk:Short tandem repeat

message: A redirection should be added from STR to this entry.
I'm not sure how to do that.
Arnon.
212.235.121.129 21:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection should be added 

message: I felt I could write a lot more about STR analysis, but it seems like that might warrant its own article rather than muddying up this article with tangential information.  Is that typically done, or would it just be asking for a merge in the future?  Sekiyu 10:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Jetskiiracerx made STR analysis on August 7, 2006. Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make a seperate entry for STR analysis? 

message: I can't see the difference between "microsatellite" and "short tandem repeat". I would appreciate if anybody wrote it. A good way would include adding "short tandem repeat" somewhere in the neat assortment on Repeated sequence (DNA). Thank you. Mortsggah 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between [[Microsatellite]] and [[short tandem repeat]]?

message: Microsatellite and short tandem repeat describe the same thing similar to simple sequence repeat, they should be merged.
sdobrin 21:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no difference

message: I'd like to point out that merging STR and microsatellite entries will cause problems. Microsatellites are defined as 1-4 bp repeats on their wiki page whereas STRs are defined as 1-10 bp repeats. So they overlap but are not the same. I am also concerned that the boundaries are arbitrary. Note that 'minisatellites' are defined as 10-100bp repeats. Note also there is an entry for 'Y-STRs', which are probably actually microsatellites but the Y-STR terminology is widely used and accepted. To my mind, STRs cover both mini- and micro-satellites and the short 'gap' in between the two definitions. I happen to work on repeats that are most commonly between 7 and 12bp in unit length. In part because the definitions of mini/micro- satellites are not clear I have chosen to call them STRs. At the moment I am tussling with a journal referee who wants me to call them all mini/micro- satellites but I feel that STR is more appropriate in this case. I vote for keeping STR as an entry with links to both mini- and micro-satellite entries. Entamoeba 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STR and microsatellites are not the same... 

message: *Minisatellite is initially termed by Jeffreys et al.  for repetitive region having 10-15 bp core unit.
*Microsatellite is coined for 2 bp repeat by Litt & Luty.
*Short tandem repeat seems a rather descriptive phrase; however, to my knowledge, Ali & Wallace  are the first authors using it in abbreviated form (STR), and they recognized Jeffreys' minisatellites as examples of STR.
*Some authors (for example, Li ) recognize microsatellite of 1-2 bp unit, STR of 3-5 bp, minisatellite of 9 bp or longer; however, microsatellite and STR are often synonymized (with 1-5 bp in each unit) while minisatellite is discriminated (with 9-100 bp units). Tautz  discussed on this nomenclature, but it is unfortunately unavailable for me.
*In human genomics, tandem repeats with a unit size of 6 bp or longer are usually recognized as minisatellites (Näslund et al., for example). I guess the reason is that people recognize telomere-associated minisatellites and human telomere has 6 bp unit length.
My opinion is that Microsatellite, Short tandem repeat, and Simple sequence repeat should be merged, because they are generally regarded as synonyms regardless of size definition. Just FYI, NLM defines a MeSH term "Microsatellite Repeats" including STRs.--Mzaki 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literatures on categorizing tandem repeats 

message: Mzaki illustrates one of my points very well - there is clearly no universally accepted definition for these three terms. I have no objection to the entries being merged, but under what name? Short Tandem Repeat may be 'rather descriptive' but to me that's a good thing! Entamoeba 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge but as what? 

message: (NOTE: This is my first post to a talk page, so forgive me if the rules aren't followed. I skimmed them first, and I'll try my best...)
While the two terms are utilized in all genetic sciences and may be used interchangably by some individuals, I can speak from a Forensic Science standpoint (I'm a FS Masters student). I still have to look into it and I can add more later under this post, but as far as I know, terms like "minisatellite" and "microsatellite" are considered generic and encompassing of several different types of tandem repeats (VNTRs, AmpFLPs, etc.). An "STR", however, is a specific term for just one variant and has its own internal categories (YSTRs, miniSTRs, autosomal STRs, mtDNA STRs). I'd vote to keep the STR page separate from "microsatellite", but not create a new page for the specifc STR variants until they are relevant enough in their own right.
Autosomal STRs (and that is the term forensic scientists/criminalists use) have been used for several years now in allele typing for criminals (especially the 13 loci used for the CODIS database), and their specific relevance to the scientific community gives them the importance to have their own page apart from "microsatellite". YSTRs and miniSTRs are just now coming into vogue, and I'd say they are still in developmental stages, so I'd add them to this page for the time being, and then break them out if they ever become significant in their own right.
PatrickTaormina (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, microatellite & STR pages should remain separate. Nagelfar (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsatellite/STR differentiation issues 

message: My reading of this talk page and of Talk:Microsatellite convinces me that the merger under discussion since at least 2007 should be undertaken by members of the wikiprojects interested in the topic. But if I am wrong, if the merger is really a bad idea, the articles should be changed to clarify the difference between the two topics and the template suggesting the merger should be removed.  I have marked the article as needing attention for that reason.  I would work on the article myself but I don't have the background to contribute effectively.  67.100.127.75 (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be safe to merge. Will do so now. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or make distinction clear