Talk:Y chromosome

message: The article states that *all* Y linked genes are expressed. That seems untrue because only 71 of the Y-chromosome genes have protein-coding potential. Also the total number of genes in the Y-chromosome is 568. Both of these can be found here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643963/)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.75.161.238 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expression of Y-linked Genes

message: This article could use a cleanup
"Y is the sex-determining chromosome in many species, since it is the presence or absence of Y that determines male or female sex"
Should be changed to something that emphasizes that the presence of Y chromosome determines male sex. The absence of Y chromosome determines female sex. 
Things that should go in the Y chromosome article:
*Development of understanding y-linked traits (1950s), list of Y linked traits, other disordered arising from multiple Y chromosomes
*Y chromosome as a degenerate X chromosome (1960s)
*SRY, sex determining gene
*mapping and sequencing the Y chromosome, number of genes on Y
*Most of the Y chromosome doesn't recombine, 95% of the Y chromosome is in the non-recombining region (male specific region) vs pseudoautosomal regions where crossing occurs. Implications for Y chromosome degeneration -  losing the Y chromosome (see Prof. Jenny Graves, Bryan Sykes (ick)), evidence that the Y chromosome is not going to be lost 
*Use of the Y chromosome in following the parental line through generations, the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings research is a good case study 
--nixie 23:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article could use a cleanup" of what?  To include a large number of assertions that have been proven wrong since their introduction?
The sentence:
"The chromosome may be used to trace sexes have unpaired X chromosomess; in the other, both females and males have XX."
in the opening paragraph does not seem to make sense, unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to be able to change it.  Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could make this sentence more clear.
I added link to Wiki's "Y linkage" article at ppg1
Mydogtrouble (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of sentences that make no sense; some passages seem barely even to be in English. Usually I'd just copyedit rather than grumbling but with respect to some of the errors here I can't even tell what the author meant to say. You're definitely right that it needs cleanup, ideally by someone very familiar with the subject who is also a native English speaker. atakdoug (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: From reading the article, it says that the Y chromosome is the only unpaired chromosome and thus can't repair normally.  This makes sense, but what about the unpaired X chromosome in males?  Wouldn't that suffer from being unable to recombine too?  Scott Ritchie 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking on the page for a discussion of non-recombinant Y chromosome, and the small portion of recombinant Y. This dicussion appears to be missing from the page, part of the Y chromosome is homologous with X and some recombination does occur. This is tangential to the quesiton you ask, but X and Y do pair prior to meiosis by these homologous region and allows the two to segregate properly. This discussion in this page is lacking.PB666 yap 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpaired chromosome 

message: I ran across an article in the New York Times, here's the link http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~premed/The%20New%20York%20Times%20%20Science%20%20A%20Conversation%20With%20Bryan%20Sykes%20Is%20Genghis%20Khan%20an%20Ancestor%20Mr_%20DNA%20Knows.htm
Dr. Bryan Sykes, a human genetics professor at Oxford University, says that write the Y chromosome is flawed and doomed, and predicts that it will disappear in 120,000 years.  I don't know much about genetics, but maybe some of you can shed some light on this and what other genetics professors think of Sykes theory.--Moosh88 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two new popular science books out this year on Y, his and another (Jones I think). I think Sykes exaggerates a bit for popular literary effect, but I liked his Seven Daughters of Eve (which deserves an article). Someone here should volunteer to read both and synposize them here, don't you think? alteripse 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is speculation. I am sure he has his basic facts right, but his extrapolation into the past is somewhat imaginative and into the future is pretty iffy. alteripse 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I understand, most geneticists agree that the Y chromosome was probably larger in the past, and has shrunk through time. That might deserve mention in this article, although I hesitate to add it without having sources to back it up. I agree that Sykes' prediction that the Y chromosome will disappear entirely is pretty speculative. It's hard for me to imagine what selective pressures would favor a complete loss of the Y chromosome, and I can think of some pretty good reasons its total loss would be selected against. --Geoff 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed and doomed? 

message: There are 322 genes on Y chromosome.
New content:
I found many articles today stating that a new Research conducted in Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts w proves that the Y chromosome might not in fact disappear in another 5 million years as previously thought. I think this ought to be included in the article. 
Adi Weerasinghe (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Y chromosome gen map

message: This was written in the development of Y chromosome - Gene conversion section:
This recombination phenomenon RecLOH is also observed in Genetic Genealogy when multicopy Y-STR markers located at adjacent palindromic arms change from different repeat counts to twin alleles of equal length. Often 2, 3 or more Y-STR markers are involved in the same recombinational event and change to twin alleles at once.
How does this affect the development of the chromosome? That's what the section tries to explain, and is not a dump of trivia. So what makes this not a trivia in this case? Mikael Häggström 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this effect Y chromosome evolution? 

message: In humans, the Y chromosome spans 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents approximately 0.38% of the total DNA in a human cell.
How is this number calculated? --Max Shakhray (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to another article, there are 3,080 million base pairs in a male's genome. Thus Y-chromosome contains approx. 1.88% of the genome. How was the 0.38% calculated? --Max Shakhray (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.38%: Length of Y chromosome as a pecentage 

message: I just ran into this :
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/science/14gene.html?hp
and thought I'd see what Wikipedia had to say.  I see little of this nature on the page, and seeing as Nature (in this case the journal) is a good source, thought a sentence or two might outline the apparently rapid evolution of the Y chromosome.  Yes? Eccomi (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent article 

message: The "XX male syndrome" includes the following sentence:
"Thus, leading your child to having a higher chance in being homosexual.
While possible, this does not appear plausible in any sense."
This sentence deserves at least a "citation needed", if not complete removal. The awkward sentence structure leads me to believe it's likely to be a troll edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.54.238 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  XX male syndrome and homosexuality? 

message: The "future evolution" section seems speculative and largely contradicts the much more credibly written "shrinking theory" section. I'm not an expert, but it seems like it would be good for someone who is to rewrite this to reflect the science cited earlier in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.213.205 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Evolution 

message: :The idea that the Y chromosome was named after its similarity to the letter "Y" is mistaken. All chromosomes normally appear as an amorphous blob under the microscope and only take on a well-defined shape during mitosis. This shape is vaguely X-shaped for all chromosomes. It is entirely coincidental that the Y chromosome, during mitosis, has two very short branches which can look merged under the microscope and appear as the descender of a Y-shape.
What kind of bullshit is this? They already had microscopes back in 18. century. Please remove such false allegations by crooks who just want to get into newspapers: The source isn't reliable. --178.197.228.54 (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage does not say anything about not having microscopes.  It implies just the opposite.  The reliability of sources is not judged by whether or not you happen to agree or disagree with them.  The source for this passage is a book published by Harvard University Press, it was written by David Bainbridge, a scientist notable enough to have an article here, and it won the American Association of Medical Writers' Prize.  If you have sources superior to that then let's hear about them, but see if you can do it a little more politely. SpinningSpark 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False allegations 

message: While under the heading "Degeneration", it is mentioned that "By one estimate, the human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence.." (leading to a current count of 45 active genes), a little while later, under the heading "Human Y Chromosome", the following appears: "The human Y chromosome contains over 200 genes, at least 72 of which code for proteins."
This seems to be a contradiction. 78.166.205.29 (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of genes in the human Y chromosome 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Y chromosome. 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/20050207052351/http://wi.mit.edu/news/ontopic/ychromosome.html to http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/ontopic/ychromosome.html
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) 14:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Poor data and personal input such as "This discovery requires a revision of the theory of Y chromosome generation."  has been added to this article by EvgFakka. If no one raises their hand to fix it, I will do so. For now, I put it here for review. GBFEE (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've gotten better at communication, EvgFakka, and I appreciate it. Okay, a thing we have to know when we work on Wikipedia pages, EvgFakka, is how to weight and report on recent data. Telling people "Because the presence of the Y chromosome may not be necessary for the development of the male sex." is an extraordinary claim because it goes against the standard information in the biological and anatomical literature. This needs to be worked on. You also have to be better about casual phrasings such as "of course". It appears Crossroads watches this page. So maybe he can assist. GBFEE (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: It is mostly not Y chromosome, it is X chromosome deactivation (that causes genome imprinting). So two X means one of them is inactivated, that leads to different genes being activated. 2A00:1370:8184:1765:2439:98C0:6B79:4DCC (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  That poor data 

message: This article, in my opinion, needs to state clearly that the father determines the gender of children, because sperm carry either the X or Y chromosome, while eggs can only have X chromosomes (male cells are XY and females are XX). One reason why this fact is important is that it has been estimated that 1/12 of all female babies born in India are killed because it is erroneously believed that females determine the gender of their babies.
I'd like to ask WP editors to indicate below whether they agree with adding a section to state this clearly or not, thanks. There is no point in my adding a section and thus starting an edit war. David Spector (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father determines gender of children 

message: Dan Theodorescu has recently published a paper in Nature (journal) titled "Y chromosome loss in cancer drives growth by evasion of adaptive immunity" [1] Should this paper showing the connection between loss of Y Chromosome and cancer be added to the Loss of Y Chromosome section on this article? RKSatWork (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a place to promote people or their recently published papers. We shouldn't be adding anything that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS (and as a primary study, this does not). MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of Y Chromosome paper in Nature