Talk:Retrotransposon

message: Because this area is still developing, estimates for various statistics are likely to change.  Right now, I'm adding  for all statistics.  I don't dispute them, but I do think it is important to cite them.  Later, I'll fill in when I can easily find numbers, but I fully expect them to be out-of-date and encourage you to find better ones (along with their citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedE (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: "This translates to millions of elements, so that on average, every gene in our genome contains around 3 retrotransposons."  
This statement doesn't make sense as written, and lacks a source.  Anyone have an idea where it came from? Agathman (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for statement?

message: I've heard a version where retrotransposons containing LTR and endogenous retroviruses are one and the same thing. Personally I can't see the difference. I would appreciate if somebody make the difference clear in the text, or write that they are the same thing.Mortsggah 07:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think retroviruses are active while LTR Retrotransposons look more like 'dead' retroviruses that arnt actively jumping around Inoesomestuff (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between [[Retrotransposon#LTR_retrotransposons]] and [[endogenous retrovirus]]?

message: LINEs are not "LTR-retrotransposons"- this is a misconception brought on from one researcher being too incompetent to properly review the literature about his own field of study- then people repeating it because this particular researcher was arrogant enough for other people to believe him. Anyone who continues this misconception should be shot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.236.124 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retroposon

message: In the edit history of this article, the acronym expansion of LINE and SINE has alternated between "Long (Short) INterspersed Elements" and "Long (Short) Interspersed Nuclear Elements". Either form is reasonable. I have a feeling that the "Nuclear" option may well be a later formation (a partial Backronym) by the tidy-minded (since in this context "nuclear" adds no useful information to the description). Can anyone cite appropriate primary sources to establish priority between these forms (i.e. which was used / published first)? FredV (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question, I merely replaced the nuclear following an IP edit without giving it much thought. A crude pubmed search gives 1144 in favour of Interspersed elements and 277 for Interspersed nuclear elements (I don't think that its usage should be wholly dictated by which was published first). Nuclear may well be a later addition; I confess that when I replaced it, I missed the IN in interspersed Jebus989✰ 10:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on usage - if the majority of the expert community involved has changed their standard usage, that is what Wiki should follow (perhaps noting the historical version as an alternative.) However, like you I found significant current usage of both forms, as well as occasion usage of "Nucleotide" for the N (and also L / S INterspersed DNA Elements - with the DNA presumably suppressed from the acronym). As a non-professional in this field, I will leave it to others to decide what the article should record, though I personally would prefer at least recognition of both principal forms. FredV (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LINE and SINE acronyms 

message: Can someone replace the word "recently" with dates? The word "recently" is used repeatedly throughout this article. Anyone with any sense should realize (especially given that the last addition/edit to this talk page was in 2013 and it's now 2016) that the word "recently" has no place in an encylcopedian's vocabulary. How can a reader possibly know when that particular sentence was written?? Obviously, we can't. Also, I am changing the clause "99.9% of which is no longer capable of mobilization" found in the LINEs section to "99.9% of which is no longer capable of retrotransposition, considered 'dead'" based on that language in the reference given, and the fact that "mobilization" has no clear meaning here.Abitslow (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: The section on LINEs states them as "comprising 17% of the human genome (99.9% of which is no longer capable of retrotransposition, and therefore considered "dead" or inactive)". First, this is ambiguous. What is the antecedent of the word "which" here? The human genome or the LINEs? More importantly, according to the sources, the 17% (repeated later in the section) and the 99.9% are specifically for L1 elements. Our Long interspersed nuclear element article gives 21% for the combined contribution of L1, L2 and L3 elements to the human genome, and if I understand the literature correctly, fully 100% of L2 and L3 elements are not retrotransposition-competent.  --Lambiam 08:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  LINE vs. L1 

message: There's a section that contains only a sentence fragment and no citation, as follows:
:Replicative transposition
:Using Tn3 plasmid as a model
This was introduced in April in a series of edits by User:Pizzanotsinkships. I don't know if it should be expanded or removed - I've tagged it. Fences&Windows 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on replicative transposition is a fragment 

message: In LNEs "ensures LINEs can be copied into whichever location it decides to insert itself into."  Not my area so I don't know how the point of insertion arises, but I do not accept a decision has been taken by the not-a-virus involved.  Midgley (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like much the wording either, but "decision" does not necessarily imply volition, being somewhat of an anthropomorphic or zoomorphic figure of speech for processes where one agent or system proceeds in a non-random manner according to internal variables. Whenever possible I'd rather have wordings that are as succinct as possible while avoiding such figures of speech, though. Unfortunately it's not always very easy to find such alternative, it's easy to end up more prolix and maybe even pedantic. 45.167.98.146 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volition on the molecular scale?? 

message: The article states "retrotransposons amplify in number quickly, composing 40% of the human genome." This proportion of the human genome mentioned following the "it's quick" statement doesn't really provide any kind of reference to measure how "quickly" it happens. It can be the case that most retrotransposos in the "human genome" are inherited from a common ancestor with other apes, all primates, or even further back. Maybe quick if compared to fish-to-human evolution, but not for non-bat-mammal-to-bat evolution, I guess. If most retrotransposons in the "human genome" are indeed not exclusively human, one could well also make the statement, "retrotransposons are slow to grow in number, most retrotransposons in a species are inherited from distant ancestors, and shared by several related species, in quite similar numbers." If those are mostly exclusively human, though, then that's perhaps close to what the common person would think as "quickly" in evolutionary scales, then it would be interesting perhaps to have a list of some time estimates for different retrotransposon amplifications in human populations. 45.167.98.146 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this statement doesn't bear too much sense, I'll edit it out later. Blosum62 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the speed of retrotransposon amplification in number 

message: There's this empty section that was apparently created in 2021. Being in the field for some years I've never heard of plans to use LTR retrotransposons in biotechnology, unlike DNA transposons which have been used for decades. I propose to delete the section altogether. Blosum62 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Role in biotechnology section 

message: The introduction contains weird paragraph on piRNA pathway, which makes little sense in the context and referring twice to a paper that has little significance to the subject. Examining other edits by the user (this paragraph was added on February 5th, 2022) I found that their edits mostly comprise of adding citations by the same authors. I'm removing this paragraph altogether, but maybe it would be nice to add a section about host defense against retrotransposons which would include piRNA pathway and KRAB-Zinc finger proteins. Blosum62 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite spam in the intro