Talk:Genome project

I think we can be a little vitriolic, for the sake of humanity.

Moon - a rock which orbits earth - end transmission.

I reverted that change; I can history be in the future? The essense of what you are trying to say wasn't wrong - just the wording. Stewart Adcock 22:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should the (partial?) list of projects be listed into some sort of taxonomic order? 203.34.41.43 04:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Should we place a list with links to appropriate organising bodies on its separate page? List of ongoing genome projects (completed ones being listed at List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes and List of sequenced prokaryotic genomes.

This would slim down the list in-article and SEE ALSO sections.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

somebody please define ORF. I follow this stuff and even I don't know what it is. Thanx! Sys Hax 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Page linked to open reading frame. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to propose splitting off a new page for Genome annotation. It is a major area of interest in its own right and is an endeavor that continues on well past the completion of the genome sequence assembly (the primary thrust of a genome project). The Bioinformatics page has a genome annotation section that is less comprehensive than this section in the genome project article, and it claims that Gene finding is the main article for genome annotation, which is in fact just one aspect of genome annotation. A new main article devoted to genome annotation would help avoid inconsistencies like this. Any objections to having a new 'Genome annotation' article? SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

hey, shouldn't HIV be on this list? They HAVE sequenced it, right? I'm not adding it myself because I don;t know for sure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sys Hax (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

In every individual it's different. Whose DNA did they map? Whatever they say is on chromosome 22, mine's gotta be different by a few C's and T's, and maybe a G.

I agree with this statement. Sample sizes are not significant in the case of humans. Further complicated by all the cells in the same subject not having the same sequence with somatic mutations and class switch recombitation being notable normal examples in lymphocytes. In any case polymorphisms are found and listed and periodically the known genome is rebuilt. It has not changed much recently. I do find it annoying that at ncbi there are in fact three different builds Celera1 Celera2 and the reference genome. I guess there are issues merging the two or three builds.

done 128.206.82.41 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Line 1 uses the word organism and then gives an awkwardly phrased list of examples one of which is the virus. Wikipedia defines organism as living ( although the usual uncertainty about whether viruses qualify as living appears in that article), but viruses are not living, thus the term organism does not technically apply, so technically there is an error there. Since it makes perfect sense to list viruses in the list of categories of sequenced "entities", perhaps the word organizm should be changed or some sort of re-wording. Also is it really necessary to parenthetically list all the "kingdoms" in a tiring list of 'be its' ? Netrapt (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

there is an annotation on the article asking 'who?' says the era of genomics is one of the most fundamental in human history. While the term 'era of genomics' and 'fundamental' may not appear, there are plenty of praises heaped on the human genome project, to wit: http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/draft2000/mainrelease.shtml http://www.todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/H_Cat/HumanGenome-Quotations.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/805803.stm

Netrapt (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

this is a specific statement that needs to be attributed to a specific source that should use very similar wording. Miscellaneous praise is not equivalent.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I modified this statement from the original ("and some have argued that the era of genomics is one of the more fundamental advances in human history.") to this more specific statement: "that is already having a major impact on research across the life sciences, with potential for spurring numerous medical and commercial developments." citing a page on the DOE's HGP benefits page which states this and provides examples. Still would be of interest to find reference for the "fundamental advance in human history" claim. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why is SOAP the only example mentioned? The assembly software section appears to be advertising for one out of a plethora of software. Ketil (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genome project. 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/20120928054058/http://www.nrcpb.org/content/nrcpb-scientists-succeeded-decoding-arhar-dal-genome to http://www.nrcpb.org/content/nrcpb-scientists-succeeded-decoding-arhar-dal-genome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply