Talk:Gene: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Timothy Perper (no RNA viruses?) |
imported>Chris Day |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
It says "Throughout the biological disciplines, the word 'gene' refers to some heritable 'entity' or 'system', related to DNA, that plays a role... " Well, not really. Often DNA is the physical basis of inheritance (to quote a well known phrase in genetics) but not always. Second, the word "heritable" has too many meanings in genetics to be used safely here. Use the more accurate term "inherited" or "biologically inherited" so you don't start with "heritable" and "heritability." And beware of prions lurking in the definitional distance. [[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 13:58, 25 September 2008 (CDT) | It says "Throughout the biological disciplines, the word 'gene' refers to some heritable 'entity' or 'system', related to DNA, that plays a role... " Well, not really. Often DNA is the physical basis of inheritance (to quote a well known phrase in genetics) but not always. Second, the word "heritable" has too many meanings in genetics to be used safely here. Use the more accurate term "inherited" or "biologically inherited" so you don't start with "heritable" and "heritability." And beware of prions lurking in the definitional distance. [[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 13:58, 25 September 2008 (CDT) | ||
:The key is there can be no absolutes with respect to mechanisms or inheritance or with respect to what a gene is. Note that prions more readily fit into what I would call infectious, not heritable in the genetic sense (although CJD variants can obviously be inherited at the DNA level), so I think we can turn a blind eye to the problems they bring to the topic. I think the thing here is that "''related to DNA''" is sufficiently vague to include conformations of heterochromatin that might be heritable and even RNA is "related" to DNA, although I understand the point you are trying to make. So, while I do think the first paragraph does make a nod to the exceptions it might be more explicit. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:16, 25 September 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 13:16, 25 September 2008
No RNA viruses?
It says "Throughout the biological disciplines, the word 'gene' refers to some heritable 'entity' or 'system', related to DNA, that plays a role... " Well, not really. Often DNA is the physical basis of inheritance (to quote a well known phrase in genetics) but not always. Second, the word "heritable" has too many meanings in genetics to be used safely here. Use the more accurate term "inherited" or "biologically inherited" so you don't start with "heritable" and "heritability." And beware of prions lurking in the definitional distance. Timothy Perper 13:58, 25 September 2008 (CDT)
- The key is there can be no absolutes with respect to mechanisms or inheritance or with respect to what a gene is. Note that prions more readily fit into what I would call infectious, not heritable in the genetic sense (although CJD variants can obviously be inherited at the DNA level), so I think we can turn a blind eye to the problems they bring to the topic. I think the thing here is that "related to DNA" is sufficiently vague to include conformations of heterochromatin that might be heritable and even RNA is "related" to DNA, although I understand the point you are trying to make. So, while I do think the first paragraph does make a nod to the exceptions it might be more explicit. Chris Day 14:16, 25 September 2008 (CDT)