Talk:Oncogene

Style

I'm beginning to feel that the number of links and random facts are interrupting the continuity of this article (e.g. is it really necessary to attribute the institution of Varums and Bishop? probably not). However, I do feel that the discussion on mutations is quite helpful for understanding of the topic. Brandon Tavshanjian

microRNAs

I am interested in making some rather substantial changes to this page, but thought it might be best to float some ideas here first.

An example: the second (short) paragraph says:

"New research indicates that small RNAs 21-25 nucleotides in length called miRNAs can control expression of these genes by downregulating them."

This sentence is true, and there is a lot of interest to say about miRNAs and their involvement in cancer, but the above makes a generic statement about all genes that says nothing specific about oncogenes. On that basis, I would delete this paragraph.

Comments?

User:OncoAnalyst forgot to sign the above.

Delete or rewrite. I would start by rewriting the above as "microRNAs can control expression of these genes by downregulating them." and add relevant sources. Also please rewrite the section on the microRNA page about cancer. Una Smith 04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the connections between miRNAs and oncogenes are beginning to become intriguing, I really don't feel it belongs at the beginning of the article. I'm a big fan of the idea that these entries should be written in the "funnel" style, where we start with the most broad statements and then move on to specifics. In that light, miRNAs belong as a sub-heading later on in the article--placing them at the beginning is just confusing. It also doesn't necessarily contribute anything to the basic understanding of what an "oncogene" is.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has added extra material:

   "so they pretty much suck"
   "loss of bladder control"
   "a condition called proto-syntheticcanceritis"

I don't want to remove it without discussion, hence this new section. -klode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.92.192.254 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting statements in intro

"Since the 1970s, dozens of oncogenes have been identified in cancer." and "Since the 1980s, dozens of oncogenes have been identified in human cancer." Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Diference between oncogene and protoncogene

I searched this article trying to understand the difference between an oncogene and a protooncogene. Their definition seem the same to me in this article, just with slightly different words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.66.199.182 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

historically, when the first oncogene was discovered, the discovered gene became tumour inducing from the insertion of viral DNA. Oncogene then meant the mutated version and proto-oncogene the non-mutated version. However, as it was found that upregulation led in some cases to oncogenic behaviour from completely un-mutated "proto"-oncogene, some authors do not make the distinction. I believe there is still debate about what is correct. My personal opinion which has no authority at all is that it makes no sense to have two names for the exact same strand of DNA.CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

->If this is the case that current research has shown that these two definitions are degenerate, then it would be appropriate to state this in the wiki. As of now, it is just a source of confusion. Just need to find some good sources...Bfwiki (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)bfwiki

"two names for the exact same strand of DNA" <-- If it is not possible to identify a change in DNA that accounts for the transformation of a proto-oncogene into an oncogene then efforts would be made to identify some other change as the cause of the cancer. There would be no rush to abandon the terminology "oncogene" and "proto-oncogene". "these two definitions are degenerate" <-- In biology it is almost always possible to find border-line and special cases that are hard to fit into rigid definitions and categorizations. That does not mean that useful categories and terms are abandoned.

same here: I did not understand the difference between oncogene and proto-oncogene. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to negate the first sentence into "An oncogene is a gene that is responsible for the ABnormal growth and differentiation of cells." ? At least this seems to be the meaning of the term when reading other sources (e.g. the German wiki). There they state, that Onco comes from Latin "Onko" and means "cancer". Proto-oncogenes are the same genes in a state before mutation or any other kind of transformation happens to them which finally converts the proto-oncogene into the oncogene.