Talk:Mutation

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dishabhavsar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ddoerflinger, HadeelBinomar. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HKR ARS (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damonie667 (article contribs).

Exome

A new paper (PMID 20518025) (ahead of print) [http://www.physorg.com/news195385687.html (lay summary) indicates that because "Protein coding genes constitute approximately 1% of the human genome but harbor 85% of the mutations with large effects on disease-related traits" it is a useful strategy to focus on the exome when looking for SNPs that cause rare diseases. The paper asserts that with only two unrelated donors with a genetic disease it was possible to find the SNP they share which causes it. In their example they found mutations causing Fowler's syndrome affecting FLVCR2, but authors anticipate that the search strategy will greatly accelerate the search for such SNPs. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Two templates

Template:Evolution3 and Template:Genetics2 are both on the page of this article. The evolution template has been there for longer but I recently added the genetics template. It feels crowded, but yet imperative to the article, as mutation goes hand in hand with evolution and genetics? Should we keep them both on or just one? I know the creation–evolution controversy page has two templates, and seems of course slightly crowded, but is this article deserving or two? Thoughts? Andrew Colvin • Talk 04:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Having two templates seems excessive. In my opinion, such templates (even when only one is present) are generally less helpful to uninformed readers than lead images that introduce the subject. In this article, for instance, a simple image depicting an example of a mutation would be helpful in visually introducing readers to what a mutation is. Ideally, such a lead image would be more obvious than the picture of the benzo[a]pyrene adduct and less complicated than the diagram of chromosomal translocations. Emw (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Somatic Mutations

Heya people, I noticed that the page Somatic mutation links back here but Germline mutation has its own page. Do you think that perhaps somatic mutations should have their own page too? I'll happily build it but I thought I'd check here before doing it in case this has come up before. Cheers, Abergabe (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for "mutations are generally harmful" ?

Under "Beneficial mutations": "Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful[citation needed], some... " Can we remove [citation needed]? How often do you see undesired changes to a complex code result in a positive change? It's common knowledge that mutations cause countless diseases and syndromes. Positive or even neutral mutations are negligible compared to the damage they cause. Precise wording: "Although mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful; on occasion, they can have neutral or positive effects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.192.11 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, citation is necessary because it is an assertion. You only read about the mutations that causes disease because they are worth studying, most mutations probably don't make any significant difference. Hzh (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most mutations are very slightly harmful, in the sense that they lead away from adaptation to current circumstances. A good citation for this would be ISBN 978-0198569732, which uses similar words to say this point. This could be good to include in the arguments about beneficial vs deleterious mutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.225.7 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem it seems is that people seem to be concentrating on mutations within genes. There are studies that show that mutations outside of genes are mostly harmless. Mutation does not mean mutation in genes only or change in protein sequence, and that needs to be made clearer. Hzh (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

DNA_error redirects to Kurzweils "Singularity is Near"

The "error" link redirects to the "Singularity is Near" book by Ray Kurzweil. That can't possibly be correct. Qed (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This refers to the DNA error link in "as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication" in the lead. Since 5 November 2011, that page is a redirect to The Singularity Is Near. Here is a permalink to how the page looked at 30 July 2011. It's probably best to simply remove the link from "errors" as the topic seems insufficiently sourced for a mention here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

mutation as mechanism of natural selection

The following quotation from the description is misleading: "Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out." Mutation is NOT the mechanism through which natural selection acts. Differential reproductive success is the mechanism; mutation is necessary in that it is the source of the variation, but it is definitely not the mechanism. To suggest so seems vaguely Lamarkian (i.e., Natural Selection somehow forces a mutation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.7 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it.[1] Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Beneficial Mutations Section

Hi guys, was wondering if the section on beneficial mutations can be edited to include something about natural selection, since along with the example cited, CC5R, this possible explanation accompanies it. "One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased." Since this explanation is one of natural selection of the fitter, would it be fit (pun not intended) to add something about natural selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimpSpider (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding DNA

One thing I've been trying to figure out for a while: I know that mutations can sometimes be beneficial...but the question is, can they actually INCREASE THE LENGTH of DNA molecules? I looked online, and people say opposite things...are there scientist that have opinions on this?72.80.198.221 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mutations can increase the length of DNA such as with gene duplication and transposable elements. Whether it is beneficial depends on the mutation. Telomere lengthening may prolong cell life (which may be beneficial, or harmful if its cancer). The insertion of transposable elements after a promoter could inactivate a gene. This article needs work.Fundon1 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Always inherited?

Could something be added into the first sentence of the introduction to clarify whether or not mutations are always inheritable? Genetically malformed individuals whose genetic malformation, for instance was the result of their mother's ingestion of thalidomide, do not I believe necessarily have similarly affected offspring. I raise the point as this article is referred to, as the primary source in another article here, as being one of the four primary sources of genetic change in pupulations. LookingGlass (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are mutations observable?

Can someone clarify this in relation to the page subject? Because this important point is not discussed at all. Are mutations directly observable (e.g. with a telescope) or are they inferred?

The following source says: "Here, the focus is on mutations that affect only single genes and are not microscopically observable." [2]FossilMad (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You would probably get a good answer at WP:Reference desk/Science. You might find Nylon-eating bacteria of interest. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Defective sentence

The section Somatic mutations includes the sentence "When analyzing somatic mutations present in the cells of multicellular organisms, can know its origin and its past."

Can someone fix this sentence? What is the subject of the verb "can know", please? And what is the antecedent of the pronoun "its"? Dirac66 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mutation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Importance rating adjusted to "top" as highschool/SAT biology content, important basis for genetics, evolution, and occurence in popular culture. - tameeria 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Novel Mutation" --> New Mutation

At several points, the article uses the term "novel mutation" to talk about new mutations, as opposed to inherited ones. The National Cancer Institute defines the term "novel mutation" as one that as been previously undiscovered/unreported, and scientific literature uses the term as such, while "new" or "de novo" mutations to refer to a mutation present in an organism that was not present in the parent. (Apologies for the drive-by flagging.) 199.217.4.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Mutation review

“By effect on protein sequence” mentions frameshift, nonsense, missense, neutral, and silent mutations, which were discussed in “By effect on structure.” Can these sections be combined?

"Replication timing quantitative trait loci affects DNA replication" does not mention how DNA replication is affected.

• A good source found on the rtQTL Wikipedia page, relating to mutation types based on replication timing.

The final paragraph of the “Beneficial mutations” section lists sickle-cell disease as an example of a harmful mutation. I believe sickle-cell disease should be discussed in “Harmful mutations,” while the sickle-cell trait should be covered in “Beneficial mutations.”

Finally, I believe there needs to be more information related to how mutations are located and fixed within organisms. I.e., Photoreactivation repair, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, etc.

JJCim (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Reorganized and clarified "By effect on structure" and "By impact on protein sequence" subsections

These two subsections were a complete mess, full of duplications and contradictions, and it was not clear how the content was divided between them. I have substantially revised their organization and nested the classifications in a way that I believe is more logical. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Mutation Evaluation

I like how the article is organized. It covers many aspects related to mutation, so if anyone does not have an idea about mutation he is going to find all the sources. Another great thing about the article is that it describes a different kind of mutation, the causes and it provides links to other articles which would be helpful to the reader, also the article is well resourced.Halhamdan (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)