Talk:Human mitochondrial genetics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Timeframe

From the article: Using these techniques, it is estimated that the first mitochondria (or more correctly, aerobic prokaryote/anaerobic eukaryote symbiotic relationship) evolved, or was consumed, or developed around 10,000,000 years ago.

This makes no sense to me. 10 million years is not nearly old enough for mitochondria, unless I don't understand this statement.

Good catch. (c; The specific source cited in the original paper for that tidbit was:

6. Neuromuscular Disease Center. Washington University, St. Louis, MO; October 10, 2004 [4] (http://www.neuro.wustl.edu/neuromuscular/mitosyn.html#general).

(Don't you just love cited sources?) The site says:

Origin of mitochondria...
Time: 10^7 years ago

This is 10,000,000 in scientific notation, so the paper is accurately reflecting this source.

The question then becomes: which source is right? The Indiana Univ. Purdue site, along with most of google's hits ("http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2endosymb.html", "http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/mitochon.html", "http://www.earthlife.net/kingdom.html"), say it is 1.5x10^9 years ago. The Washington Univ. in St. Louis (along with a lone google hit to "http://sun.menloschool.org/~birchler/cells/animals/mitochondria/") says it is 10^7 years ago. The thing is, these sites probably got their information from one another.

I'm leaning toward 10^9, simply because I've always trusted talkorigins.org on this kind of stuff, and that's the date they use. So I'm changing the date, and writing a letter to Indiana University asking for clarification on this point. If they write back explaining that the date meant something else, I'll clarify what I learn in the entry. Otherwise, I think the change is justified. Eric Herboso 20:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I sent the webmaster a letter, but I don't know if he's the author or not, nor even if he'll respond. However, I did notice that the website cited its own source as a reference; however, I don't have access to it. If anybody out there subscribes to the New England Journal of Medicine, please check the following article for the 10^7 date. It might be referring to something other than when eukaryotes and mitochondria teamed up together.

Mechanisms of Disease: Mitochondrial Respiratory-Chain Diseases
DiMauro S., Schon E. A.
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2656-2668, Jun 26, 2003

Eric Herboso 20:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

10^7 years is definitely wrong regardless of what the source says. It is obviously a typo. The first compartmentalized cells are observed in the fossil record in rocks dated at aprox 1.5^9 years. One could argue these compartments are not mitochondria but rather invaginations of the plama membrane, however, multicellualr organisms appear in the fossil record between 1^9 and 6^8 years so mitochondria have to be in the cells before that time frame. David D. (Talk) 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial genetics

It would seem that 10.exp7 years is far too short a time span as this would place it well into differentiation of higher life forms ie mammalian, reptilian, and dinosauran divisions.

I agree, surely mitochondria did not just magically pop into existance at that point in time then also-magically appear in all of the eukaryotic life forms. --Miroku Sanna 18:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the authors???

Who wrote the article on mitochondria genetics? I'm trying to cite this article as a source, but I'm having troubles. Please help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is written by countless individuals with no special credentials. You can refer to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up

Is the information in the article still safe to use? Is there any information that I should not use for a report. Please answer me as soon as possible!! *<:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is written by random characters, some very well informed and many less so. Hence, I would recommend you fact-check as many details as possible. There has recently been a high-profile case of a journalist relying on Wikipedia without fact-checking and causing disinformation. See the general disclaimer (below) - we provide information, but half may be wrong and you don't know which half :-) JFW | T@lk 20:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is supposed to be about mitochondrial genetics, then there is lot of unreleated info here that should be removed (e.g. Mitochondrial Membrane Complexes). Even DNA repair and such isn't genetics, it should be included in the mtDNA article but not here. Hichris 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've only copyedited the first part, and did not get around to slashing this. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Merging

I am assuming that no one here intends to favor the merger suggests in the main page? I hope not. Most search engines seem not to find this, in a search on "mitochondrial DNA", and t'other way 'round, too. This suggests to me that linking the two articles is better than merging them? --64.105.73.40 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles (mitochondrial DNA and mitochondrial genetics) should not be merged. However, I do think this article should be renamed to Human mitochondrial genetics and should focus only on humans. -- Reinyday, 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article (which still needs lots of work) already focuses on Human mitochrondrial genetics, so I say go ahead and rename/move it Hichris 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think that most of this article (70%) belongs in the mitochondrial DNA aritcle, however I think this article with the remaining 30% should stay -- albeit reorganized. Hichris 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Which 70%?pschemp | talk 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sections don't belong here and could be fit into mitochondria DNA article:

"Membrane complexes" (plus the intro paragraph before), "Replication, Repair, Transcription, and Translation", "Mitochondrial Diseases" (perhaps a sentece or two about this, but most mitochondrial diseases are NOT related to the mitochondrial genome.)

Theses sections, perhaps somewhat more concisely, could be merged into the mitochondrial DNA article. Hichris 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above except the mitochondrial diseases. I thought there were many diseases related to the mitochondrial genome? What makes it fascinating is that due the heteroplasmy (more than one mit genome per cell and both mutant and wild-type) the severity of the disease can be quite variable both heterchronically and tissue specifically. This seems very relevent. Isn't this why Greg LeMond had to retire as his mutant mitochondria started to predominate in his muscle tissues? David D. (Talk) 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOST mitochondrial disorders are caused by Chromosonal genes, but there are diseases caused by errors in the mitochonrial genome. Mitochondrial myopathy, which Greg LeMond has can be caused (and I believe in his case was) by errors in the mitochondrial genes. So go ahead an keep this section, but should be reworked to explain this better. Hichris 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt it needs reworking and also clarifying the difference between the nuclear and mitochondrial versions of mitochondrial diseases. This is not really my area but i assume one major difference is that the phenotype due to the mitochondrial mutations has variable penetrance as opposed to the diseases in nuclear encoded proteins. David D. (Talk) 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]