	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Page 3 and 4 explain in very precise detail the methylation process:

http://www.drinkyourvitamins.com/press/HPOMethylation_OlaLoa.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.82.156 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in the context of pseudoscientific garbage. "Energy"? "Healing"? Please. AstarothCY (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link is now broken and I don't know how to fix it. Given the article itself could use some help explaining what Methylation really means in lay-terms, this is a shame. I would suggest someone take a look at adding to the main article information on exactly what methylation is and why it is important. Unfortunately, not knowing myself I can't attempt it. -- I should add that I understand the science description, that is fine. It is the connection to meaning that is missing in the main article. --173.26.108.64 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Contradiction in Cancer Section

"In contrast, the promoter region of the gene is unmethylated, despite a high density of CpG islands in the region."

This doesn't make sense. CpG islands are generally not methylated at all, so it cannot be in contrast to anything. Instead, it confirms the reason for lack of methylation. Should this be changed? Yaro (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my own edit

In the phrase under Epigenetics that read "but there are certain areas, known as CpG islands, that are GC-rich (made up of about 65% CG residues)" I changed "GC" to "CG" and then reverted this change back to "GC". Under CpG_site#Frequency_in_vertebrates the human genome is described as having "42% GC content", which clearly means a 42% total nucleotide content of guanine plus cytosine, regardless of the order in which these nucleotides occur. To clarify this point, I changed the phrase to "but there are certain areas, known as CpG islands, that are GC-rich (high guanine and cytosine content, made up of about 65% CG residues)". --Ben Best 15:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

large deletion re epigenetics by smokefoot

I recently edited this page but was not aware of a commented out section, which smokefoot deleted now. The reasons are unclear, and the edit summary is not sufficient for such a large deletion. i see you started this commenting out ( absolute stealth !) un 2015. This is not ok. I will restore and discuss each change you want to make. There has been no flagging or discussion anywhere to warn harmless helpers editors that you were planning to bomb this article.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing nefarious going on here, so you are welcome to police away. You are welcome to restore or discuss anything I work on. My main mission today was to insert something about methylation of heavy elements, which is a pretty popular topic and relevant to an article I created.

Now about the bits that were wiped today and restored by you, I have reviewed them. My feeling is that they dont belong in this article. The epigentic consequences of DNA methylation seem tangential to an article about the chemical act of methylating, especially since we have a section on DNA methylation. I guess it is human nature that you will disagree, but I'd welcome your comments or response. A similar line of discussion can be made for the embryology. Otherwise we just bring in topic after topic on an already weighty article. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was removed mostly belongs in DNA methylation rather then here. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewrite

As an article for a general-interest encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is), this one is horrible. This seems to have been written by someone trying to show off knowledge of the topic to others who already know it, instead of someone trying to make information clear to people who don't already know it.

President Lethe (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 174.247.80.200 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main thing is to thank you for your comments. But I will defend it:

who says that Wikipedia is a "general interest encyclopedia"? It is an encyclopedia that aims to expose facts associated with many topics. Wikipedia is explicitly not a textbook. It is against our guidelines to explain things. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTMANUAL.
For the life of me, I cannot imagine how an article on methylation should start. But you might try to give us editors a clue by writing a mock-up of an opening paragraph or an outline. Methylation is an advanced topic in chemistry, so good luck.
Re It seems to "have been written by someone trying to show off knowledge of the topic", unfortunately you may be correct. There is some of that going on here. But (!!), at least these show-offs produced something that others can modify.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]