Talk:Genotype

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DHandy2014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 19 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Storyminusthes. Peer reviewers: Aa2021dna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 May 2020 and 22 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Willstucki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate/Repeating Material

The Sub-headings Genotype and Mendelian inheritance and Genotype and genetics have the same material. I propose we remove one of them, and put in internal links that are not common to the two duplicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.18.164 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

Moved inappropriate tone flag from main page to here:

I'm not sure why Mr.bombo (talk · contribs) added this. Unless there is further description here on the discussion page, I propose we remove this tag? Jethero^Talk 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Technical

I added an introductory paragraph that's a more accessible version of the original first few sentences. I don't know how to remove that 'too technical' box, though, and I'm not sure if it's warranted. OsamaBinLogin 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intro still perhaps more technical than it needs to be. We need to introduce topic without jumping right into words like 'allelic', or the technical jargon use of the common word 'character'. Jethero^Talk 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"constitution of a cell, an organism, or an individual" what is the difference between an organism and an individual? An organism is an individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.107.153 (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Genotyping into Genotype Determining genotype section

propose we merge genotyping into genotype.
- both articles need to be greatly improved, and there will be significant overlap (snp, technology, definitions, dna, etc...)
- people interested in genotyping can look at a section called one of: 'genotyping', 'determining genotype', or 'genotypic assay'
- existing genotyping page can redirect directly to this section rather than the top of the page, so navigation is not a problem. Searching for genotyping will also pull up this article.
- genotyping is rated stub and not rated for importance, while genotype is rated top importance

Jethero^Talk 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, topics have not much in common from a user's perspective. One is about a method to detect genetic variability, the other article is about such variability itself. Genotyping should be improved but kept separate, they are already interlinked. Cacycle 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutal - Many other topics have a single article for a range of related topics. dying disambiguates to death, burning to burn, walk to walking. Although at a technical level these are all different things, like genotype and genotyping, they are closely related. [Magnet] and [Magnetism], however, are different articles, both with considerable effort put into them but still lacking feature article status. They seem to have much overlap (physics, equations, >25% of the links) and magnet has a list of 'types of magnetism', while magnetism has a list of 'types of magnets'! So genotyping and genotype may end up having much overlap. Instead, they might be better understood as a whole, then perhaps 'split' if it becomes clear we can't find a cohesive explanation for the both of them. Do you think we could do both topics justice under one heading? Jethero^Talk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve then merge - The description of "genotyping" is not advanced enough. There should be an improvement in the section of "Genotyping" before merging with "Genotype", but I do agree that they could be merged. Dysp (talk · contribs) (post-signed by Jethero^Talk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

possible - It may be possible to merge the topics, however, people are often only interested in genotyping, as a process, because it is widely referred to within news releases related to research. If you hide genotyping within genotype, you'll make it much more difficult for people to get to what they are looking for -- though I don't know if that is actually a consideration for Wikipedia. Obviously, genotyping would immediately lead to genotypes, genetics and wide variety of technologies involved in genotyping. As stated above, this section is horribly deficient at the current time. 24.226.22.61 (talk · contribs) (post-signed by Jethero^Talk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good point. Perhaps then the article 'genotyping' should be the flagship article, with a section that discusses 'genotype'? Jethero^Talk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Also, the fact that Genotyping is very technical so it's like fighting fire with fire. 69.138.182.136 (talk · contribs) (post-signed by Jethero^Talk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what this means, but I agree both articles might benefit from some toning down on the technical language. Jethero^Talk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Genotype is generally relates to molecular biology, while genotyping relates to the application of molecular biology to clinical treatment. Both require more advanced discussions, but the specific methods used to determine a genotype are not relevant to the clinical applications; likewise the ramifications of a clinical genotyping results are not relevant to the average molecular biologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.104.2 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugest to change haemophilia

Since this disease is sex related, it's not the best example to illustrate zigosity and mendelian inheritance. Mens doesn't have two 'recesive' alleles, but the lack of allele in gene Y.

Sort it out

I think this whole article should be gone over and heavily edited, it is very confusing and often does not make sense or is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.36 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Genotype/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.

rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) This article needs expansion/clarification, references, and images (e.g. explaining genotype-phenotype distinction). - tameeria 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628213758/http://www.keygene.com/home/index.php to http://www.keygene.com/home/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates as part of wiki course

As part of a Wiki course, I plan to make the following updates to this article:

Clean up references: add additional references to basic introductory materials throughout the article and remove excessive references to primary articles
Simplify opening section: remove detailed examples and discussion of more tangential topics and concepts (eg, somatic mutations; history of term genotype)
Rename and restructure "Phenotype" section: change title to "genotype-phenotype relationship" or something similar and reorganize it to flow more logically
Combine sections on "traits involving multiple genes" and "polygenic traits" under non-Mendelian inheritance, as these refer to similar concepts, and remove text that appears to be directly copied from an uncited source
Remove or reposition dihybrid cross table, as this is typically used as an example of independent assortment in Mendelian genetics, not non-Mendelian inheritance patterns
Restructure the "determination" section so that it is organized by type of information that can be gained from the test (eg, detection of structural or large-scale changes vs detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms) and include links to topics such as exome sequencing

Storyminusthes (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Lead

The lead section is concise and clear to follow. Key ideas are introduced at an appropriate level of detail. The first introductory sentence is pithy. Suggestions: remove the last sentence "term genotype was coined by .." or move to earlier in first paragraph a brief overview of the contents of the article would be beneficial

Content

The content of this article is appropriate. Genotype is a very general term; therefore, keeping this article focused is a good idea. There are lots of link to other articles for related topics. That is great! Key related concepts of inheritance is covered. I like that it is split into mendelian and non-mendelian inheritance. The section title "Determination" seems a bit vague. Why not just change to genotyping. I don't know if the "Evolutionary origin of genotype" is necessary. The origin of genotype is really a story of the origin of genetic material and the mechanisms of inheritance. Suggestions: Maybe give penetrance and expressivity a subsection of their own under Mendelian inheritance. maybe provide some example of the above two concepts

Tone and Balance

Overall, I think tone and balance in this article is great. Genotype is not inherently controversial, so I think this article doesn't have issues with that Overall I think the language is accessible to a non-expert audience

Sources and Balance

This article has a lot of sources. While there are some primary sources, many are secondary sources. Moreover, many sources are drawn from encyclopedia or general genetics texts. I think is is advantageous so that a general audience member can follow up as necessary. I think the sources are current, thorough and comes from a diverse set of authors. Since genotype is a fundamental topic in human genetics, I am sure there are tons of other sources out there. However, I don't think more citations are necessary and, given the quality of the current references, I don't think any more need to be added. A spot check of the links suggests that there is not a lot of dead links.

Organization

Overall, the article is well-organized. The language is easy to read while not lacking key genetic concepts. The descriptions of these concepts are accurate. A great strength of this article is how concise the writing is given how broad a topic like genotype is. There are no grammatical errors that I noticed while reading. Content is well organized into sections and sub-sections.

Aa2021dna (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genome, genotype and genes of an entire population

The definitions in the respective Wikipedia pages do not appear to differ between genotype and genome. This is also evident in most definitions I found. Is there a difference? Clarification would help - and perhaps a mention in the Introduction to Genetics article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics).

“The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material”(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype). There is a somewhat different definition of genotype from the NHGRI at NIH (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genotype).

“a genome is all the genetic information of an organism” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome)

It would also be informative to discuss the genetic information of the entire population of an organism. Does it have a name? How many more genes are present in the population of an organism than in a single individual? Presumably unknown but the current academic thoughts (or lack of) would be interesting. QuietJohn (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External link PDF broken

Genetic nomenclature 404 Not Found (sdsu.edu) https://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/nomenclature-v3.pdf 180.150.112.179 (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rose name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:408A:3ECC:9CB1:0:0:C0C9:6A12 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]