Talk:Circadian clock

Copyvio?
The source page says, ''All material in this fact sheet is in the public domain and may be copied or reproduced without permission from the Institute. Citation of the source is appreciated.'' Surely this is not a copyvio? --Ghewgill 20:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed; restored. --rbrwr&plusmn; 18:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Circadian oscillator
The title should be 'Circadian oscillator' with a small o. - Hordaland (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Josh Parris, for fixing it so quickly. I'm always nervous about using the Move button, as one hears about histories getting lost.  - Hordaland (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, you'll have a hard time actually losing information (every edit ever made is available in the history). To really stuff things up you need to be an administrator, and even then most stuff-ups are reversible. Josh Parris 12:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BMAL1, Bmal1, Bmal1
Wondering if there is some reason for the various appearances: BMAL1, Bmal1 and Bmal1. I'm tempted to change them all to BMAL1, but there might be some reason for the variation. (?) --Hordaland (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Added section vertebrate anatomy
I found the article heavily introspective and lacking in larger context. Vertebrates are a large enough category to illustrate the general principles, without becoming a litany of biological variation (about which I have no special knowledge). If someone more knowledgeable wishes to bump this up the classification tree, be my guest. Also, I should add that while I was somewhat careful with my wording, my formal grasp of the underlying science is shaky. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Top heavy in primary research
I think it's great that we have so much detailed, breaking research here (much thanks to the intrepid editor), but at the same time, this is unusually heavy in primary research for a Wikipedia article, and it creates a tension between top-down exposition (we sort of know stuff) and bottom-up exposition (we're still fitting together a complex jig-saw puzzle).

I think this tension would be best addressed in the lead: until new research circa 2011, the standard model was the primary clock was a transcriptional clock located in the SCN, from which all master clock signals flow; whereas more resent research has thrown this model into doubt, perhaps relegating the SCN into a distributional role (but also still a primary entrainment nexus?)

Unfortunately, given my limitations in this area, I feel this is more than I can presently take on. &mdash; MaxEnt 05:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack of the computer scientist
I'm referring to my addition of a trailing paragraph on the lead, beginning with the sentence: While a precise 24-hour circadian clock is found in many organisms, it is not universal. and earlier edits to the lead in the same spirit. "Stable phase relationship" is perhaps a bit abstract, but it's also certainly more robust in a definitional capacity (side order of electrical engineering). I won't argue if my pedanticism is somewhat reduced, but let's not revert all the way back to 24.00-hood, with no exceptions cited. &mdash; MaxEnt 06:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circadian clock. 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://archive.is/20130414214254/http://biogps.gnf.org/circadian/ to http://biogps.gnf.org/circadian/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A clockwork Wiki: This article was featured in an academic paper on Wikipedia
Hello, My name is Omer, and I'm a journalist and young researcher based in Israel. Over the past two years, me and Rona Aviram, a clock biologist from the Weizmann Institute of Science, have studied this article and the one for Circadian Rhythms to try to understand how science and Wikipedia interact. What began as an argument between two friends from two different worlds - me from the history and philosophy of science, and Rona from biology - turned into a full on study of how scientific knowledge is collectively created on Wikipedia.

I am super excited to say the paper is now out on the peer-reviewed Journal of Biological Rhythms. In the paper, we trace how certain ideas permeated from academic literature into these articles and also focused on who edited and contributed content. Specifically, we focused on how people like Hordaland who had personal knowledge despite having no official academic training, were able to contribute in way that in the past was impossible.

For the next few weeks that article will be free to download from the SAGE website (you just need to create a SAGE user name, which is free... I hope to put in on some preprint archive once I figure out which version I can legally do this for)

I'm having some technical difficulties uploading the figures, which I would love to share with you, and will try to do so soon

We would love to hear your feedback Omer Benjakob and Rona Avira --Omer Benjakob (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice writeup on your work here!
See
 * Published April 17, 2018.

I was going to add this to the boxes above but that is built from newspapers or the like. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jari Valkonen
I have seen nothing about the actual finder of the circadian clock gene finder here Hilmawiki (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)