Talk:Homeobox

Untitled
Hox Genes are linked to certain mutations in humans such as Polymastatia and may be partially responsible for certain religious beliefs. See KALI eight armed goddess. The latin name for her condition would be OCTOPOLYHABLIS. International law allows somatic cells to be modified. Germ line cells such as sperm and egg are prohibited from genetic tampering. Designer babies will be programmed with longevity sequences. See http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/aging.html#evolution http://www.senescence.com

Homeotic mutation
Homeotic mutation redirects here, but the concept is not explained in the article. // Habj 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I switched it to Homeotic gene, an article that needs help. --JWSchmidt 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When writing about homeobox genes it should be clear whether Hox genes or other homeobox genes are meant. Changes in Hox expression do not cause 'duplication of segments', but (in segmented animals) a change in the identity of certian segments.

Blatant Theft
This article seems to reference diagrams that do not exist, it seems like this article was copied from somewhere else... this needs to be fixed or an admin may delete the page. Adenosinetalk 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of the page still refers to a diagram which was apparently removed by an admin. The reference was a little too intertwined with expert information beyond my understanding. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the subject can fix it. 71.48.75.74 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What diagram?
The diagram to the right is a structural model of the Rattus norvegicus Pit-1 homeobox-containing protein (purple) bound to DNA --Dan 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a biologist in the house?
This article needs help that I'm not qualified to provide. The diversity section should be restructured - the tree of life is not ideally divided into "human" and "everything else on earth". The bit about the "missing link" should say what that link is - this article seems relevant. Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 09:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolution
This must be wrong, as that split happened at the most recent in the Ediacaran (i.e. in the late Proterozoic, which precedes the Paleozoic - note also capital letters), but probably well before that. Though not certain, it is likely that most of the major divisions like the Cnidarian-Bilaterian split happened before the Cambrian, by which time they were well differentiated. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition confirmation
I found this site, which references several papers from the late 80's and 90's (so I think it's probably just out of date), and it says that the term HOX for gene names is only meant for vertibrates. Are there more recent sources which state otherwise? See the reference for what I'm talking about. --Ads485 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Homeodomain?
That article are about the same thing, only protein level instead of DNA. Narayanese (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from Narayanese. However, I reckon that they should be kept separate because to merge them would confuse the source with the product. I would even suggest removing the misleading protein domain category from this page to make the two more distinct. Tell me what you think and I'll check with someone who knows a little more. Abergabe (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reviving an old discussion, I think it should be merged. Although there are many articles separating the gene from the protein, and treating them separately, I think this one should be merged because the homeobox is not in it self a gene, it is a DNA sequence encoding for a domain. For you to be able to recognize the significance of that domain, you must see it in action in a protein.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 11:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that keeping the DNA sequence separate from the protein sequence is pointless, but the preferred term seems to be homeodomain not homeobox, so it should be merged the other way around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Molecular biologist here, I think the two should be merged. I think it's an artificial separation. The two are fundamentally related, just different parts of a process. The reason a cell makes homeodomain class proteins is because they come from homeobox genes, and the reason the cell has homeobox genes is so it can make homeodomain proteins. Moosepuggle (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a consensus to merge this article into Homeodomain fold. Last call -- any objections? Klortho (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Name?
Okay, I see where the "homeo" comes from... but what about the "box" ? DS (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure box is just a general term for 'section of gene'. Same as Pribnow box, TATA box, or CAAT box Abergabe (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It still would be good to note that in the Introduction of the article. See the section below: More Helpful Intro? MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate Redirect?
"Homeodomain proteins" redirects to this page. Unless I'm mistaken, homeodomain proteins are very different from homeobox genes. Moearly (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Homeodomain fold is a more appropriate redirect target. . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More helpful intro?
Could somebody edit the introduction to make it a bit more informative. At present, it amounts to no more than, "A homeobox is a DNA sequence found in certain genes." The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that a lead section should be able to stand alone "as a concise version of the article," and that its accessibility "is even more important ... than for the rest of the article." The present version meets neither of these criteria. I'd do it myself, but I'm nowhere near qualified for the task.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @PaulTanenbaum I agree. I found the article to be not at all clear on first explaining what Homeobox genes do that make them different from other genes. That should be stated in clear, simple language in the introduction and then the details can come later. I think that the answer is they are about the structure of the body (arms, legs, wings, etc.) as opposed to phenotypes like behavior or internal structure but I got that primarily because I saw Hox genes referenced lower in the article and I remember that is what Hox genes do. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation 7
I followed if to the original paper and it does not point to structural information. Therefore I doubt whether this is the correct citation, --B.Kleine (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)