Talk:Non-Mendelian inheritance

59.163.146.11 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)some one can throw more light on this using example

Untitled
I am a new wikipedia user working to expand this stub. Any suggestions as to additional content to include any other help would be appreciated. Bretsam 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--- I think its worth noting that this entire article skips the fairly fundamental concepts of genetic linkage and recombination. Mentioning things like moscaism and epigenetic imprinting is ok, but not to make up the entire article. Mendels main point was that inhertiance of alleles was independant of each other. In reality most of the time they are linked on chromsomes, a concept which forms the main basis for non mendelian inheritance.

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.219.186 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The inheritance pattern for the calico trait does not entirely preclude males from having the phenotype, and it is instructive to note that the trait does appear, although less frequently, in males. It would also be important to the completeness of this article to explain, briefly, the circumstances under which such traits do appear in males. Of course, it is a strictly "feminine" trait, and, to my understanding, males carrying the trait have a propensity for developing similarly to females in other respects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.185.178 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They would have to have two X chromosomes so they would not be normal males and would be sterile too. Same as Klinefelter syndrome. Is this more common in cats? David D. (Talk) 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is explained in my reference. I chose it specifically because it explains how it is possible for males to be affected with this trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.183.240 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Absent section(s)
Clearly, there is a section needed on genetic linkage. Most of non-Mendelian inheritance is due to either recombination or polymorphisms. Or so I thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.226.43 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Infectious inheritance an "inheritance"?
I think it is not at all an "inheritance". It is a especial form of transmission of infections. Although it is important for the virus L and M, it doesen't affect to host's genome. What is transmited in Genetics is a genotype (genes), not a fenotype. The special killer fenotype in the host cell depends enterily on the virus not on the host cell genome, which is unaffected. The section should be moved to its own page, an article about infections. --Miguelferig (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It is inherited by the progeny, therefore it is inheritance. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I insist, the progeny is infected in that way, but it doesn´t inherit genes of its own species. In Genetics, strictly speaking, progeny can't inherit phenotypes, it inherit genotypes (genes, alleles). Also, mosaicism is not an inheritance. Mosaicism refers to mutations or X inactivation in a particular individual not to inheritance from parents to offspring. When a mutation appears in the germ line it is a new allele which wil be inherited by Mendelian inheritance.--Miguelferig (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are genes of the infectious organism that are producing a phenotype in the progeny of the infected organism. It is a very useful concept to be able to talk about these types of non-Mendelian inheritance without knowing whether the genes that are transferred are in a cytoplasmic organelle, in Wolbachia, or in a virus particle. The genetic material is inherited, it is passed to the cells of the progeny from the cells of the parent, as the cells of the progeny are formed (not afterwards). This is very different from Mendelian inheritance, which involves the nuclear DNA. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My last post: As you said "there are genes of the infectious organism that produce the phenotype". So the progeny is receiving an infectious organism (which, of course, have genes), so it is a very particular form of pathogen transmission. You are infected from the fertilization, but you just have a pathogen in your body, which produces an effect (phenotype). You become infected, you "catch" it in that special way, but your genes were unaffected, so it is not Genetics. It is transmission not inheritance. The microorganism is in your cytoplasm but it doesn´t matter because it doesn't insert its genes in your genome (as I understand), so they are microorganism's genes all the time.--Miguelferig (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are denying that mitochondrial and chloroplast genes are involved in inheritance. If not, then I'd suggest that you read the Endosymbiotic theory page: mitochondria, bacterial infection, not much difference. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not!!! Mitochondrial genome is part of our genome nowadays and it is a good example of cytoplasmic inheritance. Mitochondria are not an infection nor (nowadays) an endosymbiosis, because the endosymbiosis finished long time ago. I'm talking about infectious inheritance not about mitochondria.--Miguelferig (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

cat orange
The discussion of cat colors looks wrong to me. The orange/black pigment gene is on the X chromosome. If a cat is heterozygous for this, she will have red patches and black patches – not black dominance – because only one X is active in each cell of a mammal. The effect of this gene is local, so it's not like human hemophilia for example, where the normal (protein-producing) gene, in those cells where it is active, makes up for the defective (non-producing) gene in other cells. —Tamfang (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)