Talk:Pan-genome

}

Untitled
I don't think the original justification for deleting this article hold true any more. For example, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=pan-genome

However, I guess this page should be moved from pangenome to pan-genome.

--Dan|(talk) 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move carried out. Alexbateman (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also add that I think this article is highly relevant (rather than 'not notable') because of the recent growth in next generation sequencing technologies. The data produced by these technologies are changing the way we think about genomics. --Dan|(talk) 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article about Prochlorococcus
I linked to http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030231 but I dont know how to make this link appear properly in Wikipedia. Anyway, the article linked mentions pan-genome. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pangenom
They seem to be related concepts, though not the same, and the word is misspelled throughout this article and in it's title, as the cited originator spells it "pangenome", with an "e" on the end. Perhaps they are two aspects of the same concept and should be covered together. Otherwise, the spelling needs to be corrected here and we need some means of disambiguation between them. On the other hand, it isn't clear that the concept explained in this article is even notable. Is it only one author's conceptualization or has it taken root? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The Pan-genome and Pangenom concept are principally other items instead of close writhing. The concept Pangenom is a universal approach for the collective genetic system of all living organisms. It is not correct to merge it with Pan-genome because they propose absolutely different items. Georgetets (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Even here you continue to spell it "pangenom" despite the spelling "pangenome" in the one source you provided that mentions the concept as you described it in the article. I have a suspicion that Tetz made up a new topic and reused a word that already had a meaning, but I don't know why you keep omitting the final "e". —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm supposing that the author of the source you provided, V.V. Tetz, is Victor Tetz, who co-wrote a paper involving genomes with a George Tetz. Is that a reasonable assumption? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is: not merge but to delete Pangenom. The name is misspelled (the single quoted reference calls it pangenome) and the WP article is terribly written. After a look at Google Scholar, my impression is that the article currently presented as "Pangenom" is a concept proposed 10 years ago that took no apparent hold in the field of molecular biology and therefore made no impact, so it lacks notoriety. All the sources in the literature I saw, use the term pangenome (or pan-genome) in the context of the sum of all the genes in a given species, in a clade or even in a Kingdom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * After thinking it through a few more times, I did wind up initiating a deletion discussion for it at Articles for deletion/Pangenom. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Entry into ICSB 8th Wikipedia Competition
For other editors of this article, just to let you know, I'm intending to be doing some work on developing this article over the next few weeks as part of the ICSB 8th Wikipedia Competition.

If you have any suggestions for improvements, do let me know and I can develop them in my work. Cheers! Abigail Wood (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Request move from "pan-genome" to "pangenome" to reflect dominant usage and standard English style
In standard English style, we hyphenate prefixed proper nouns and also unusual prefix/noun combinations. Pangenome does not involve a proper noun, nor is it unusual, although many authors seem taken by their spellchecker's confusion by it. Furthermore, nearly twice as many papers in PubMed refer to "pangenome" (1,484) as "pan-genome" (800). Compare https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=pan-genome and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=pangenome. In light of these issues, I suggest moving the article to "Pangenome". Erik Garrison (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable change given the usage statistics. Alexbateman (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)