User talk:Hankwbass/Group 3

Use the "New Section" link above to start a new section with your recommendation to improve the article.

Gene review
Leave your review here

Phenotype
Although the article explains that "phenotype" may be hard to describe, it does not give a clear example of specific types of phenotypes as instructors typically do when teaching genetics in class. I would suggest an edit to the end of the first paragraph. After the sentence that describes phenotype being a product of an organisms genotype and the genetic code, I would suggest to explain exactly what an example of a phenotype could be. Examples could include brown hair, blue eyes, dark pigmented skin, etc. Inclusion of this information would provide a clear definition and real life example in the opening paragraph of the paper for easy access. NickyG 2 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Nicholas Gavin

In accordance with Nick Gavin's recommendation, I think the author should stress that a phenotype directly correlates with ones physical features. I also agree that examples should be provided. I think that mentioning polymorphism in the first paragraph is unnecessary, rather it should include more basic information on phenotypes to provide a better understanding before moving deeper into the subject matter.Sarah0lson (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions how genotype can be a large contributor to phenotype, however, it does not explain the possible affects on the phenotype, such as dominant or recessive traits, codominance, incomplete dominance etc. I would suggest to include more information on how genotype translates into specific phenotypes in many cases and relate it to an example of a punnet square.NickyG 2 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Nicholas Gavin

In addition to mentioning codominance and complete dominance, this article should also mention sex-linked genes. These genes are controlled by the sex-determining chromosomes and can cause two people to have different phenotypes. For example, hemophilia; this disease is x-linked recessive meaning it is attached to the X gene. Males therefore contract hemophilia more than females because it only takes one mutated gene to cause hemophilia, since males are hemizygous. It is less common in females because they have two X chromosomes and therefore must inherit two mutated genes, to display the hemophilia phenotype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blp15b (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Because the article states that the definition of phenotype is observable characteristics, I would also add more information to the article to clarify that acquired characteristics can also be a part of the phenotype. I would also clarify that the phenotype determined by the genotype will be passed on while acquired characteristics do not.--Cnguyen651 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that there should be more elaboration on how the genotype is a contributor to phenotype. There is a picture of a Punnett square and I think there should be a written explanation. A dominant allele (B) with a dominant allele (B) produces a dominant (purple) phenotype. A dominant allele (B) with a recessive allele(b) produces a dominant (purple) phenotype. A recessive allele(b) with a recessive allele (b) produces a recessive (white) phenotype. In a co-dominant situation, the genotype (Bb) would produce a flower where both colors, purple and white, would be visible. In a incomplete dominant situation, the genotype (Bb) would produce a mix of purple and white creating pink. Bge13 (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the Punnett square is being mention, this page could also mention Gregor Mendel and his contribution to genetics and phenotyping. He is very important, especially when it comes to the Punnett square, and although he was not the one to invent it, the Punnett square was based off of Mendel’s principles. https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1.5-Punnett-Square.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blp15b (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the phenotype is not well defined in the first paragraph. I think there needs to be more of an emphasis on the genotype-phenotype relationship. For example, genotype is the allelic combination in an individual (RR: homozygous dominant / Rr: heterezygous / rr: homozygous recessive). While phenotype is the gene expression seen in the individual, more than one genotypic pairing can result in the same phenotype (homozygous dominant and heterozygous). I agree with Bge13 that there needs to be a written explanation for the punnet square picture to explain how genotypic relationships relates to phenotypes expression. I also believe that the shell picture is not the best explanation of a phenotype. the picture attached of peas would be a better representation of phenotype. I also agree with Nicholas Gavin that there should be a short paragraph mentioning phenotypic phenomena such as codominance and incomplete dominance. . Tdb14b (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Taylor Budine.

Within those paragraphs about codominance and incomplete dominance there should be specific examples of each. ABO blood types are mentioned in later sections to talk about misconceptions about phenotypes as well as in the variations section. Blood types can also explain codominace of alleles and should be mentioned in the paragraph. A full understanding of the ABO blood type will then be outlined in this wiki page. In the small paragraph about incomplete dominance the example of flowers with red, white, and pink petals can be used. This can be an extension of the simple example of phenotypic expression that was stated at the beginning of this section of the page. This would outline the different ways phenotypes are expressed. Mgm15c (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Melissa Maheu

The facts about the Richard Dawkins' extended phenotypes are good statements, but they need an introduction or lead-in sentence. Currently the information seems out of place due to lack of context. Further in the article, the sentence "Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype" should be reworded/clarified to avoid confusion. They could say "many molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, but the expression of genes is observable through phenotypes." Another topic that should be explained in more detail is phenomics. Lastly citations are missing from the entire second section "Phenotypic variation." In-text citations should be added after every 5 sentences. Ase15b (talk) (UTC)Arianna Eidenberger

The phenotype page fails to include how post-transcriptional modifications can impact the expressed phenotype of a given gene. These modifications can include but are not limited to environmental and biochemical factors that may affect the methylation and acetylation of the transcribed DNA. Post-transcriptional modifications could cause the resulting phenotype of the translated protein to have a much different function than genotypically intended. There should be a link to the "Post-transcriptional modification" and "Histone acetylation and deacetylation" Wiki pages to elaborate on how these modifications can occur. I also agree with tdb14b that the shell picture is not very relevant to the page and should be removed. Ahc15b (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Alana Chang
 * I agree that the page should include something on the post-transcriptional modifications, but I think that it would be better placed under the phenotypic variation section. This section mentions, albeit breifly, that things other than the basic genotype can have an effect on the phenotype.Amandavags (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that the picture of the Punnett square should explain what exactly a Punnett square is and how it relates to genetics. This explanation may include how the Punnett square derives genetic probabilities that relate to the outcome of the the phenotype and genotype of offspring. Within this picture, the capital and lowercase alleles should be presented in a key on the side of the picture to provide the audience with a clearer explanation of what the alleles represent, such as B = Dominant allele, purple; b = Recessive allele, white. Lorenzofonteyn (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenotype is a very basic unit of genetics that I think every reader should be able to quickly understand and process when reading this article. The definition needs to be put into more simple terms without having to explain what genotype is either. Phenotype simply put is a visible characteristic on an organism that can be distinguishable from different characteristics in different species. There should be a paragraph after the definition of phenotype explaining how two genotypes on a Punnett Square correspond to a certain phenotype. The simple information about phenotypes ends here, the information about phenotypes starts to get more complicated now. Phenotypes don't just correspond to dominant and recessive, there can be Codominance (both phenotypes are expressed) and Incomplete Dominance (intermediate of two phenotypes). Sfs15 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Difficulties in definition
I think that this is an important section because it talks about how phenotypes are not just physical characteristics. To improve this section I would further elaborate what exactly are behavioral phenotypes by placing the definition of behavioral phenotype after the first sentence in the last paragraph. I would also include that behavioral phenotypes can include cognitive, personality, behavioral, and psychiatric patterns that characterize a disorder. Also in the last sentence I would delete the word "absurd" because I think that it shows a negative bias. Makaliah324 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that this section rambles and doesn't really nail down their points in a concise way. I agree with Makaliah324 that there needs to be more of an emphasis on how phenotype encompasses not only physical characteristics but behavioral ones as well, relating genetics to other areas of science like animal behavior and cognition. The section talking about characteristics that are not observable such as RNA and proteins could be better organized to flow with the entire section. An example would be : Overall statement that phenotypic expression isn't just physical, but chemical and behavioral as well. --> Chemical or non-observable phenotypic expression such as RNA and proteins and human blood groups. --> Behavioral expressions such as cognition and personality traits that are associated with gene expression. Flowing through the information in this way with distinct paragraphs would make it easier to follow. Tdb14b (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Taylor Budine.

I agree. The way this page gives the definition is very confusing and makes phenotypes even harder to understand. The way the paragraphs flow does not help and makes everything messy. Also, in addition to behaviors and chemicals affecting the phenotype, environments can affect the phenotype, as well. For example, two squirrels raised in captivity are placed in two different environments and one grows and bushy tail and one grows a scrawny tail. If these squirrels are the same breed, the environment just influenced their phenotype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blp15b (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This section on a whole needs a lot of editing. The points need more elaboration in order to make sense to the reader. For example when discussing behaviors as phenotypes there need to be one or two examples of this. The source Makaliah mentioned earlier is a good resource to refer to. In addition I would add more clarification on the difference between cognitive, personality, behavioral and psychiatric phenotypic traits.ReneeAllison (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This section of the Wiki page does not really have a set point to it and seems just like a filler section that does not get into detail about the topic of phenotypes. For example, we could mention that there are more than just basic phenotypes, but rather extend the definition to include the behavior that an organism has with its environment and other organisms as well. This could also help in the explanation of the different traits that they mention in the section. A good source for this would be Richard Dawkins' book "The Extended Phenotype". nth15 ([User talk:nth15|talk]]) 20:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nth1522 (talk • contribs)

To expand on the difficulties of defining phenotype, we could mention extended phenotypes and how not all phenotypes are observable physical traits, but rather can be how organisms interact with their environments (e.g. beaver dam). This could fit in at the end of the section after behavioral phenotypes are mentioned. To suggest an edit: "Phenotype is not only defined by the physiological or morphological traits of an organism but it is also characterized by an organism's behaviors . Thus, phenotype can be used to describe an organism's physiological traits, morphological traits and behavioral traits." Cab15b (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Cab15b

In this section, I think it would be beneficial to explain the difference between genotypes and phenotypes and the influence that genotypes have on phenotypes. I would include a link to the Genotype Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype) similar to how this page includes links to the Wild Type and Evolution Wiki Pages. I would use this to clear up any confusion the reader might have when considering these terms in genetics.Sarah0lson (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the statement of assumption that mutant leads to no phenotype should be expanded on as to how the mutation occurs and that a phenotype does appear. This phenotype may be the same if the amino acid that is coded for it not effected or can be an altered phenotype showing an expression that does not look like the wild type. Skm15c (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A minor but important improvement I would consider making to this section is editing the informality of the content. Strong words such as "absurd" used in the very first sentences draw away from the actual point of the section. Simply rephrasing this statement to something along the lines of, "Although the word phenotype is used in many contexts, it is important to note that a mutation is, in fact, a phenotype itself." Frankly the first sentence is confusing and could be moved after the second paragraph or even be excerpted entirely. Cev15 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that this section could use a lot of improvement. First of all, the language is confusing and negatively bias. User Cev15 suggested an alternative first sentence that addressed this problem. After the this sentence I think it should be added that even though a mutant does not differ from the control phenotype, it still has an observable trait and therefore is still a phenotype. Furthermore because this section is describing how the definition of phenotype can be misleading, I believe it would be beneficial to include more examples to help make the idea seem more clear. Some useful examples of behavioral phenotypes can be found in reference 5. 146.201.192.151 Igb15 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenotypic Variation
Under the subtitle "Phenotypic Variation", along with the mention of evolution and natural selection, the term epigenetics should be mentioned with a link. Epigenetics helps explain how the environment has an effect on gene expression and phenotype. Bge13 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This part of the page should go into further detail of how mutations in the genes can cause alterations in the phenotype such as sickle cell anemia.The page mentions silent substitution but does not mention missense or nonsense mutations.It should explain how the different mutations are linked to multiple diseases which can be classified as a phenotype. It should also explain how some mutations can be lethal to an organism and cause the genotypic ratio to change.The page could go into further detail by providing links to other Wikipedia pages such as Lethal allele. --Kristyb97 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Kristin Bedwell

I agree that the page should further explain how mutations can affect phenotypes. If there is a mutation in a pleiotropy gene it will have an affect on multiple different phenotypic traits. An example of this would be Marfan syndrome. This mutation causes a person to have very long thin limbs and heart complications--Juliat14 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

- In response to Julia's comment above, I think that pleiotropy should be a big part of this article. It is when a single gene that causes multiple phenotypic effects. There are many diseases that pleiotropy can cause, including: autism, schizophrenia, PKU disease, sickle-cell anemia, and albinism. Albinism for example causes a persons hair, skin, nails, and eyes to lose color, therefore there are multiple phenotypic characteristics being changed. Sfs15 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this page includes a picture of the phenotypic variation across the Peppered moths, it should include a brief description of what these moths are used for, especially since the moths are such a common example of phenotypes and how the phenotypic frequencies can change based on changes in the environment. This description should also include a link to the the Kettlewell's experiment page for further information. This would also provide an example for how human involvement, in this case the British Industrial Revolution, can change the surrounding environment and the appearance of the organisms that live there.Amandavags (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In this section that should be added about the peppered moths, there also should be a few sentences describing continuous variation that is a result of polygenic inheritance and can be affected by environmental influences. This should come before the part about the relationship between the environment and the phenotype. This creates a smooth transition into that section from the peppered moth reference. Mgm15c (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Melissa Maheu

In the previous section some people talked about further explaining how blood type, although not physically seen, is still a phenotype. To further understand this concept that same example can be used in this section to explain that not all phenotypes are affected by the environment. No matter where the organism is, the phenotype for blood type will always remain the same because it is determined by the genes. Environmental interactions do not affect all phenotypes. Mgm15c (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Melissa Maheu

Although the article states what polymorphism is in the first paragraph, it should include how polymorphism is the basis for natural selection and without varying phenotypes in the in the wild, natural selection would not be possible, and thus evolution does not occur. The article later mentions the point about how natural selection does not occur but omits the term polymorphism within the first paragraph of "Phenotypic Variation". Polymorphism is a term that the general audience as well as developing geneticists need to associate with natural selection and evolution, so including the term again in the first paragraph under "Phenotypic Variation" would be sufficient. The first sentence may be edited to state "Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation as a result polymorphism) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection." Lorenzofonteyn (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this section should go into further detail about mutations can alter genes. I also think in the beginning sentences there should be more of an explanation on what natural selection is and how it works.ReneeAllison (talk) 14:07 16 March 2017 (UTC) The article fails to mention how epigenetic changes caused by environmental factors can produce heritable phenotypic variation without modifications to the genetic sequence. I would include a statement on the role of epigenetics in terms of susceptibility to disease and evolution. I agree with Bge13 that the article should mention the relationship between gene expression and the environment based on changes in epigenetic marks. lam15b (talk) 18:28 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a figure of a Punnett square of one gene in pea plants, the article should also make it clear that it is rare that a phenotype is determined by one gene. As mentioned earlier, I would include information on epigenetics, but I would also include information on epistasis, and polygenetics. This will help readers understand the complexity of the determination/inheritance of a phenotype, and the links will help readers find articles to help them further understand the topic of phenotypic variation, by reading different articles on the different modes of phenotypic determination/inheritance.--Cnguyen651 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This section does a good job explaining that in order for evolution to occur, there must be phenotypic variation from generation to generation. Only the best surviving phenotypes are carried to the next generation, therefore evolution occurs. What this article lacks is the explanation of the role of mutations in phenotypic variation. Yes, phenotypes can slightly change from one generation to the next and in the long run there is a distinguished new phenotype, and that is evolution. Mutations can occur though, and they can cause a drastic change in phenotype. Mutations are the main source of genetic variation, they can completely change the genetic info on a chromosome by deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations. These alterations are heritable which results in a new phenotype that can be passed down generations. Sfs15 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This section could elaborate how genotype and environment can alter phenotype through natural selection since there are very specific trends in which this can happen. Including terms such as Directional, Disruptive, and Stabilizing Selection make it more clear how the environment can influence changes in phenotype. The environment does not change genes, the environment influences natural selection and this is what changes genetic composition over time. This should be clarified in this paragraph as it not only describes the real relationship between phenotype and environment but also creates a better understanding of what a phenotype is. An example, such as natural selection for black mice over white mice in a dark soil environment influences phenotypes to revert to black mice only, could also be included for further clarification. Cev15 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The Extended Phenotype paragraphs of this section could use more explanation and detail. One specific thing to add to the article is an introduction. This section neglects to introduce the section and tell readers there are three types of extended phenotypes. Something like, “The term extended phenotype refers to the idea that a phenotype is not restricted to biological processes but also defines all effects that a gene has on its’ surroundings. There are three types of extended phenotypes.” We should also add brief definitions of each type of extended phenotype before the examples given in the section. Mww13c (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC) mww13c

I have written this introduction paragraph to begin the discussion of the Extended Phenotype. I believe it should replace the initial first paragraph because it briefly highlights the main concept of extended phenotype with more detail: The term extended phenotype refers to the idea that a phenotype is not restricted to biological processes but also defines all effects that a gene has on its’ surroundings. The concept generalized by Richard Dawkins explains that phenotype includes all the influence a gene has on the environment and other organisms. One can begin to understand the concept of extended phenotype through the Central Theorem of the Extended Phenotype: “An animal's behavior tends to maximize the survival of the genes "for" that behavior, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.”Mww13c (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some other edits I propose adding to better structure this section for readers: 1.	Insert before beaver example: There are three types of extended phenotypes. The first describes an organism using architectural constructions to modify their environment for living. The most common example given by Dawkins is the beaver. 2.	Add to beaver example: A beaver uses these incisors to modify it environment. This influence of a gene on the environment is an example of an extended phenotype. 3.	I will also make some minor structure changes to this section for better fluidity.Mww13c (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenome and phenomics
I think that this section should further elaborate the importance of phenomics. I also think that the word phenome should be linked to the phenome wikipedia page so the reader can easily access the definition. Phenomics are important because it can be used to figure out which genomic variants affect phenotypes which then can be used to explain things like health, disease, and evolutionary fitness. Makaliah324 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs to be elaborated on. Along with the linked phenome wiki page there should be an example of how using this technology can help explain the "things like health, disease, and evolutionary fitness". There is a discussion about using phenomics to help personalize medicine and diagnosis. This can further solidify this section of understanding what phenotype encompasses. Mgm15c (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Melissa Maheu

This section has a lot of potential to well-explain phenome and phenomics, it just needs a little more detail. First of all, when phenomics is defined, it should be its own separate definition from phenome, this will define the words even further for the reader so they feel they have a better understanding of both words. Second, I also agree with Melissa in that the importance of phenomics should be better understood. Phenomics have given us insight to many genetic diseases we don't know much about such as sickle-cell anemia and obesity. Phenomics has linked genomic influence on phenotypes in many fields of interest such as "health, disease, and evolutionary fitness". Sfs15 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenomics is an important field of study because it can be used to figure out which genomic variants affect phenotypes which then can be used to explain things like health, disease, and evolutionary fitness.[13] Phenomics is also a large part of the Human Genome Project[14] ASH13E Ash13e (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenomics has widespread applications in the agricultural industry. With an exponentially growing population and inconsistent weather patterns due to global warming, it has become increasingly difficult to cultivate enough crops to support the world’s population. Advantageous genomic variations, like drought and heat resistance, can be identified through the use of phenomics to create more durable GMOs[15][16]. ASH13E Ash13e (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Phenomics is also a crucial step stone towards personalized medicine, particularly drug therapy. This application of phenomics has the greatest potential to avoid testing drug therapies that will be prove to be ineffective or unsafe.[1] Once the phenomic database has acquired more data, patient phenomic information can be used to select specific drugs tailored to the patient. Ash13e (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Ash13e (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As the regulation of phenomics develops there is a potential that new knowledge bases will help achieve the promise of personalized medicine and treatment of neuropsychiatric syndromes.Mww13c (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)