Jump to content

Talk:Human Genome Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dates?

[edit]

The dates are mostly wrong, right?

could you be more specific? Courtland 00:34, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
how can it have started in 1990, expected to have taken 15 years, finished in 2000 and be only two years early?

The '15 years' had been predicted in 1987, and so was perfectly accurate.


2003 was the publication of the "golden" publication, which was clean of many of the errors present in the draft sequence (their standard was 1 error/ 10,000 bases). Thus, when the project was slated to be done in 2005, the final publishment of the sequence was in 2003, hence the two years ahead of their goal. Here, I found support, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.shtml. If you look under 1987, a 15-year program is suggested, but undr 1990, it states that the 15-year project formally begins.

On the contrary

[edit]

Rolling circle was not an essential innovation for the creation of a human genome sequence. I would recommend reading the source literature. The " Hierarchical shotgun sequencing" and "Technology for large-scale sequencing" section of the paper describing the public project's <a href=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html>draft</a> explicitly cites the critical techniques employed by ALL the large, public genome centers. Rolling circle amplification is not among them.

Further descriptions of the technologies required for a high-throughput genome center can be found <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/8/1081>here</a> and <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/9/1288>here</a>. Again, rolling circle is not among the essential technologies.

I would recommend removing it.


wrong place

[edit]

this part is in the worg place, it disrupted my reading down the page. and is mostly irrelivant to the section.

James D. Watson was Head of the National Center for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States starting from 1988. Largely due to his disagreement with his boss, Bernadine Healy, over the issue of patenting genes, he was forced to resign in 1992. He was replaced by Francis Collins in April 1993, and the name of the Center was changed to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 1997.

Mapping vs. sequencing

[edit]

There is a recent revert related to the date and predictions for date for mapping the genome. Much of the article confuses, or at least doesn't make so obvious the difference, between mapping and sequencing. At the beginning, it was expected to map the genome first. That is, generate clones, that is, actual pieces of DNA along with their position in the genome, and then sequence them. Much of the ability to finish the genome depended on advances in computing, and some of those advances allowed for whole genome shotgun sequencing at the gigabase scale. That wasn't considered from the beginning. The result of doing shotgun sequencing meant that mapping first wasn't needed. In the end, that sped things up, though also made the result more confusing. Before we get into dates, though, the article needs to separate mapping and sequencing. Gah4 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 15:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Human Genome ProjectSequencing of the human genome – I have been in contact with a smart person who, during high school, heard that "The human genome project has been completed" and decided that genetics was no longer worth pursuing. This kind of confusion is really bad on the Precision criterion for article titles. Also, the HGP benefited from genetics research not done explicitly under the banner of HGP.

For these two reasons, I believe that a WP:NATURAL title would be more appropriate than the current WP:COMMONNAME title. Ideally we will select a name so natural that it can work as an unpiped link in prose, such as Sequencing of the human genome or alternatively Initial mapping of the human genome. Of these two natural titles, "sequencing" is shorter, more accurate, and already a redirect to this article. Jruderman (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.