Talk:Mosaic (genetics)

Untitled

If one where to have a CVS test done, and the results where mosaicism, what is the likelyhood that the fetus would also carry the genetic mutation as the placenta did?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eternalruler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

question about cancer

This may be an ignorant question... but wouldn't cancer be a mosaic? Since it's a population of cells that have mutated... it seems to follow the definition.

Uh, semantically you are right, but noone ever describes cances as a mosaic. It sorta presumes the mutations are spread evenly over the organism. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, when you think about it, it is all a continuum. How different is different enough to draw the line and call it a mosaic? You could, in principle, call any situation in which there are mutated or mixed cells a mosaic. In my opinion it isn't so much that it has to be spread across the organism (though in natural occurrences it often is), but it is usually more defined than it is in cancer. With cancer you rarely have a simple mix of defined genetic backgrounds. A mosaic is usually a mix between two (or a small number) stable genotypes. Michael James Boyle 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs Edit

"...there are cases where la, la, la, la, la, la, la, ala the trisomy only occurs..." Something tells me this is not quite up to Wiki standards?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.131.149 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Yep. That was your run-off-the-mill vandalism, and has since been fixed. Thanks. The brave men and women who defend the Wiki can't get everything, so if you see further instances of blatant vandalism, feel free to fix it. --Kizor 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me when they started to screen for this. Were they able to detect it in the 1950s in Australia? I have had problems and no one is telling me anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.167.20 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

spider picture

I am going to move it down, it just looks too freaky to be up there.Miagirljmw14 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Information on Turner mosaicism

Although it is a rare condition, would it be appreaciated if I add information on (human) mosaicism (turner mosaicism) on this page? I've authered a couple of articles on intersexuality. Seemed only logic to reveal about turner mosaicism somewhere... 07:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

This line bothers me

"True mosaicism should not be mistaken for the phenomenon of X-inactivation, where all cells in an organism have the same genotype, but a different copy of the X chromosome is expressed in different cells, such as in calico cats."
This contradicts the line on the calico cats article, where the Klinefelter calico cats are referred to as 'mosaics', and given that the process of X-inactivation will be identical in normal XX female calico cats, implies that they are mosaics as well.
From what I've been taught so far, phenotypes arising from random X-inactivation are referred to as mosaics as well, but as a first year genetics student I'm hesitant to change it. Can someone else with more experience clarify it for me?124.148.170.154 (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A typical calico cat is non-mosaic in that all their cells have two X-chromosomes, and within each cell the X-chromosomes are different from each other, but the PAIR of X-chromosomes in any cell is identical to the PAIR of X-chromosomes in all cells of the cat's body. In a particular fur-hair-cell of the cat one of the two X-chromosomes determines fur-color, but in some other fur-hair-cell on the same cat it can be the OTHER X-chromosome that determines fur-color, so that different hair-cells are different colors. (I believe the third color is white and is controlled elsewhere, but check me against cat-coat genetics articles on that.) This is why calico-patterning can't be reproduced by cloning: it's true that every hair on the resulting clone will have a pair of X-chromosomes that is identical to the pair of X-chromosomes in the original cat (although within each identical pair the X-chromosomes are not identical to each other), but the choice of which X-chromosome is going to control color in any hair-cell on the resulting cat is random and won't match the random choices that occurred on the original cat.

The article on calicos has since been edited so that Klinefelter calicos are no longer referred to as "mosaic". If all cells in an animal have identical genetics, that animal is not a mosaic. If all cells in a certain Klinefelter male cat have the same XXY and other chromosomes, it is not a mosaic. A male Klinefelter cat can be calico because unlike typical males (XY) that have only one X-chromosome and therefore no random choice between two X's to govern color in every hair-cell, each hair-cell on Klinefelter male cat CAN randomly choose its color (independently* from the random choice made by other hair-cells on the same cat) between two X-chromosomes.

Asterisk (*) footnote: The random choices can't be all THAT independent, or can't be all that random, because calicos are colored in patches, not in the kind of color-mixture you get from, say, randomly shaking a small jar full of two different-colored beads.69.86.131.76 (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Two contradictory sentences

Does Wikipedia just simply not have any staff whose job is not so much to police the knowledge presented in the articles against the external world for factual accuracy but, rather, to police the content of an article against other content in the same article? I know nothing about mosaicism (hey, guess what? If I KNEW something about it I wouldn't have come HERE to read UP on it, now would I?) so I can't say that the first sentence in the article (which requires a mosaic organism to develop from a single fertilized egg) is false. Or true. Similarly I can't say that the later sentence beginning with "Another form of somatic mosaicism is chimerism, ..." which allows for a mosaic organism to develop from more than one fertilized egg by fusing together is false. Or true. But I STILL know they can't BOTH be true. At least ONE of them has to be false. Do I really have to find an authority for this before I can criticize the article on these grounds? What authority would I cite? An authority on logic? An authority on whether words mean the things they mean or not? I'm admitting I know nothing. I have no sources. All I know is that the article says two things that contradict each other. At least one of them has to be false. Okay, everyone, now pile on the accusations that I'm doing original research or am using Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia (because each of the sentences above is the source that contradicts the other one). I've found an inadequacy in these pages, so do what EVERY mature adult does when they've been found inadequate: attack the non-scholarly profession, standing, qualifications, and ethics of the person alleging the inadequacy. At all costs avoid addressing the inadequacy at face value, adamantly refuse to do anything to REMOVE the inadequacy (or even admit that it exists) and NEVER NEVER NEVER admit that one of those two sentences is wrong. I expect nothing less from these pages.69.86.131.76 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

See reply to following complaint. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This may sound stupid...

But in reading this, I can't help but to say that unless you click every link and then every correlating link in those links... laymen will not be able to understand a word of what is being said here as the context of the topic is assuming that we already know and understand what each of these scientific terms mean.

Wikipedia is not just for the super intelligent and while i have the patience to sort through this and click the links until I learn what is being said, I came to this topic to find out what a basic definition for a Mosaic was and didn't have the time for this.

Can someone offer a better basic summation of the topic for laymen to understand it's meaning as the purpose of Wikipedia is for anyone of any educational background to read the topics and gain a basic understanding of the subject matter. If you talk beyond the normal intelligence level, then this topic is meaningless to most who will have need for the information. Give us a basic summation at the top and if we need further information, then we can look further. We need a better, more mainstream introduction to inform laymen of the material for which this topic is developed. Armorbeast (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is not the best of articles. However:

1. The whole point of hypertext is that an article does not stand alone: it is part of a collection of linked articles. So, yes, you do need to check the links! The parts of your body need all the other parts, and the bits of a complex science also need each other. And it does take time and patience to learn any science.
2. Wikipedia articles improve incrementally. Much that was rubbish at the start is now quite good. This will get better, for sure. All the same, it is shocking that the article did not mention the work which discovered the phenomenon. I have corrected this (see intro). Also, you might consult the Simple English version [1].
3. We don't -- and can't -- have experts on every topic. Collectively, we do have what it takes to improve any page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)