Talk:Chromothripsis

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

I

I am currently a final year biology student and as part of an educational assignment i intend on editing this stub.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 8 March 2013. Further details are available here.

Cynth3004 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Note that there is some scientific controversy about the actual occurrence of chromothripsis. Some scientists argue that what is described as a single event catastrophe is, in fact, not proven to be happening in a single event and is likely happening in a progressive manner. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gcc.21981/abstract for example. 140.193.20.9 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will add a paragraph about the criticism on this topic. 140.193.20.9 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First observation section

The first observation section is currently incorrect. It is citing a paper published in 2012. But it was first observed by Stephens et al. in 2011. Alexbateman (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]