Talk:Arabidopsis thaliana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the MCB Collaboration of the Month for the month of March 2008.
For more details, see the MCB Collaboration of the Month history.
Arabidopsis thaliana is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
To-do list for Arabidopsis thaliana: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Much more needed about the plant's biology (ecological niche, evolution etc), not just its role as a model organism.

Contents

[edit] agronomy/botany human biology/zoology

I was wondering what the reasoning was behind the latest revert? Adenosine | Talk 18:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The current version:

  • It plays the role for agronomy that mouse and fruit fly (Drosophila) play in human biology.

The version I reverted:

  • It plays the role in botany that the mouse and the fruit fly (Drosophila) play in zoology.


The idea of a model system is to use a simple system to get clues as to how the complex (however you define this) system works. My reasoning is that Drosophila is a model system as is mouse, but for zoology? This is technically correct but, in my view too broad. The real reason that NIH is pouring money into these model system research programs is because it helps us understand disease and development with regard to human biology. Using that rationale then the equivalent of human biology in botany is agronomy.
I believe that the same argument for agronomy can be made as above for human biology. Arabidopsis research is heavily funded by USDA as well as NSF. There is no doubt that this has huge implications for botany but again I think that is too broad. The fact is that this model system is being used as a starting point to understand crop plants. Consequently it is a model system to understand plant biology with regard to having a better understanding agronomic crops.
So in essence, I think that human biology/agronomy is more relevent to the actual research goals of these model systems. As an aside the broad goals of zoology and botany are to sequence as many genomes as possible. To understand ecosystems and diversity. I don't think the model systems of Arabidopsis and Drosophila are useful from this regard. I hope this makes sense. David D. 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Mendelian inheritance that skips generations

Wierd, i don't know what to say about it, but its an interesting read. [1]

This stuff is really exciting, this just came out (today! wedneday the 23rd/05) so it is really new, but if correct, there could be completly new forms of inheritance than DNA. Our genomes may no longer be completely explained by the human genome project. I'm excited about this and actually plan to to some work on this for my plant genetics class this semester, but after i do some work I will be sure to update the page(s). Anyone else work with arabidopsis thaliana know anything else about this? Adenosine | Talk 09:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lets Just Slow Down

I think we need to be cautious about jumping to conclusions regarding the above research. Although the researchers showed very strong evidence for a "molecular cache" of genetic information, there are some major assumptions in the research. Most importantly, the researchers suggest that this process is RNA mediated. However, in their study they had no proof of the fact, only that DNA was not. Regardless, I think that in five years, the way we study inheritence will be much different.--Doucher 08:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Doucher that this research is in it's infancy. I made a change to make their conclusions more speculative. In general, is it appropriate to have research on this page? It seems that the research should be on the appropriate topic page. For example, phototropism should probably be moved to the phototropism page. Like wise the RNA cache should probably have it's own page, although, I think it is premature to create one at present. David D. 15:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Original research doesn't belong in Wikipedia. But once research has been published in scientific literature, it is recommended that Wikipedians mention it (with the necessary caution). This way, Wikipedia can lead the way and be taken seriously. JoJan 16:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that the research does not belong in Wikipedia. It just seems that the body of significant research results from Arabidopsis is huge and that trying to document it on this page is a bad precident to set. It would seem to be more appropriate to link a new article to this page. i think this page should be reserved for information about the model plant Arabidopsis. Possibly a section about the history of Arabidopisis as a model system.David D. 16:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
No kidding, in the entire universe of Arabidopsis research, (of which I am just one small planet) someone seeks to put their own speculative work in an article that is only a few paragraphs long? I'm yanking it.--Aufidius 23:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that the primary researchers on this project are the ones that put this on wikipedia? You're right this is new research, it did though get the cover of one particular back-water journal (Nature!! (http://www.nature.com)). Wikipedia is supposed to be a vibrant, current source of all the world's information (at least in my eyes). Your (Aufidius) last revert erased what was very unbias, and well cited material that could end up being one of the greatest discoveries in genetics, molecular biology and botany in the last decade. I believe that we need to present all information, this is not speculative work, this work has data to back it up. Arabidopsis thaliana is our model orgainism for genetics in plants, this is the very information that belongs here because this is the very information we hope to discover from Arabidopsis. I wish not to create a revert war, so please anyone respond here with your views/opinions. This is just my honest (and perhaps not so humble) opinion. Adenosine | Talk 02:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Adenosine, there is no way that the paragraph was written by the original authors. Many have contributed to clean it up to the unbiased summary that Aufidius deleted. My initial response was also to yank it, but then i considered tha fact that this research was on the front page of many national newspapers, it was on TV and radio too. It is rare that science gets so much air time (let alone plant science) and, therefore, despite it's controversial nature, it is the one research paragraph I would keep on this page. It is certainly more appropriate than a paragraph on phototropism. At the end of the day this whole page needs to be rewritten. When that day comes i can see this paragraph having a it's rightful place. If nothing else this research has madfe Arabidopsis notorious. David D. 04:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabidopsis vs Arabidopisis thaliana

I noticed that there is significant overlap between the Arabidopsis page and this (Arabidopsis thaliana) page. I think this might lead to confusion with people coming into wikipedia to edit the Arabidopsis page or linking to the incorrect page. I propose we strip out the thaliana specific info on the Arabidopsis page or merge the two together. If we keep them separate the Arabidopsis page should be discussing the whole genus and redirect to the Arabidopsis thaliana page for specific infomation about the genetic model system.David D. 16:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabidopsis vs. arabidopsis

Many journals use Arabidopsis to refer to the species Arabidopsis thaliana. In other words, they are taking the common name from the generic (ie, the genus) name. This is quite typical, common names for lots of plants are taken from their genus (iris, camelia, rhododendron, to name just three). It is so common that the Council of Biology Editors established a rule for this practice: Common names taken from the genus are neither capitalized nor italicized, and form plurals as in English. This rule makes a lot of sense. Scientific names (binomials) are set in italic to recognize the fact that they are Latin, by definition (Linneus decreed that all binomials be Latin so they would be Universal), and English printing recognizes words that are in a foreign language by setting them in italic font. Common names are common, that is they are in the common language and so equally by definition must be taken as no longer foreign, whatever their origin. Likewise, Linneus also established the convention that the generic name is capitalized. This is useful, it makes there be no ambiguity when writing about a genus. For some reason, modern journal editors ignore this sensible rule and capitalize Arabidopsis even when it is used as a common name. Indeed, some journals even capitalize AND italicize Arabidopsis when it is used as the common name. In matters of regular usage, something that starts out as a mistake, with enough repetition, becomes correct. However, in matters of nomenclature, a mistake is always a mistake. Plase use arabidpsis (small a, Roman font) to refer to Arabidopsis thaliana (a usage that is far far more widespread than using thale or mouse-ear cress). Strike a blow for the wisdom of Linneus.


This person knows what they're talking about. My dad is a botanist, and he is always complaining about this. Amphion 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to pronounce "Arabidopsis"?

How is arabidopsis pronounced and which syllable gets the stress?

Something like this A (as in had)-ra (a as in had)-bid-op-sis I'm not sure how to use the offical nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabidopsis thaliana study has significant implications

"A collaboration between researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the University of California at Los Angeles captured the genome-wide DNA methylation pattern of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana - the "laboratory rat" of the plant world - in one big sweep..."[2]69.6.162.160 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

[edit] link

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2821 89.58.168.184 23:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top importance?

Maybe it's not a big deal but I wonder if it might make more sense to rate this topic high importance rather than top importance in the plants wikiproject. This is the only plant species in Category:Top-importance plant articles; pretty much everything else in there covers a very broad botany topic (e.g. tree, leaf, pollen, etc.)--Eloil 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the first plant genome to be sequenced. That alone should classify it as top importance. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete article?

It feels like this article is missing an important section on Arabidopsis t. biology in general: life cycle, growing reqirements, and other related bits of information. Also, there is a whole bunch of reasons it was selected to be a model organism to beging with, which are not discussed here. Some of this can be easily googled up:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/seminar/2004/GMevents/MT/MTArabidopsis.html

http://www.arabidopsis.org/info/growth.jsp

-- User:Denger 9 Sept. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denger (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs a lot of work in these areas. Since you see the omission so clearly, why not fix the article? KP Botany 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a description of the plant and its distribution - MPF 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job, that helps a lot. I wish I had noticed how poorly this article was done earlier, considering how important the plant is. KP Botany 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the flower and fruit

If we are to describe the a plant, we should talk about the whole flower, has four white petals is not enough. I could do it, but I think we should instead make a good description of flowers on the article Brassicaceae about its family. Their structure is very consistent within the family. Then we could list what makes them peculiar on this page the pages of the single species. The fruit is not a capsule, but a siliqua, which is a particular kind of capsule. Aelwyn 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Agreed - MPF 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Brassicaceae will be my 'next victim'. You can watch my edits if you want, or we can fix it together or ask for collaboration. This evening I'll start (you are English, so 'this evening' has the same meaning for us!). We should work more this way. Aelwyn 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree to this idea. Would work for a number of families, and seems obvious and important for this article. KP Botany 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. This is not the first time we say family articles need more attention, but there have been only few major improvements since then. Little interest on this point, perhaps. I'd like to see articles like Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Poaceae reach a decent level, but more cooperation is needed, I can't write all myself (after the simple-English wikipedia, the awkward-English wikipedia!). Revamping the most important articles is more difficult than posting a comment now and then, but much more useful. Aelwyn 08:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Don't get me wrong, this means: Come on, let's do it together, and not Why haven't you already done it?
I know our family level article are dreadful--I can't even bear to look at the Fabaceae article. I just don't have any time right now. Brassicaceae, however, would be a great place to start--thanks. KP Botany 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelwyn (talk • contribs)

For those who have taken park at this conversation: I have worked on Brassicaceae and it is more satisfactory now, the description of the flower is fairly detailed and could be 'recycled' here. I'd be very glad if you could have a look at it (and to its discussion) and give some feedback (on that page, of course). Thank you very much. Next victim: Fabaceae, maybe. Aelwyn 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)