This article was nominated for deletion on 3/1/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Since i am not logged in. i am posting this link to support the edit in the front page and hopefully avoid it being purged. wkm Quote " They found that the HLA-B*35-Px gene linked to rapid progression from HIV infection to Aids is "two-and-a-half times" more common in Indians than a protective gene called HLA-B*35-Py." Source [1]

BTK[edit]

Unless somebody is willing to write an article about BTK the gene, the BTK link should be de-link-ified, as it currently points to Dennis Rader a.k.a. BTK a.k.a. Bind Torture Kill - a serial killer, not a gene. N0YKG 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to link to BTK (gene) ?? --WS 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and conquer[edit]

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is really a useful list for anyone to maintain. A list of genes which have been been found to be important in some biological process would be overwhelming, and is not that helpful as a list alone to anyone, layman or researcher. I think a better strategy would be to have sub-lists which concentrate on important genes for certain processes, i.e. "List of notable genes in:" followed by: "Development," "Apoptosis," or "Cancer." Each one of those sub-lists alone would be dozens, if not hundreds, of notable genes. That's why this list should be broken up. Anyone on for the challenge? Let me know. Mr.Bip 07:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think the word 'notable' shouldn't be included in the article title - it sounds a bit silly when it's referring to genes. Maybe 'important' would be better? - ulayiti (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. This list would be much more friendly and overall more educative if we had even a hint of each of the genes' 'notable' functions. As it is, the list is merely useful for a bunch of people who already know the name of the gene they would like to look for and what it does (i.e., genetists and the like, not average users looking for wisdom). Kreachure 23:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are going, but I don't agree that, this information is only necessary for the experts. See, there are people who are going into this industry and an accessible articles may act as stepping stone for them. This is an electronic facility where space is not limited. If someone wish to offer his or her knowledge, I don't think we should put a barrier just because only a few will ever require it or because a particular gene is not that important. Oh, this gene SPRN6 is rumoured to be related to malaria. [2]

Notably sad list, that is.[edit]

Yes, this is worse than I thought. There are way too many items in the list that link to pages with the initials of their names, but that have nothing to do with the genes themselves! Most are disambiguation pages, which makes things worse (trying to look on the lists there for an actual gene page, which actually doesn't exist in the first place!). This page needs an urgent reboot. Kreachure 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kreachure - clearly, I agree. Want to start a new set of lists? Let me know. I'm up for the challenge. Mr.Bip 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing items[edit]

Does anybody object if I remove the entries that don't yet have Wikipedia entries? --Arcadian 14:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entries that have only a redlink for a Wikipedia entry, taking it down from about 600 to about 200. However, I have not yet gone through each of the rest to confirm that it is refering to the gene and not to something else. (Assistance in this would of course be appreciated.) --Arcadian 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interface to GeneCards[edit]

Seems to us (the GeneCards team) that this (or a related) page would greatly benefit by linking to GeneCards [3] gene entries. For example, the link to the GeneCard for BTK is [4]. (We've noticed that others have already placed links to GeneCards on some pages (e.g. see [5]} and thought that it would be a good idea to have this done systematically for all human genes.) What do people think? If you agree, what would be the mechansim to make this happen? Thanks. Marilyn Safran 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about the statement at the top of each GeneCards page: "This service is provided free to academic non-profit institutions. ALL other users require a Commercial License from XenneX, Inc. Unauthorized usage of this service is in breach of the terms and conditions of this web site, and may cause the user to incur fees for usage." Wikipedia does not limit its use to "academic non-profit institutions", and so adding these links into Wikipedia may be inappropriate. Since you are associated with GeneCards, would you mind clarifying? --Arcadian 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc a nonprofit academic organization? --Howrealisreal 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Because of the (at this time) ongoing AfD of this article, I have started a rigourous cleanup of the list, starting at the top of the list [6]. As you look at the article now, the top of the list is already adjusted, the bottom is still the old list. Many internal links were fixed, external links were directed to genecards instead of HUGO (Genecards contains way more information). Most entries were corrected with regard to names, the notability of genes was explained where not provided and a few will be removed from the list as I continue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move name?[edit]

This page should probably be moved to List of notable human genes, since it's human-specific per its WP:LEAD. Thoughts? ju66l3r 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, I've moved it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I just split up the article in several sections, listing the genes in groups of being notable for similar reasons. Apart from clarification, this also makes that people wanting to add their own favorite gene have to think twice before doing so. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two genes that could be added[edit]

1. SCN9A, mutation in which can cause to loss of pain perception. Such individuals won't feel any pain. 2. MAO-A (also known as Warrior gene), active copy with environmental influence (like childhood abuse) can lead to psychopathic tendencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inderonline1988 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

What are the criteria for a gene to be listed here? A line has to be drawn somewhere because genes can be significant to different groups of people studying different things. Natureium (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok with you[edit]

I would like to let you know. If is ok to edit medical ideas under chromosome list Butterscotch 29 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]