Talk:Genome engineering

Citations

Two citations were given to support the statement that zinc finger nucleases make frequent unwanted cuts in the genome. The first citation, Ramirez et al., deals with non-modular behavior when individual zinc fingers are joined. I could not find anything in this paper to support the statement about unwanted cuts in the genome. The second reference, Petek et al., deals with genome cuts due to the homing endonuclease I-SceI. I-SceI is not a zinc finger nuclease. ScienceGeekling (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crispr

Somebody should write a paragraph about CRISPR genome editing. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Agreement to merge, but no agreement on the target between genome editing, genome engineering and Genetic engineering. Therefore, close this proposal, and start new proposal for 3-way merge. Klbrain (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Duplicate material between genome editing and genome engineering noticed and reported here. It looks like the pages could be sensibly merged to bring the information together and better define the terminology. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge - I am in favor of the merger. The subject in both articles overlap significantly. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge - I support merging this article into Genetic engineering, yes. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge - I think we should merge genome editing and genome engineering, but it might be worthwhile clarifying how it relates to the term 'genetic engineering'. Additionally, there seems to be overlap between genome engineering and the specific technique of gene targeting. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge genome editing and genome engineering; I don't think there's a consistent distinction between these terms. The natural taxonomy here, I think, puts genetic engineering at the top, of which genome engineering is a subtopic, of which specific techniques such as gene targeting or CRISPR/Cas9 are subsubtopics. Unfortunately the specific technique "gene targeting" has a very broad name, and CRISPR/TALEN/etc. users tend to call these techniques "genome editing" as if they're coextensive, so the redundancy will probably creep back in again eventually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Merge - In the literature and even in the media, 'genome editing' refers specifically to a group of technologies for targeted mutagenesis using sequence-specific or guided nucleases. This includes meganucleases, ZFNs, TALENS, and CRISPR/Cas. Obviously, there is significant overlap between genome editing and genome engineering; all genome editing technologies are genome engineering technologies (but not all genome engineering technologies are genome editing technologies). However, I think that genome editing should have its own wiki page, for a couple of reasons. First, genome editing stands alone as package of closely related technologies and methods. Second, genome editing technologies and methods are currently in the spotlight in the literature and in the media. People should not have to navigate a general page on genome engineering in order to find specific information on genome editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenomeEditor (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge - I'm a little concerned about the origins of this article, which may perhaps be part of COI editing on behalf of a company with an interest in one specific method of genome engineering. I think it would be as well for a neutral and informed editor to review the content as part of a merge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge - The articles are covering the same theme and are basically the same. FriyMan ^talk 09:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus for merging. Doing so will be quite an effort. I can't really commit to getting around to it this year, but I will see if I can contact some qualified academics to help out. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

• Following a short discussion at Talk:Genetic engineering#Merge and a failed attempt at merging everything into Genetic engineering techniques I have just merged the two original articles together. I chose Genome editing as the target as it seemed the more developed, so making the merge easier. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI - Review required

Per the merge debate above, I'm a little concerned about the origins of this article, which may perhaps be part of COI editing on behalf of a company with an interest in one specific method of genome engineering. I think it would be as well for a neutral and informed editor to review the content as part of a merge. Per the citation thread at the top of this page, it is possible that the company with COI interest, Cellectis, is seeking to promote its interest in Meganuclease in part by criticising other techniques. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cellectis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Text below copied from WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cellectis for reference:

Genome editing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ? - large insert of COI in this edit, beyond my pay-grade. Per Genome Engineering report, below, I've added notes to the article talk & an interested wikiproject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Genome engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ? - not sure what to make. Article starts as a large insert by an editor never heard from again, followed quickly by some Sofike68 edits. It may be per its talk that the article in part seeks to promote Meganuclease in part by criticising another technique. I've removed some text promoting Cellectis, contributed to a merge debate suggesting the article should be reviewed, and pointed to this COI discussion on the article talk page & at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 

I'll have a stab at helping out on a review of the genome engineering and editing articles. Is there any benefit to running it through WP:Peer_review? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, E&E, very much appreciated. This is an article that cries out for a dispassionate subject matter expert ... I'm not sure such would be found at Peer Review. I very much regret I have insufficient genome chops to be of assistance. And it does seem like a very big thing in contemporary society, fully deserving its high importance tag & so fully deserving of a review: this not least in view of the possibility that one or both articles have been hijacked by a sectional interest. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've finished checking through the relevant edits by Dcbennett2 in Jan 2016. They are uncontroversial wording improvements with no WP:COI issues. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; much obliged. Would you be so kind as to check the Sofike68 edits - this diff - which look mainly uncontroversial, with the exception of a Cellectis link (now removed) and a reference: [1] which still stands. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

General review

There are a few main issues on this page:

• Genome editing needs a clearer definition in the lead, and delineation versus genetic engineering.
• Needs a bit more historical context on what was happening before the current gen engineering techniques
• Section balance is an issue:
  • Meganuclease-based Engineering is too long and unfocussed
  • ZFN section also should be shorter
  • The two longest sections should probably be TALENs and CRISPRs, given their current provenance
  • The rAAV section is far more prominent than is warranted (almost longer than the actual rAAV article, which isn't even wikilinked), added in its entirety by Maltasail.

I'll have a go at some of these (and similar issues in the Genome editing article) in the next few weeks. As always, I'm happy for any help! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)