This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it might be useful to restructure the list of model organisms into two redundant lists--one grouped by classification (bacteria, plant, animal, etc.), as it is now, and the other grouped by the field which makes use of it (genetics, cell biology, neurobiology, developmental biology, agriculture, etc.) IlliniWikipedian 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
When did the term "model organism" come about in literature? Does anyone have a timeline of usage and increasing usage? -- Cyberman ( talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for "zebrafish", and was a little bit confused by "zebra danio". According to my experience and a quick search of the literature, "zebrafish" and "Danio rerio" are by far the most common words used by scientists to discuss the creature that this page refers to as "zebra danio" and "Brachydanio rerio".
Interestingly, it seems that researchers either use "zebrafish" AND "Danio rerio" or they use "zebra danio" AND "Brachydanio rerio". A BIOSIS search for "zebrafish" turned up 4427 articles, while a search for "zebra danio" turned up only 34 articles.
-adam
Hm. If you have better refs and think it is wrong then by all means change it. Fish names are hard to pin down and seem to change with each passing generation of researchers. Common names are a mess too. -- mav
I don't agree with the opening sentence. Researchers do consider potential economic benefits when choosing their model systems. This is necessary because funding agencies often take this into consideration and the researcher does need to get grants. I propose that the defining characteristic of a model organism is that it is studied as an example of a larger set of organisms. Economic benefit is one of many considerations that a researcher takes into account when choosing an organism. AdamRetchless 01:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One thing that we need to express is that there are many model organisms, and that different ones are used in different fields and differnt time periods. Listing every model organism ever used would not be worthwhile, so we need to prioritize. One obvious means of prioritizing would be to list the most common model organisms. However, I think that will tend to bias the list towards molecular biology (as the list currently is). Perhaps we could list organisms by field (Microbiology, Development, Neuroscience, Ecology, Genetics) AdamRetchless 01:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the goldfish may be a common model organism but I am not sure.-- βjweþþ ( talk) 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the part where humans are listed under model organisms!
would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"This strategy is made possible by the common descent of all living organisms, and the conservation of metabolic and developmental pathways and genetic material over the course of evolution. citation needed" (Opening paragraph)
I'm about to amend the reference to one of the model viruses as an organism. Strictly speaking viruses aren't organisms. If fact, a virus particle can't really be described as 'living'. i.e. it has no independent life. However, as a shorthand I do see the value in referring to an organism for simplicity - its just that inaccuracy in terminology bugs me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.95.178 ( talk) 15:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
I cant see reason for the tag clenup from November. Could'nt anyone provide some objections, regarding the style of the article, which could be followed to reach desired standard? If not I will remove the tag after several days, I do not realize any violation of manual of style here.
In fact I thought that this tag is given usually to the articles, which are messed up in style more seriously and do not reach any grade in the quality assessment. This one was evaluated as B class. So it does not fit to me together.
Reo
ON |
+
+
+ 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This genus of algae is used as a model organism - see the article. Should it be included here too? Smartse ( talk) 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In the table comparing model organisms, Xenopus is listed as having been sequenced. However, as the linked ref states, only X. tropicalis has been determined - not X. laevis. I imagine we'll know laevis' genome soon enough, but at the moment the table isn't correct. Perhaps it should say "in progress" or words to that effect? Shawthorn ( talk) 09:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I had put tags {{fact}}{{dubious}} to the Arabidopsis biochemistry field in the Table of model genetic organisms. I dispute the statement.
The table is excelent idea and overview of basic - important properties of model organisms (I mean well chosen), but what are the sources for the claims? Especially for the rather subjective part of the state of knowledge of the organism's biochemical pathways?
What "makes" Arabidopsis's biochemsitry poorly understood and Physcomitrella's excellent in comparison? Not just in comparison to the moss model Physcomitrella,- but in comparison to any other model in the table? I work in plant physiology research, so the contrasting assesment for the two plant models is most striking for me, i can not easily compare the depth of knowledge of biochemistry between Arabidopsis and Xenopus, for example (But who can actually?), but the "poor" assesment of Arabidopsis biochemistry pathways looked a bit strange to me all the time.
In plant biology research there is no model so much studied as Arabidopsis. We cannot say its pathways are perfectly understood just because it is hardly possible to claim it about any other higher organisms (or we can?). There is never ending ambundance of possible biochemical reactions in living organism that it looks not very well if we would claim, the excellent knowledge about any of them. That might probably just in comparison to other studied model organisms.
What do You think about this assesment scale and, what should we do to ensure valid informations in the table? Requirements? Reo + 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
SEPARATE SUGGESTION:
In the Table of model genetic organisms, it's be helpful to see another column with common names of the organisms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MBVECO (
talk •
contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit added the following to the See also section, which I have removed for now.
The problems as I see them are (1) dcGO is not yet a page that can be linked to, so doesn't belong on the See also section, (2) the concept of protein domain-centric ontologies is not covered in wikipedia, which currently deals with the philosophical and computational concepts of ontologies. This therefore, is not readable material suitable for the encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've boldly removed the column of a table that listed without adequate explanation a yes/no presence of homologous recombination. It was full of errors, e.g., that E. coli supposedly has the mechanism, and for various other organisms there had clearly been confusion between whether the mechanism is present and whether it can readily be used for targeted gene insertion (e.g., Chlamydomonas). Such a table column might make sense to a few people working on a variety of model organisms, but error-prone as it was, I think wikipedia is better without it. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This section of the article seems abrupt, like 3 random areas of study were selected. Maybe make the categories broader, like "sexual", "ecological", "developmental" etc. so it covers more of the diversity of fields of study that use model organisms. Jtrivedi92 ( talk) 00:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the locust should be listed? It seems to have been widely used; perhaps less so now outside schools? "The relative size and robustness of the locust make it simple to handle and ideal for such [educational] investigations." [1] I note that a recent paper described its use as "novel", so perhaps memories in these days of micro-everything are short. [2] Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
References
The relative size and robustness of the locust make it simple to handle and ideal for such investigations.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Model organism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Model organism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Model organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)