Talk:Chromosomal translocation

The introduction is misleading

The main distinction is betweeen reciprocal (no-loss) and non-reciprocal translocations. The latter are of great importance in cancer genomics, the former are mostly relevant to reproductive genetics. In reciprocal translocations, the distinction between balanced and unbalanced only becomes important after meiosis. A picture would be good here (sorry, deep-linked for now) : http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/Reciprocal_translocation_1.jpg The terminology is a bit ambiguous. It would be less confusing if we decided that the term '(non-)reciprocal' *only* applies to the the translocation, and that '(un)balanced' *only* applies to the genotype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plijnzaad (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Animation link at the bottom not of Translocation

I checked the link at the bottom, its to a (very good) video of Inversion, a related but very different genetic anomoly

It should be removed or replaced Eipiplus1 10:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical review

doi:10.1182/blood-2008-04-097931 Janet Rowley has things to tell us. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Numbers after chromosome arms

According to this site, the numbers after p or q give the distance in centimorgans from the centromere. That makes more sense, because regions/bands have a different notation, with letters for bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.94.3 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are based on landmark bands and sub-bands as defined by the ISCN. As banding techniques improved the original bands had to be subdivided, since where before there was a large band there may be several at higher resolutions of banding. As for bands having letters, are you perhaps thinking of banding methods, such as G-banding or C-banding? --13en (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Came across the history info from Arnold Arboretum research, I'm not a scientist so may need corrections. Look2See1 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oligodendrogluona 1p 19q is a deletion not a translocation, detected as loss of heterozygosity.

I don't know how to correct the table. Can someone please do this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.64.8 (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011

The combined deletion is associated with a better prognosis. The combined deletion is a the result of the the translocation being lost.[1]Novangelis (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Medref tag still justified?

Is that medref tag still justified? I'm not qualified at all in this subject matter. I have the impression that the article is fine. I note with annoyance that the user who apparently applied the tag has not, himself, done any further work on the article. That always strikes me as plain laziness - slap a tag on something and walk away rather than work on fixing it. One sees it all over Wikipedia, like some endemic disease.

If that tag can come off, I think it should.

Poihths (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the statements in the article and the entries on the table are uncited, so I'd say it is justified. Yes, the alternative described at {{Medref}}, be bold and find the references is ideal, but it often impractical. The person who tags an article with unsourced statements is no lazier than the person who made the unattributed claims. If I see an article in a field for which I am uncertain of the relevant literature, I will tag and run. Identifying a problem is better than ignoring a problem, so it is not necessarily laziness. Please, do not cast aspersions on an editor whose actions were proper and motives uncertain. I'll go digging for a book after dinner and fill in some of the missing citations, but it won't be enough to kill the tag, immediately.Novangelis (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)