Talk:Periannan Senapathy

style of text

The style of the text of this article is confusing. makes it sound a bit like the subject is a theory, and that the subject is a person. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Does this person meet the general notability requirements? at first blush it doesn't seem so. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's significant coverage of his work in New Scientist from the 80s and 90s. Fences&Windows 20:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I see two summaries of his work with no attributed author. I don't know if that is typical of the New Scientist at that time, but on the same page in the scans, the articles do have an author. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

His H-Index of 15 is very low compared to average faculty (most of whom have no wiki pages!)

merge?

shall we pull all the info from the Parallel Genome Assembly page and merge it with this article on senapathy. would make things easier. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

only if there are third party discussions of Dr. S and his work. Otherwise, it seems not notable enough for inclusion in en.wikipedia at all. Have any of the nature proceedings submissions progressed towards publication in a peer reviewed journal? even if the reception is negative, that is notable for inclusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rocksanddirt. There should at least be sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability and avoid deletion before there is any point to merging the articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Party Sources for Senapathy's article

An old webpage, showing third party discussions on Senapathy: http://www.mattox.com/genome/news/news.html

One such article published in a local news paper, long time ago: http://www.mattox.com/genome/Isthmus.html

A press release of recent Senapathy's publications: http://www.prweb.com/releases/theory/genome/prweb4896744.htm

Finally Senapathy has published in peer reviewed journals such as Science, PNAS, J Molec Biol, J Biol Chem, Nucleic Acids Research since more than 2 decades. Some notable publications in highly peer reviewed journals are as follows http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/jmlpubls/sszld95.pdf, http://www.pnas.org/content/83/7/2133.full.pdf,

His publication in the journal Science way back in 1995, can be found Periannan Senapathy, "Introns and the Origin of Protein-Coding Genes," p 1366-1367 v 268 Science, 2 June 1995. The article can be accessed at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5215/1366.extract?sid=5c7b8ab4-10b4-454c-bd87-a4f9ab19548f

In fact, just searching for senapathy on Science journal, shows several literature published in Science which have references Senapathy's publications. You can try it on http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sci&y=0&fulltext=senapathy&x=0&submit=yes

Finally, Senapathy is not a creationist, he is a scientist working on the post modern evolutionary synthesis.

Rahul R (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (IST)

No reliable Third Party Sources for Senapathy's article

An old webpage, showing third party discussions on Senapathy: http://www.mattox.com/genome/news/news.html WP:SPS

One such article published in a local news paper, long time ago: http://www.mattox.com/genome/Isthmus.html WP:SPS

A press release of recent Senapathy's publications: http://www.prweb.com/releases/theory/genome/prweb4896744.htm Press release -- not a WP:RS, and not third party besides

Finally Senapathy has published in peer reviewed journals such as Science, PNAS, J Molec Biol, J Biol Chem, Nucleic Acids Research since more than 2 decades. Some notable publications in highly peer reviewed journals are as follows http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/jmlpubls/sszld95.pdf, http://www.pnas.org/content/83/7/2133.full.pdf, Not third-party

His publication in the journal Science way back in 1995, can be found Periannan Senapathy, "Introns and the Origin of Protein-Coding Genes," p 1366-1367 v 268 Science, 2 June 1995. The article can be accessed at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5215/1366.extract?sid=5c7b8ab4-10b4-454c-bd87-a4f9ab19548f Not third-party

In fact, just searching for senapathy on Science journal, shows several literature published in Science which have references Senapathy's publications. You can try it on http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sci&y=0&fulltext=senapathy&x=0&submit=yes This search provides no evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources (just a single article by Senapathy and a handful of articles that appear to merely cite his articles).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Journals such as Science, PNAS, J Molec Biol, J Biol Chem, Nucleic Acids Research are highly revered peer reviewed journals and publishing in them means that several top rated scientists have reviewed them. And when a scientist has published in such top rated journals over the 2.5 decades, it shows that the biography of this article meets criteria #1 of WP:SCHOLAR Rahul R (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (IST)

(i) Get a clue! Articles written (or co-written) by Senapathy himself are not third party sources. (ii) A handful of articles (half of which he was not the lead author for), even in top journals does not demonstrate that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (iii) And all but one of the articles in question was published 16 years or more years ago -- a very spotty publication record. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Would request Hrafn to keep your condescending tone outside while responding to a debate. Pl use arguments based on merit rather than some condescending tone to prove your point. In all publications of Senapathy, he is either the first author or the last / corresponding author (you can check the publications, in cases where it clearly lists the last author as the corresponding author). So your argument that he was not the lead author in half of the articles is completely false and misleading. In fact, in all publications he is the leading author. In all there are 1 publication in Science, 2 publications in PNAS, 4 in Nucleic Acids Research, 1 in J Mol Bio, 3 in J Biol Chem and 2 in PLoS One (a comprehensive list can be found here: http://www.genome.com/publications.htm). So the claim that there are only a handful of articles is also untrue. And these are not just some respected journals, in fact some of the best journals in the field of biology. The comment of "a very spooty publication record" was also uncalled for and is not in proper light. Rahul R (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2011 (IST)

(i) I can see no indication that Senapathy is listed as the "corresponding author" in Automated preparation of DNA sequences for publication (the last, and most highly cited, paper). (ii) That he is corresponding author of a further 2 of the 6 does not alter the fact that this is a very small, and sporadic, number of papers to base such a large claim. (iii) If you insist on discussing Senapathy's own papers within a thread that you yourself titled "third party sources", then you should expect to be regarded with considerable derision. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Lets put the facts on the table

• Ashwini Bhasi, Doug Senalik, Philipp W Simon, Brajendra Kumar, Vinu Manikandan, Philge Philip, and Periannan Senapathy. RoBuST: an integrated genomics resource for the root and bulb crop families Apiaceae and Alliaceae. BMC Plant Biology 2010, 10:161, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/10/161 (In press). Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Bhasi A, Mattox J, Dhandapany PS, Sadayappan S.Targeted Genome-wide Enrichment of Functional Regions. PLoS ONE (2010) Jun 16;5(6):E11138 First Author is P Senapathy
• Ashwini Bhasi et al. ExDom: an integrated database for comparative analysis of the exon–intron structures of protein domains in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Research (2009) Database Issue 37:D703-D711 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Ashwini Bhasi et al. AspAlt: A tool for inter-database, inter-genomic and customized comparative analysis of alternative transcription and alternative splicing in eukaryotes. Genomics (2009) 94(1):48-54 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Rahul Regulapati, Ashwini Bhasi et al. Origination of the split structure of spliceosomal genes from random genetic sequences6. PLoS ONE (2008) 3(10):e3456 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Ashwini Bhasi et al. EuSplice: a unified resource for the analysis of splice signals and alternative splicing in eukaryotic genes. Bioinformatics (2007) 23:1815-23 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P Introns and the origin of protein-coding genes. Science. 1995 Jun 2;268(5215):1366-7 First Author is P Senapathy
• Harris NL, Senapathy P.Distribution and consensus of branch point signals in eukaryotic genes: a computerized statistical analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990 May 25;18(10):3015-9 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Shapiro MB , Harris NL. Splice junctions, branch point sites, and exons: sequence statistics, identification, and applications to genome project. Methods Enzymol. 1990;183:252-78 First Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P. Possible evolution of splice-junction signals in eukaryotic genes from stop codons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Feb;85(4):1129-33. First Author is P Senapathy
• Shapiro MB , Senapathy P. RNA splice junctions of different classes of eukaryotes: sequence statistics and functional implications in gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 Sep 11;15(17):7155-74 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P. Origin of eukaryotic introns: a hypothesis, based on codon distribution statistics in genes, and its implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Apr;83(7):2133-7 First Author is P Senapathy
• Shapiro MB , Senapathy P.Automated preparation of DNA sequences for publication. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Jan 10;14(1):65-73 Corresponding Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Tratschin JD, Carter BJ. Replication of adeno-associated virus DNA. Complementation of naturally occurring rep- mutants by a wild-type genome or an ori- mutant and correction of terminal palindrome deletions. J Mol Biol. 1984 Oct 15;179(1):1-20 First Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Carter BJ. Molecular cloning of adeno-associated virus variant genomes and generation of infectious virus by recombination in mammalian cells. J Biol Chem. 1984 Apr 10;259(7):4661-6 First Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Carter BJ. Molecular cloning of adeno-associated virus variant genomes and generation of infectious virus by recombination in mammalian cells. J Biol Chem. 1984 Apr 10;259(7):4661-6 First Author is P Senapathy
• Senapathy P, Jacob MT. Identification and purification of tRNAs containing N6-(delta 2-isopentenyl) adenosine using antibodies specific for N6-(delta 2-isopentenyl) adenosine. J Biol Chem. 1981 Nov 25;256(22):11580-4 First Author is P Senapathy

Total Count as First Author = 9 & Total Count as Corresponding Author = 8. I rest my case Rahulr7 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but that's rather sparse. And no articles for 12 years. And you duplicated one article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Science cite is just a letter... — Scientizzle 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

bias?

WP:NOTAFORUM. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not for disparaging editors who point out the flaws in its sourcing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i keep putting up sources to try and improve the article but the user Hrafn keeps claiming the sources are either self published or unreliable, bit of a bias going on, i think we need some other users to look at this. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:RS, WP:SPS & WP:SCIRS for guidance. WP:PSTS may also be relevant. If you have further questions, WP:RSN may be appropriate. Please note that WP:V clearly states that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" & that none of the sources you have cited to date have been third-party. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) {ec} I have been keeping an eye on this article and agree up till now with every single one of Hrafn's edits. Please assume good faith here instead of immediately accusing somebody of being biased. Up till now, there is no indication of real notability (in the Wikipedia sense). --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC) If you don't want to be accused of being biased, why not try and help me find valid sources to help the article?. So far, its me doing all the work, nobody helping. Crusio why do you not try and help? your ok to just sit there putting unreliable tags all over the place are you? the reason you are not helping is becuase you want the article deleted. i see your game!! 86.10.119.131 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC) See the 'Find sources' box above (placed there some time ago by me). There is actually very little reliable material on Periannan Senapathy available. This 25yo New Scientist article is about as good as it gets. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC) the reason you are not helping is becuase you want the article deleted. i see your game!! That's where you are not correct. We'd love to have an article on a notable non-mainstream thinker/scientist. But we have some standards of what is a notable enough person to include, the downsides of articles with no reliable sourceing in terms of the reputations of the REAL LIVE PEOPLE named are way to large. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Here are my issues with this article. Senapathy has published maybe 8 articles over a career of 20 years. Either he doesn't do a lot or his articles get rejected. Probably a mixture of the two. In addition, not one of these evolution denialist conclusions are published in peer-reviewed journals. And isn't it interesting that some of the major scientific blogs, like Pharyngula, don't even mention him (I've done a search on Pharyngula using every possible permutation of his name and his theories). I mean if PZ Myers can't even find enough energy to debunk it, then it's hardly important. I follow the evolution articles all over the place, and I think I landed here because of a notice on the Fringe noticeboard. Googling this information get literally hundreds of creationist websites that conclude, "here's this real scientist who says abiogenesis and evolution are impossible." I don't mean to suppress information, we have lots of articles on Fringe science, but most of them are somewhat notable. Senapathy is not a relevant researcher even giving as much of a stretch of the definition as possible. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Here is Orangemarlins edits: 18:38, 19 April 2011 Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) (9,090 bytes) (→Senapathy's theories: Failed reliable source. Nevertheless his denialist opinion is disgusting.) (undo) 18:37, 19 April 2011 Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) (9,250 bytes) (→Senapathy's theories: Fixed citation. Got nauseous looking up this crap book) (undo) So he deletes sources, then claims senapathys opinions are disgusting (just becuase senapathy denies evolution) - Bias and abuse much? Not neutral. He then claims he has "fixed a citation" but this is false, what he actually did was delete a source, becuase the source was a newspaper article titled "dissin darwin a lone biologist challenges darwins theory of evolution" obviously this newspaper article offends Orangemarlins own views so he deletes it, orangemarlin then claims he got "naseous" from looking up "this crap" book, he is refering to the book independent birth of organisms which senapathy wrote. Calling senapathys book "crap", that isn't polite or neutral is it? orangemarlin is a fundamentalist, not a neutral editor. I have reported him, i suggests he stays away from this article and senapathy, he does not understand senapathys genomic scientific work and he just smearing the page on purpose.86.10.119.131 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Orangemarlin's language may be colourful, but they accurately describe Wikipedia's opinion of self-published WP:FRINGE sources -- which is very low. What an article needs to survive is reliable, published, third-party sources. This article does not, currently, have any. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC) well i am trying to work on the article, recently i have found new sources, but none of this is neutral of what orangemarlin is doing, calling his book crap is not neutral. can u imagine if i went over to mainstream evolutionists article and called his book crap or silly? i would be blocked, or banned. and Hrafn you are not neutral, you just want the article deleted thats why you are not helping out with the sources. nobody minds u guys being fundimental evolutionists but when u edit wiki u have to make it neutral. nobody is trying to push any fringe theories here. senapathy is a scientist who is not a creationist or an intelligent design proponent. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 86.10.119.131: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." -- WP:TALK. The world is full of self-published books promoting fringe claims. This means that many people have very low opinions of them -- and some will call them "crap". Live with it. I have seen nothing to date to indicate that this article meets either WP:GNG or WP:PROF -- which means that my provisional opinion is yes this article should be deleted. You are welcome to prove me wrong by finding substantial coverage published in reliable third-party sources, however. Oh, and calling people "fundimental [sic] evolutionists" (or similar) will generally be taken as an admission that your pet idea is pseudoscience that lacks sufficient evidence to be taken seriously by the scientific community. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Hrafn you do not have a phd in molecular biology and you have never studied genomic data, Senapathy does and has. Id rather listen to Senapathy and his scientific work he is qualified, you are not authority on the origins of life or evolution, the only reason you don't like this article and want it deleted is becuase senapathy has evidence which has contradicted and disproven the modern evolutionary synthesis. Science is not static. I will continue to find sources for this article becuase i am a neutral editor, however if the article is deleted, it is deleted. But calling senapathys book crap, deleting sources on purpose and attacking senapathy claims just becuase they disagree with your own views is not moral and it is against wiki policy, it isnt neutral. I have reported orangemarlin and an admin is looking into this. No need to continue this debate.86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Shorter 86.10.119.131: "Senapathy says it, I believe it, that settles it." The trouble is that Wikipedia doesn't believe in science that hasn't been published in peer-reviewed sources (see WP:SCIRS, cited above). Either cite RELIABLE sources or hold your peace. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Hrafn you seem to try and act like a admin on wiki, you have no authority on he so who cares about your or my opinions or any our opinions, a real Admin needs to look over the page, that is what i have asked for, becuase some of the sources were/are reliable. Orangemarlin deleted a source on purpose, hes done that twice. I have new sources, but theres no point me putting them up right now, becuase whatever i put up he will delete or say are not valid, he has a personal bias against senapathy and his work. That is why, waiting til an admin looks at this and gives his opinions, no point in continueng any of this until an admin tells us what he/she thinks. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

H-index?

What is Senapathy's H-index? I can see that he is cited somewhat on Scholar. Silverseren^C 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI

I notice that Rahulr7 just signed his last post "rahul regula". Would this happen to be the same "Rahul Regula' 'pati'" who has co-authored a number of papers with Senapathy? If so, this user has a clear WP:COI, and should not have created this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is the same person. The user had authored 1 publication with P Senapathy, and not a number of papers, while working under him as an intern during his undergrad days. If that amounts to a COI, then I wish to withdraw from this debate. Rahulr7 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then please withdraw from editing the article. If you have something to add here, please do, but it will be weighed against what may be a bias. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

but stay involved with the talk page and FIND WHERE SOMEONE ELSE TALKS ABOUT HIM AND HIS WORK!!!!!--Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Revised version of the article with comprehensive set of references

I have come up with a revised version of the article with a full set of third party references. Please go through it and if it is appropriate, please replace the existing page with this one.

Periannan Senapathy is a molecular biologist and genome researcher. He is the president and scientific director of Genome International Corportion in Madison, Wisconsin, which develops bioinformatics and next-generation sequencing technologies, products and services. He has developed a model on the origin of introns and the split structure of genes that shows how and why the coding sequences of eukaryotic genes are split and why the exons are very short and introns are very long (1-4). Consistent with this random-sequence origin of split gene (ROSG) model, he has also proposed a model for the origin of eukaryotic splice signals. Senapathy’s discoveries have corroborated this model that the splice signals of eukaryotic genes must have originated from the stop codons that bordered the ORFs in pre-biotic random genetic sequences (1-4). These models predict that the earliest life forms were highly complex and contained split genes rather than being simple containing contiguous genes as in the bacterial genomes. As predicted, recent genome research have shown that the earliest life forms must have been highly complex and eukaryotic and not simple and prokaryotic as conventionally believed (5-21). Furthermore, Senapathy’s ROSG theory has gained strong support, utility and corroboration in post-genomic findings (see for example, 22-26).

The Senapathy models on introns, split genes and splice signals have enabled the development of algorithms for identifying split genes from eukaryotic genomic DNA sequences (27-29). These algorithms and methods enabled a computational platform for the identification of the deleterious mutations in splice junctions causing numerous human diseases including cancer. Nearly 2000 studies have used the platform methods for identifying splicing mutations that lead to cryptic splice sites that are the cause of genetic diseases including cancer (e.g., 30-35),

Senapathy is also the author of Independent Birth of Organisms (1994), which proposes a new theory about the origin and diversity of life based on the ROSG model (36). By showing that it was easy for split genes encoding highly complex and sophisticated proteins to have simply occurred within a miniscule amount of pre-biotic genetic sequences, he has shown that eukaryotic genomes could be self-assembled directly from pre-biotic chemistry. Recent findings from comparative genomics of dozens of sequenced genomes are providing strong support and corroboration to his studies. The Parallel Genome Assembly (PGA) model that he has proposed shows how multiple eukaryotic genomes could originate from the common pool of indigenously occurring pre-biotic split genes leading to the mosaic gene distribution that are found across the extant life forms, which is posing a conundrum for the conventional theory of evolution.

Before becoming president of Genome International Corporation, Senapathy worked for the National Institutes of Health's Division of Computer Research and Technology in Bethesda, Maryland, and the Biotechnology Center of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

REFERENCES

1. P. Senapathy, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83, 2133 (Apr, 1986).

2. P. Senapathy, Science 268(5215),1366-7 (1995).

3. R. Regulapati, A. Bhasi, C. K. Singh, P. Senapathy, PLoS One 3, e3456 (2008).

4. P. Senapathy, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85, 1129 (Feb, 1988).

5. C. P. Ponting, R. R. Russell, Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 31, 45 (2002).

6. C. A. Orengo, J. M. Thornton, Annu Rev Biochem 74, 867 (2005).

7. R. L. Marsden et al., Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361, 425 (Mar 29, 2006).

8. G. Caetano-Anolles, M. Wang, D. Caetano-Anolles, J. E. Mittenthal, Biochem J 417, 621 (Feb 1, 2009).

9. C. G. Kurland, B. Canback, O. G. Berg, Biochimie 89, 1454 (Dec, 2007).

10. N. Glansdorff, Mol Microbiol 38, 177 (Oct, 2000).

11. M. Wang, L. S. Yafremava, D. Caetano-Anolles, J. E. Mittenthal, G. Caetano-Anolles, Genome Res 17, 1572 (Nov, 2007).

12. S. Yang, R. F. Doolittle, P. E. Bourne, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102, 373 (Jan 11, 2005).

13. B. Labedan et al., J Mol Evol 49, 461 (Oct, 1999).

14. G. Caetano-Anolles, D. Caetano-Anolles, Genome Res 13, 1563 (Jul, 2003).

15. P. Forterre et al., Biosystems 28, 15 (1992).

16. R. L. Sherrer, P. O'Donoghue, D. Soll, Nucleic Acids Res 36, 1247 (Mar, 2008).

17. P. Alifano et al., Microbiol Rev 60, 44 (Mar, 1996).

18. A. Habenicht, U. Hellman, R. Cerff, J Mol Biol 237, 165 (Mar 18, 1994).

19. N. Benachenhou-Lahfa, P. Forterre, B. Labedan, J Mol Evol 36, 335 (Apr, 1993).

20. B. Labedan, Y. Xu, D. G. Naumoff, N. Glansdorff, Mol Biol Evol 21, 364 (Feb, 2004).

21. O. Kandler, in Early Life on Earth. (Columbia University Press, New York, 1994), vol. 8, pp. 152-160.

22. M.W. McCoy, A.P. Allen, and J.F. Gillooly, PLOS ONE 4:e6456 (2009)

23. F. Catania, X. Gao and D.G. Scofield, J. Heredity, 100:591-596 (2009)

24. X. Hong, D.G. Scofield and M. Lynch, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23:2392-2404 (2006)

25. T. Shah, E. de Villiers, V. Nene, et al., GENE, 366:104-108 (2006)

26. C. A. Ouzounis and A. Valencia, Bioinformatics, 19:2176-2190 (2003)

27. P. Senapathy, Shapiro M.B. and N.L. Harris. Methods Enzymol. 183:252-78 (1990)

28. N.L. Harris and P. Senapathy, Nucleic Acids Res. 18(10):3015-9 (1990)

29. M.B. Shapiro and Senapathy P., Nucleic Acids Res. 15(17):7155-74 (1987)

30. B. Betz, S. Theiss, Aktas M, et al., Journal of Cancer Research an Clinical Oncology, 136: 123-134 (2010)

31. S.D. Ke and L.A. Chasin, Genome Biology, 11:R84 (2010)

32. P. Divina, A. Kvitkovicova, E. Buratti, et al., European Journal of Human Genetics, 17:759-765 (2009)

33. F.O. Desmet, D. Hamroun, M. Lalande M, et al., Nucleic Acids Research, 37:e67 (2009)

34. K. Nozu, K. Iijima, K. Kawai, et al., Human Genetics, 126:533-538 (2009)

35. C. Rivers, A. Flynn, XX. Qian, et al., Endocrinology, 150:4958-4967 (2009).

36. P. Senapathy, Independent Birth of Organisms. (Genome Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1994).

Rahulr7 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are any of these work by someone other than Dr. S that discusses him and/or his work? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As an example, "M.B. Shapiro and Senapathy P., Nucleic Acids Res. 15(17):7155-74 (1987)" has been cited over 300 times in various scientific publications.

Contrary to what may have been expressed above, Senapathy is the corresponding author for this publication. This can be inferred from the fact that there is another publication related to this subject authored by Senapathy (N.L. Harris and P. Senapathy, Nucleic Acids Res. 18(10):3015-9 (1990)) but not by Shapiro. A review (P. Senapathy, Shapiro M.B. and N.L. Harris. Methods Enzymol. 183:252-78 (1990)) which has all three authors (Senapathy, Shapiro and Harris) refers to Senapathy's theories shows that Senapathy was the senior author and the manager/director of the heavily cited study.

• Refs 22 - 26, above, all refer to Senapathy's theory on the origin of introns.
• Ref 22 can be found here
• Ref 23 can be found here
• Ref 24, can be found here
• Ref 25, can be found here(subscription required)
• Ref 26, can be found here^{[Website appears to dislike Firefox -- try IE instead]}

In particular, Catania's publication (Ref 23), dedicated an entire paragraph within their publication to Senapathy's theory. Micheal Lynch (ref 24) uses Senapathy's theory as the primary reference paper for the intron-loss theory, putting it on par with theories of Walter Gilbert and Scott Roy, Doolittle etc.

In addition, as mentioned above, Refs 27-29, also refer to Senapathy's models and Ref 30-25 use Senapathy's platform methods in their respective publications.

Also, as was pointed earlier in the article, Senapathy's name figures prominently in various New Scientist articles including

• NewScientist1
• NewScientist2
• NewScientist3

Rahulr7 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I could only get access to the first three of 22-26. Of them two only cite Senapathy (McCoy as one of two citations for "In the exponential distribution λ_R is the probability that a given nucleotide triplet is a stop codon", Lynch as one of four citations for "The subsequent loss of introns in pro-karyotes alone then occurred through selection for more streamlined genes and genomes"). Only Catania et al appears to discuss Senapathy's model in any depth -- and appear to give equal consideration to Dibb's 'proto-splice site model'. It is therefore difficult to see how these sources support a statement that "Furthermore, Senapathy’s ROSG theory has gained strong support, utility and corroboration in post-genomic findings" without considerable WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 26 is also available at the link given above. It cites Gilbert's (Nobel laureate) and Senapathy's papers for theories on introns. The citation by Lynch is notable since it uses Senapathy's theory as one of the four main research papers on the theory of intron-loss (There are primarily two thoughts on the history of introns - intron-early and intron-late). Senapathy's theory is used as one of the primary reference paper when talking about intron loss originating from the intron-early model. For Ref 25, sciencedirect login is required.
• As also mentioned above, Refs 30-35 all cite Senapathy's models. As an example, if you look at Ref 30, which can be found here; quoting from the publication: "The most frequently quoted Shapiro & Senapathy (S&S) score independently weights individual bases in 5� or 3�ss according to their position-speciWc frequency, thus measuring a splice site’s similarity to a given motif of corresponding ss". The publication discusses Senapathy's paper at length using S&S model as a primary tool. It is also a very recent publication, as recent as 2010, using the model developed by Senapathy and Shapiro way back in 1986, showing that the model is still being used prominently. As mentioned earlier, the paper by Shapiro and Senapathy has been cited more than 300 times.
• Ref 31 can be found here. This paper also uses S&S tool as a primary tool for computing splice site scores.
• Ref 32 can be found here
• Ref 33 can be found here. Again, this uses matrices developed by Shapiro and Senapathy and cites, both this publication and the other one by Senapathy and Harris.
• Ref 34 can be found here needs springerlink login
• Ref 35 can be found here Again, uses S&S scores as primary tools
• Another thing notable, while Senapathy developed the S&S score and models way back in 1986, they are still being used (as late as in 2010 publications), showing the relevance of these tools in the context of modern biology.

Rahulr7 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• All of this appears to be WP:Synthesis, lacking WP:SECONDARY sources that interpret these citations and explain how they indicate how Senapathy affected these articles. It is not Wikipedia's task to perform this analysis for itself -- that is original research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. I don't think this is WP:Synthesis, and in my humble opinion should qualify under WP:SECONDARY. Would like to have a second opinion on this from another editor. Rahulr7 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just my opinion here, but I think that it's usually better to have a small well-cited page than a large page covered in maintenance templates. It may not be a bad idea to trim this down to just a paragraph or two and re-add the extra information when there's a consensus about the acceptability of the sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Rahulr7, we need to take a step backwards and redefine what we need for this article and how to properly present it. Assuming the article is not deleted, the page should be re-worked to look something like this:

1. intro
2. biography/education
3. notable works
4. references

The most difficult thing will be to properly discuss the notable works. We can cite Senapathy directly for the explanations and his perceived implications regarding what he has published, but we must cite only independent, secondary sources to contextualize the relevance and impact of his work. Thus, for a statement such as "Senapathy’s ROSG theory has gained strong support, utility and corroboration in post-genomic findings", there needs to be an independent source, preferably a review article, that directly asserts this claim, otherwise it is original research. Furthermore, while some of Senapathy’s intron computational work may be widely cited, it is absolutely necessary to properly present any non-consensus views within the field at large. PGA, for example, is decidedly counter to the mainstream and probably qualifies for WP:FRINGE considerations. — Scientizzle 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)