Talk:Pioneer factor

upgrades March 2017

Hi. I (and hopefully others!) am going to be upgrading this article. I'll be doing it at User:DennisPietras/sandbox5 if you want to keep an eye on the progress and/or join the fun! DennisPietras (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am done, IMHO, with the text as I envision it as of 3/14/17. Please review and/or edit User:DennisPietras/sandbox5 if you have time and let's try to reach a consensus on what the wp page should be, before transfering the sandbox to the mainspace. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

_{@Slashme, Evolution and evolvability, and Boghog:}

new lead done, IMHO, and waiting for comments/corrections

Hi again! I've got a new 2 paragraph lead with diagram at User:DennisPietras/sandbox5. A few special comments-

• I know the figure of a nucleosome could be better, but my feeling is that very few readers will catch the inconsistency of the wrapping.
• I used an atypical depiction of compacted chromatin because, although it is debateable, in my review of articles and Carl Wu's video presentation it seems that the canonical view of the 30 nm fiber is next to the grave, with the plus strand of DNA hanging over the edge and the minus strand on a banana peel.
• Melbourne132 (who has apparently fallen into the grave since I mentioned the account at the teahouse) went way too far in describing what the original 2002 paper showed, so I scaled that back.
• Mel changed ===Chromatin unwinding by fork head=== to ===Active rearrangement=== in March 2013. That "Active rearrangement" in the absence of ATP use was just bizzare, and I wonder how it could have remained for 4 years! I'll be changng it, but I'm not entirely sure how at this moment.
• If you look closely at references 2 and 7 you'll see that I did something different. If you click on the title in my reference 2 construction, you go directly to the pdf, whereas in number 7 you don't. If number 2 needs to be changed per some wp policy, go ahead.

Thanks for any comments. DennisPietras (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC) _{@Slashme, Evolution and evolvability, and Boghog:}

I think it's fine to make these changes to the article in mainspace. Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect; the text is clearly better, and we'll have nicer pics soon anyway. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll wait a bit for more comments, etc. I couldn't sleep right or fully enjoy peanuts without having H1's on the diagram, so I made and uploaded a new version. DennisPietras (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a violation of wp:synthesis?

Hi again! I've written this paragraph in my sandbox- "FoxA, one of the first named pioneers, is a member of the family of FOX proteins that contain the DNA-binding fork head domain.[d] That domain is similar to part of the "linker" histone H1, and the ability of FoxA to displace H1 is crucial for its pioneering function.[1][e] This displacement is an ATP-independent process.[1] Fork head domains have a segment that confers DNA sequence specificity for binding, unlike linker histone,[7][8], which may explain the lack of ATP energy requirement."

I am concerned about the wp:synthesis policy, which states- "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion,..."

IF I had written "...which does explain the lack of ATP energy requirement.", I believe I would be in violation. Does the use of the word may make the statement OK, or do I need to eliminate the phrase (or clause or whatever - I ain't no Inglish mayjur) "...which may explain the lack of ATP energy requirement" and let the reader make their own connection? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If none of your sources make the connection between the DNA sequence specificity and the lack of ATP requirement, you're quite right: that's synthesis. Certainly the word "may" implies less of a conclusion, but it's still speculation without a source, which is improper in the context of Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Clause removed. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)