This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
A lot of this draft is very useful. The main problem is it's hard to tell which aspects are original reserach and which not. Also, within the original reserach, soe is non-controversial (e.g. summarising established transcript variants from NCBI) whereas some is more highly speculative and would require detailed methods sections if submitted to a research journal. The first aspects that come to mind are:A) the upstreeam sequence structural prediction using ITASSER - accurate de novo prediciont is a notoriously difficult task and you can't just stick any sequence in ITASSER or SWISSMODEL and trust any output, so way more detail would be needed on steps taken, accurracy adsessments etc. B) The phylogeny in File:Phylogenetic_tree.png, is it neighbour joiining, Max likelihood, Bayesian; on what portionas of teh sequenecs; using what substitutiona model; amino acid or nucleotide; how many bootstraps etc. To summarise: Either the original research needs to be stripped out or referencded to a research paper that estabilishes that it's been accurately and robustly done. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk07:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
