Talk:Xeroderma pigmentosum

correction, and addition

The DNA is actually excised by endonucleases, not exonucleases. I'm not going to change it because I don't have a specific reference confirming it. Exonucleases actually remove from the ends of DNA strands, whereas endonucleases cut phosphodiester bonds inside DNA strands (which is what is needed for excision). In prokaryotes, the mechanism for this excision repair is that the uvrABCendonuclease nicks the DNA strand on either end of the pyrimidine dimer, and a specialized helicase (not the same helicase that participates in replication) breaks the Hydrogen bonds holding the nicked portion to the other strand. DNA Polymerase then replaces the nucleotides starting at the 3' end of the excision. Ligase connects the final phosphodiester bond and completes the repair. XP is a result from mutation of the helicase, or one of the uvr genes. I've been told that the mechanism is nearly identical in eukaryotes (the names of the endonuclease is different I believe).

Comment

this disease would suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.68.181.1 (talk • contribs)

Symptoms?

Why are no symptoms found on this page? Sure, skin cancer... but that's not the only symptom. Do people with XP have any reactions to sunlight like burning of the skin, getting dizzy, etc? Surely there must be a source somewhere that gives some actual useful information to the common, everyday person. Vancar 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And article should mention about not being able to watch television, sit in front of computer monitors? Tempshill 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think the merger makes very much sense; presumably the enzyme is involved in more than this disease. -- Visviva 07:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Against merge. According to the XPB page, this isn't the only disorder that can arise from it... thence, it can't be merged to this page alone. 24.126.199.129 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Camp Sundown

i think there should be more camp sundowns across the country because not many people who live in the country like the eastern shore of virginia or in virgina areas or maryland would be able to go or if they should go then they should at least by the person a plane ticket to go out to camp sundown because most parents of children who has xp might not afford it and its the only time the children gets to interact with children their age and with the same problems they have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.145.82 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

Why is there a redirect from Sun Allergy to this page? 83.70.41.4 10:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Rash --apers0n 12:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ahdayldhlhyflihalhfiayfhd

Popular Culture

what is the treatment the treatment is just being yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.145.82 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2001 film The Others

The popular culture section of the page includes the two children in the Nicole Kidman film 'The Others, yet they never explicitly identify the condition. They always refer to it as photosensitivity. Should it be removed? Or is this disease the only possible one given the symptoms in the movie? Alan daniel (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Unreffed trivia

This is unreferenced trivia. The society and culture section is to discuss popular culture that has had an effect on the condition itself. It is not simple a list of tv shows or books that mention X or Y in passing. These can go in the articles themselves.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing two different things. "In popular culture" is not the same as "Society and culture". Other medical articles that contain "In popular culture" sections include Brucellosis and Medical students' disease. Also see Progeria, which features a "Society and culture" section separated into two: "notable cases" and "popular culture". If you want to talk about popular culture that has had an effect on the condition itself, that's for a "notable cases" section. "Popular culture" is totally valid on its own as evidenced by other WP articles on similar subjects, as well as across the encyclopedia in general. I suggest you brush up on WP:WPPC, especially this part: "If material is verifiable, neutral, and well-organized, we feel deleting it is an inappropriate act -- an expression of personal distaste not in keeping with the goal of creating the world's best encyclopedia."

If you want to discuss the removal of these pop culture instances because of their lack of references, that's fine, which is why I added the notice template for adding references to them and also linked to WP:NOCITE in my edit reverting your removal. We can spend the time to find those references. But your personal opinion on what should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia isn't grounds for removal, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~SlyCooperFan1 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Trivia "Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial". We do not collect lists of passing mentions of diseases in tv shows or books within the disease articles themselves. Yes it is done but it does not mean we should do more of it. Will ask for further input at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If you read a little bit further, nothing in the rest of that guideline suggests total removal of all pop culture references as you did. Instead, it suggests ways to improve the section, especially by making it more encyclopedic with proper references (hence my addition of the template) and in a paragraph format rather than a list. I did mess up, I should have used {{In popular culture}} instead of {{Refimprove section}} to explain that need, but none of that justifies total and instantaneous removal.

As for further input from WT:MED, you may want to look back on a discussion you yourself initiated at WT:MED two years ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 81#Referencing popular culture in medical articles / Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ~SlyCooperFan1 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the comments was "If a RS indicates that a mention on House is notable, then include it." What we need is good refs to verify that these are notable. They can site on the talk page until someone gets around to finding any if they exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Doc James puts it very well. These are not for indiscriminate lists of mentions of a disease. If coverage is meaningful we can probably get a secondary source to comment on it, and why it is meaningful. Just for a top of my head example: American psycho and psychopathy, where a number of academic and journalistic articles have been written. That so and so had XP in that in that episode of Law and Order is frankly not only irrelevant but extremely uninteresting. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed with Doc James and CFCF: some appearances of a disease in fiction or popular culture are notable, but most aren't. We should aggressively trim lists like above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of such things, but blanking all but one looks like overkill. Sure, passing mentions should be stripped. But a large number of these aren't passing mentions. For example, I've just restored another documentary (non-fiction film) about XP. For many of the fictional works, XP is a key plot element. (Also: we don't need "academic" sources. Journalistic ones are sufficient. We do want substantial, non-routine ones.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

List of trivia

In the direct-to-video 1988 film, The Dark Side of the Sun, Brad Pitt plays the main character who has XP. In the Channel 4 series Ultraviolet, one of the humans is mistaken for a vampire because he avoids sunlight, when in fact he has XP. In the series Baywatch of 1989, in the season 9 episode Castles in the Sand, a young boy with XP comes to the beach only at night making amazing sandcastles. Christopher Snow in Dean Koontz's Moonlight Bay Trilogy has XP. The Japanese release of the 1999 video game Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere presented a character named Rena Hirose who had "Silverstone Disease", the game's fictional name for XP. Luke in the 2002 novel Going Out by Scarlett Thomas has XP. In the 2001 film The Others, the two children, Anne and Nicholas, have XP. In the 2003 novel Second Glance by Jodi Picoult, Ethan Wakeman, the 9-year-old nephew of Ross Wakeman (the main protagonist) has XP. The 2003 Angela Johnson novel, A Cool Moonlight, centers on a girl who has XP and can never be in the sun. The family has gone to drastic measures to help make her life easier, and to make her feel like a normal 8-year-old. The 2006 Japanese drama "Taiyou no uta" (A Song to the Sun) centers around a girl with XP who dreams of being a singer. The 2006 German film Mondscheinkinder (Children of the Moonlight) features 12-year-old Lisa who creates a fantasy world for her 6-year-old brother Paul, who has XP and cannot leave the house. Their special relationship is threatened when Lisa gets her first boyfriend, facing her with hard choices. The Spanish film "Eskalofrío" or "Shiver" released in 2008 featured a main character named Santi who is ostracized as has XP. The 2010 book The Lucifer Code, the second book in the Thomas Lourds series, features a character named Bradley Soames who has XP. Soames wears a protective suit complete with mask, hood and heavily tinted lenses in order to venture outdoors. The 2011 film La permission de minuit by French director Delphine Gleize centers on a teenage boy with XP. The 2012 documentary "Sun Kissed" explores the XP problem on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The 2013 young adult novel What We Saw at Night by Jacquelyn Mitchard tells the story of three teenagers who have XP, go out only when dark and witness something strange one night. The 2013 middle grade novel "Doom & Gloom" by M. J. Shaughnessy tells the story of a twelve-year-old boy who has wears a protective solar suit and becomes a superhero because of his XP. The 2014 adult fiction book The Deepest Secret by Carla Buckley tells the story of a mother with a son who has XP and the lengths she will go to in order to protect him from a crisis that threatens to tear the community apart. The 2014 book Night Vision by Ella West tells the story of a girl who has XP who sees something at night on her parents' farm that gets her into a lot of trouble. In the 2016 horror film Lights Out, the villain, Diana had this condition. She was killed when the doctors at the mental institution she and Sophie stayed at tried treating the condition, but it went awry. In the 2017 Marvel blockbuster Logan, the conclusion to Hugh Jackman's performance as Wolverine, the character Caliban exhibits symptoms of XP upon torture by the Reavers, thus explaining the usage in the movie of the saying, "Beware of the light." In the Criminal Minds episode "Hell's Kitchen", the antagonist has XP and believes blood transfusions from his victims will cure him. In the 2018 film Midnight Sun, Bella Thorne plays a girl that has XP. The character experiences neurological decline after minimal exposure to sunlight. Neurological decline does occur in about 25% of XP patients; however, this is not thought to be due to sun exposure, and does not happen as rapidly as depicted in the film. References

• • this is just cruft. Let's keep pop culture over there in pop culture, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • MEDMOS doesn't ban ==Popular culture== sections. In fact, it recommends them: "Avoid lists of trivia by working these tidbits of information into the main body text. Sections on history or on popular culture may help to structure such factoids." That probably means a sentence or two that says this rare disease appears in popular literature (i.e., not providing a long list of individual works), and also keeping the descriptions of the non-fiction works that you blanked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

One person in 370 is affected in India? Seems false; too high a prevalence. Good sources?

I noticed that the mentioned prevalence for India is 1 per 370, this seems wildly excessive. Are there any good sources? The footnoted source doesn't open for me. --CopperKettle (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This also seems to conflict with the worldwide statistic; if 1 in 370 people India had this condition, more than 1 in 100,000 would have it worldwide. Hopefully someone will find better statistics for this. AsyncBanana (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sir know cases usually are from specific cites/villages and in most of India you won't find it. There are cases not more than 100 which have been reported so far in my knowledge, I am a Med student.

So a British news don't know statistics. 14:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these two data just totally contradicts to each other. Ratio of world to India population is 5.72. So if in India the ratio of this disease is 1:370, then in worldwide the ratio is at least 1:370/5.72=1:2116. Way larger than the indicated global 1:100000. To tell the truth I have not seen larger totally fake data on Wikipedia so far. This is really sad and raising many red flags for me about the quality. 82.131.134.8 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)