Talk:Omics

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	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 has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Broken link

Removed Omics.org — The -omics wiki from links as it opens a blank page. --apers0n 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

(was Merge -ome?) Would -ome be better off merged here, since this has plenty of content already? My impression is that most -omes will have an -omics, and vice versa. - IMSoP 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! There is no reason at all to have separate pages for omics and omes. Any ome will have a corresponding omics. Fences and windows (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea 129.215.113.37 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-omics and Nonsensomics

The statement "For example, translationomics does not have any distincive value at the moment while it should correspond to transcriptomics." is wrong and should be removed. There are a lot of DNA sequences which are transcribed but do not code for proteins (e.g. siRNAs, miRNAs, snoRNAs). Thus the translationome doesn't correspond to the transcriptome.

--84.75.156.125 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV, Original research and unsourced statements

This article contains many statements with strong claims of "firsts", "early" events and so on. Much of it is not sourced and seems to present POV original research. I've tagged a good deal of what needs to be fixed, but overall, I don't think the article makes a strong enough case even for the idea that omics is a word (as opposed to the ending -omics). -Harmil 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy edit

This page was full of unreferenced statements, speculation, waffle and was badly written and organised. I have slashed through it with a machete - hopefully it actually reads well now, and the excess content has been removed. Fences and windows (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative explanation and related suffix

Since reference 2 is a link to a database, it's hard to verify that it really rules out the proposed meaning of the suffix. One example of -ome indicating something related to "collection of" is rhizome which the dictionaries state was a word first used in 1845 and derived from the greek word rhizōma meaning "mass of tree roots". It depends on rhizoun meaning "cause to strike root" and rhiza meaning "root".

In any case, the omics-issue has a possible parallell in the use of the -oma suffix in medicine [1]. It is claimed that it was derived in a similar way from the word carcinoma. The pages on helkôma [2] and helkos [3] may offer some further clues to someone more versed in grammar than myself. :-) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move. Note that the question of deletion, as raised below, is beyond the scope of the RM process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-omics → Omics — The sources referenced and some of the external links use the spelling Omics. This spelling is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, which generally discourage non-alphanumeric characters and prefer initial capital letters. It also draws attention to the phenomenon among biologists, as opposed to discussing the suffix as a suffix. (That is already handled at Wiktionary.) Omics is currently a redirect to -omics. Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Well said.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support, from me too. Also, we need to establish WP:NOTE for this. It may be a case where "transwikiing" to wiktionary may be a good solution. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- after looking into this, I come to the conclusion that the case is complex enough to justify a full article, and that transwikification is therefore not advisable. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - After looking into this article which is based around a lexicographic pattern, this article meets the criteria for the wiktionary, and fails to meet that for the wikipedia, so copying this information to the wiktionary, followed by removal of the article here is essential whether it is 'advisable' or not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - um, wheredo you get the idea that articles on lexicography "fail to meet the criteria for the wikipedia"? Wikipedia's scope is universal. We canrry articles on anything provided only the topic is notable wthin its respective field. In the case of lexicographic topics, "notable" within lexicographic literature. Your suggestion that "lexicographic, therefore transwiki" based on a clear misconception of Wikipedia's scope. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where do you get the idea that it is allowed? There is NO policy that it is allowed, and the scope of the wikipedia is not universal. There are long lists of things that are not permitted here, including dictionary articles. Please give an example of another encyclopedia that actually has articles on specific suffixes. There are none at all that I am aware of, not one- Encyclopedia Britannica certainly doesn't. All the references from all of the suffix articles in the wikipedia (and there are few of those) contain references to dictionaries; that's because dictionaries nearly always permit suffixes and prefixes. 'THE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cistromics

Consider adding cistromics to this page - the 'omics technique that measures genome wide DNA sequence occupancy by a specific trans-acting transcriptional regulatory factor - either a transcription factor or enzyme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.96.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False etymology

The statement "The association with chromosome in molecular biology is by false etymology" looks dubious to me. Since the modern productivity of -omics in medical and biological sciences seems to bear little relationship to classical Greek grammar, it will be difficult to say there was not a particular route. I cannot see a source which says the combination of chromosome and gene to give genome did not happen, and plenty which say it did. The -ics extension to genomics is a standard adaptation and all the others seem to then be modelled on that. 09:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1482:A100:F4C4:EABC:3035:E0F6 (talk)

-omics VS Omics

Is this suffix really talked about in general terms as "Omics", or is it just a suffix? It seems to me that the more appropriate title (some 12 years later) is in fact -omics. I don't know much about the topic, and am a mere passer-by, seeking to make suffix articles consistent. Please inform me if I am on the wrong track. — HTGS (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Omics

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Omics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Berg2020":

From Plant microbiome: Berg, Gabriele; Daria Rybakova, Doreen Fischer, Tomislav Cernava, Marie-Christine Champomier Vergès, Trevor Charles, Xiaoyulong Chen, Luca Cocolin, Kellye Eversole, Gema Herrero Corral, Maria Kazou, Linda Kinkel, Lene Lange, Nelson Lima, Alexander Loy, James A. Macklin, Emmanuelle Maguin, Tim Mauchline, Ryan McClure, Birgit Mitter, Matthew Ryan, Inga Sarand, Hauke Smidt, Bettina Schelkle, Hugo Roume, G. Seghal Kiran, Joseph Selvin, Rafael Soares Correa de Souza, Leo van Overbeek, Brajesh K. Singh, Michael Wagner, Aaron Walsh, Angela Sessitsch and Michael Schloter (2020) "Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges". Microbiome, 8(103): 1–22. doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
From Microbiome: Berg, Gabriele; Rybakova, Daria; Fischer, Doreen; Cernava, Tomislav; Vergès, Marie-Christine Champomier; Charles, Trevor; Chen, Xiaoyulong; Cocolin, Luca; Eversole, Kellye; Corral, Gema Herrero; Kazou, Maria; Kinkel, Linda; Lange, Lene; Lima, Nelson; Loy, Alexander; MacKlin, James A.; Maguin, Emmanuelle; Mauchline, Tim; McClure, Ryan; Mitter, Birgit; Ryan, Matthew; Sarand, Inga; Smidt, Hauke; Schelkle, Bettina; Roume, Hugo; Kiran, G. Seghal; Selvin, Joseph; Souza, Rafael Soares Correa de; Van Overbeek, Leo; et al. (2020). "Microbiome definition re-visited: Old concepts and new challenges". Microbiome. 8 (1): 103. doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0. PMC 7329523. PMID 32605663.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]