Talk:Sex linkage

	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 Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Medicine: Genetics Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.

Untitled[edit]

Thus most individuals with Rett syndrome are females, presumably because the male version is usually not viable.

I removed this sentence because MECP2 mutations are viable in male embryos. I wrote Rett syndrome#Gender and Rett syndrome to deal with this. Out of curiosity, has anyone done an article on embryonic lethality? Thanks, anonymous IP 203.34.41.146 23:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge and rename[edit]

I would like to merge this article with autosomal and re-name it autosomal versus X-linked inheritance. sex linkage, sex chromosome, autosomal chromosome, and autosomal would redirect to autosomal vs X-linked inheritance. Right now, Sex chromosome incorrectly forwards to sex determination system. autosomal dominant is already proposed for a merge into dominance relationship which is where most of it belongs. I'll just take what I need for autosomal vs sex-linked inheritance and put the rest in dominance relationship Dr d12 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) hi ppl!!!![reply]

Merging these articles as proposed seems like a bad idea to me. In the first place, organisms other than humans have letters other than X and Y designating their sex chromosomes. For example, birds use a ZW sex determination system, and many organisms use an XO system, where O stands for the absence of a chromosome. There can be Y-linked inheritance as well. How would we integrate bees, wasps and ants into this system, when a male's genome consists of half of a females autosomes, meaning that all or none of their chromosomes are sex chromosomes? Furthermore, a look at the scientific literature reveals that sex chromosomes are the source of far more richness than just a "versus" the autosomal chromosomes. Webofscience finds 5,228 articles with "x chromosome" in their title, 1,623 articles with "sex chromosome" in their title, and 395 with "autosome" in the title. Only 58 articles use the term x (or sex) chromosome in a title with the term autosome. Speciate 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)speciate[reply]

I don't think there is a real need to merge the articles. They're quite important/individual topics. I think a summary off this could come under the dominance relationship. But no need for merging.Ziphon 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a merger with Sex linkage, X-linked recessive, and X-linked dominant into an article discussing "Sex-linked inheritance"? Medical geneticist (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no. Perhaps a summary article discussing sex linked inheritance might be appropriate but if you merge you'll end up with one of those huge overly complex articles which put off the readers. There is too much info for one mega article IMHO.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a huge mega article should be avoided. However, if you look at each of the individual articles, they are all quite small and are really only informative in the context of each other. Thus the suggestion to merge. And really, the Sex linkage article seems to attempt this but is currently not well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medical geneticist (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense so I'll change my vote to neutral. But it would probably do better with one person doing most of the initial work so as to reduce confusion. If you know what you want you might create a sandbox on your userpage, then build the article there to see if it turns out the way you want it. Then its just a matter of putting it up, getting some help for final edits then fitting in the parts you'd want to move.Trilobitealive (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lfesch-Nhgnyhan sygndrome[edit]

Is this a misspell or does it really exist? I googled it and couldn't find a Lfesch-Nhgnyhan syndrome ... the Nhgnyhan is a surname that's usually spelled Ngnyan Svizac 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

x-linkage figure[edit]

This figure had only one of the pictures before. I added the rest, since they were already on Wikipedia on other pages. There is still no similar figure to graphically explain y-linkage, which would be nice.

I notice that there also exists a similar figure that depicts X-liked recessive (affected father), which is missing from this page. No time now to add, but here it is. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/illustrations/xlinkrecessivefather Mba123 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm commenting the right way in the right place... There seems to be a problem with the picture: given their position on the picture, the ratios (1/2, 1/4) seem to apply to the gametes, but the figures correspond to the offspring. I think it's confusing; could someone correct that, either way? Unautreadrien (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but females affected by an x-linked recessive condition may also be able to procreate, yielding 100% affected male offspring and female offspring that can only either be affected or carriers, would they not? This possibility is not mentioned in the overview along with affected fathers and carrier mothers. 64.206.63.50 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)tiktok[reply]

Besides, the article seems to use the word carrier meaning a carrier which does not display disease symptoms. Which is rather unusual: the definition given by the National Human Genome Research Institute is:

A carrier is an individual who carries and is capable of passing on a genetic mutation associated with a disease and may or may not display disease symptoms. Source: https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Carrier.

This unusual use done in the article may be seen in the excerpt: In X-linked recessive inheritance, a son born to a carrier mother and an unaffected father has a 50% chance of being affected. TeraSibune (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autosomal inheritance[edit]

Why should an article on sex linkage contain a long list of hereditary conditions that are not sex-linked? Any objection to removing these sections? —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to ask that question myself, when I saw your post. I have removed the section. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two different firsts?[edit]

In the subsection "Sex-linked traits in other animals", two different entries are marked as the first sex-linked gene discovered: Drosophila melanogaster and Abraxas grossulariata. This seems like a contradiction that needs fixing or clarifying. Thoughts? JMCorey (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in many months later--no comments received. The latter seems to have been published in 1906 and the former in 1910, so I updated the text to avoid the confusion.

JMCorey (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]