Talk:Mendelian traits in humans

	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 Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddixon21, Jack Gehrin123, Gmrgeek10, Josborn51, Cesar.Galvan.22. Peer reviewers: Mora217.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older comments[edit]

think there should be single page listing all those congenital conditions believed to be inheritable and based on a simple, Mendelian dominance relationship, making them easier to find.

Now that its seems to be established that this page is in fact useful - does anybody think we still need to spell it all out verbatim or could we skip the intro, possibly shifting some or all of it to the really relevant pages?--Cancun771 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about other supposedly mendelian human traits like long palmar muscle, ability to smell freesias, dichromacy (colourblindness), blue skin colour (diaphorase definciency as in the Fugate family)? Do they belong here Zagubov 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "supposedly" =8-)--Cancun771 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list[edit]

The article said "list of mendelian traits" but there is no actual list. Why is Wikipedia lying to me? -112.207.12.170 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freckles[edit]

I removed freckles from the list. The OMIM entry itself for the gene associated with this trait reports, "Carriers of 1 or 2 MC1R gene variants had a 3- and 11-fold increased risk of developing ephelides" (if it were dominant then heterozygotes would have roughly the same increase as homozygotes), and, "The population attributable risk for ephelides to MC1R gene variants was 60%", i.e. MC1R isn't even the only gene the affects this trait. --Matstuff (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington's disease[edit]

I also removed HD. While it is very definitely autosomal dominant (albeit with some incomplete penetrance around the pathogenic threshold for CAG repeats), HD is not a 'trait'; no other Mendelian diseases are listed here. --Matstuff (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiker's thumb[edit]

The list says Hitchhiker's thumb is a recessive Mendelian Trait. Both of my parents have it, I have it, but my sister does not. How is this possible? Should I take Hitchhiker's thumb off the list? Us441 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page needs to be re-assessed. Please consider that there seems to be dispute about the degree to which ANY of these traits are simple dominant/recessive inheritance patterns. See http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.12.204 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PTC[edit]

The first trait on the list, ability to taste polywhatchumacallit, I don't think is Mendelian. I have seen on reliable sources that not tasting it is recessive, but I know a family where both parents can't taste it, but all three children can.Us441 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the trait probably isn't Mendelian, but it is close to being one - I added a reference from Myths of Human Genetics which explains the situation. --B82mo (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlobes[edit]

Two brothers in my family tree both have unattatched earlobes, but their parents both have the recessive attatched lobes, like I do. Us441 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Us441, all the genetics that has been done on these traits over the years could be wrong... However, it seems much more likely that you know a large number of cuckolded males.139.70.4.133 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eye colour[edit]

list of factual references for proof of polygenic eye colour

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?227240

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?227220

http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/feb98/888162819.Ge.r.html

http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/forums/anatomy/eyes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.73.173 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACHOO syndrome[edit]

I have no particular insight as to whether ACHOO syndrome is Mendelian, but its article clearly implies that it is. Stevvers (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a lot of information that is just wrong.[edit]

For starters, have a look at this nicely written article: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html Baziliscus (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article provided is referenced for the formerly thought to be mendelian traits, but the current ones also exist within that article as not true mendelian traits. the page shouldn't be linked to with the conflicting information it currently possesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.177.133 (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 75.247.245.248 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABO[edit]

Why isn't blood type here? 122.149.19.15 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Write it in.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I added two images but they do not look place correctly. Sorry.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outline for improvement[edit]

1. A lot of the incorrect and confusing material is an attempt to paraphrase the contents of the Mendelian inheritance article. The solution is just to delete all this paraphrasing and let the Mendelian inheritance article do all the explaining.

2. The attempt to differentiate trait from disease is very tricky and subjective. In some cases, it is contentious or even political. For example, some advocacy groups push for a given bioentity to be seen as a disease while others may push for that bioentity to be seen as a trait. See the thread about HD above, for example. This article could conceivably address that tension directly, neutrally, and balanced. However, it is better to leave this discussion for the Phenotypic trait article. Keep the lede very simple, and shunt all discussion to more appropriate articles that have better (more editors, more eyeballs) editing.

3. The concept of Mendelian inheritance is a Platonic ideal. No trait is 100% purely Mendelian, and the reverse is probably also true - every trait probably has a genetic component from at least one variant inherited approximately according to Mendel's Laws. So it will be difficult to create a list of traits that is both comprehensive and specific and that will please all editors and readers. For this article, it may be best to list canonical examples. And for those that have nuanced criteria, to try to include a few sentences about these caveats for inclusion. Jaredroach (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL; surely anyone can do better than, "no trait is purely Mendelian ... Purely Mendelian traits are a minority of all traits," Sadsaque (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]