Talk:Maternal effect

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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

	Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Medicine Low‑importance

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think that

You're right. They are distinct phenomena, and the distinction is very important in elucidating how each event happens. I'm changing the article and some of the articles it references to reflect this. GuildNavigator84 12:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I have never seen "maternal effect" used to describe maternal inheritance. I have consulted three authoritative references, and all three distinguish clearly between the two terms. I am going to change the second paragraph to remove this confusing statement.

Bruno in Columbus 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Kirkpatrick and Lande (1989; The Evolution of Maternal Characters. Evolution 43:485-503) separate maternal effects into 2 distinct classes, 1 of which they term "maternal inheritance", the other "maternal selection". I would regard Kirkpatrick and Lande as authoritative authors in this field. Perhaps they use maternal inheritance in a different sense to the references you consulted? HMRaven 06:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about expanding the discussion of paternal effects and moving this page to parental effect? Tim Vickers 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.... is parental effect the best term? Only 10,100 Google hits, as opposed to 240,000 hits for maternal effect and 19,400 hits for paternal effect. Most but by no means all of those seem to be about genetics. I think I'd leave it at maternal effect. (Encouraging that we're top of both of the the last two hit lists.) Andrewa 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Google isn't the best choice to decide on scientific nomenclature. Both maternal and paternal effects are subsets of the larger set of parental effects. Our choices are:

1. Have separate pages on maternal and paternal effects (closely-related subjects with not enough material to justify this at present)
2. Rename page to cover both sets of effects with the broader and more general name.

Tim Vickers 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not deciding scientific nomenclature, that would be

proposed usage

however logical it may seem to us.

So if the page doesn't warrant a split (and I think that to split off a stub to paternal effect would be perfectly OK myself), then it should stay where it is. Andrewa 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor word choice, I mean you can't use the number of Google hits to give an authoritative answer on the correct scientific nomenclature. Google is not a reliable source. The term "parental imprinting" is more widely-used but this is specifically genetic, rather than also including purely environmental influences such as nutrition in the womb. Tim Vickers 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm guessing that you have some expertise in the area, so probably your opinions that parental effect is a good article title and that paternal effect doesn't warrant even a stub are good contributions. But I'd still like some evidence. Andrewa 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paternal effects are known, but are very much rarer than maternal effect genes (see introduction of Genetics paper link), so that topic is always going to be a small sub-set of the larger set of parental effects. Tim Vickers 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. So the justification of renaming an article that is principally about maternal effect to a far less common (to the point of at least borderline neologism) term parental effect, depends on the argument that maternal effect is more significant than paternal effect, so therefore paternal effect doesn't deserve an article of its own? Taking that to its logical conclusion, we'd end with only one article in all of Wikipedia. I think this needs a lot more thought. Andrewa 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see your point. I'm happy enough with a redirect and a sub-section, I don't regard this as ideal, but until more paternal effect genes are discovered it's probably a reasonable compromise. Tim Vickers 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim that structure and logic should take preference over frequency of occurrence, value of the effect or citation. For example: “Rock” (Parent) and “Eagles” (Child) should not be placed under “Beatles” (Child), “Sex” under “Male sex” and “Male sex” redirected to (or placed under) “Female sex” page.

Buzz word now for the effect of a father in genetics is “Male-driven evolution”. It’s a valid well proven effect. It’s more pronounced on evolving (new) characters. It’s widely used in selection. If the cow has more milk the selection scientists will use her father or son to breed not just because she can give 10 calves (vs thousands after artificial insemination by the bull’s sperm) but also because bull (genetically) “gives” more milk then her.

"Parental imprinting" is just a terminology and does not explain anything. The meaning is placenta (new organ) is controlled by genes of a father, while embryo (old system) is controlled by genes of a mother. Let me ask a question: what thumb does embryo suck in the womb and why? Which side of its body is bigger and why?Sashag 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that Maternal Effect genes and Paternal Effect genes should be given separate mentions and separate Wikipedia entries. Even if not much is known about Paternal Effect genes at current, this should be made clear in its own article and updated when new information is published. Mattycoze (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article implies that only the maternal genotype can influence the phenotype of offspring. However, there are copious examples in the literature demonstrating that aspects of the maternal phenotype can influence offspring phenotypes, some have even shown that this can be independent of maternal genotype (e.g. Marshall & Keough 2004, Marine Ecology Progress Series 272. pages 301-305). Offspring size, for example, is one of the most intensively studied maternal effects and has been shown to vary with maternal age, maternal size, maternal growth rate, maternal nutritional condition, maternal hormone concentrations, etc. I would suggest that the article is modified to reflect this. If nobody has any objections I would like to make this change. I'll wait a few weeks to allow for any feedback.

HMRaven 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal effects are absolutely not only genetic, they can also be purely environmental. An example is what used to be called a "milk factor". C3H mice are highly susceptible to mammary tumors and this was thought to be inherited. In the end it turned out to be a maternally-transmitted character: a tumor-inducing virus transmitted through mother milk... So you're absolutely right that it's the phenotype, not just the genotype, and as nobody has objected for almost a year, I think you should go ahead! --Crusio (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Drosophila embryogenesis could be useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content of this article seems to be rather a sketchy and not greatly accurate description of axis specification in the Drosophila embryo, with barely any attempt to describe why these mutation in these genes have maternal effects. (Apologies if this comment comes across as the sort of thing I would write when marking an essay - it is meant to be constructive). I therefore propose to delete or move much of the content, so we can get back to explaining maternal effects. Any comments? Celefin (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This squares with the remarks about the maternal phenotype above. --Crusio (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am finally starting to reconstruct this article. Please everyone feel free to chip in and correct what I am writing. Celefin (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest or contribute an illustrated example of non-genetic maternal effects with images that are suitably licensed for use in wikipedia? Celefin (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of phenotypic plasticity which, while researching this topic, I found to be a huge part of adaptive maternal effects and evolution of the phenotypic changes that they contribute to. Having more information on this as would be really helpful for the topic overall. Corrina Tapia (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section "Adaptive Maternal Effects" and everything that falls under it. Corrina Tapia (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are relatively few references in this whole page, including whole paragraphs. I also generally feel that the article is not altogether encyclopedic in style. For example, I am not sure that we should describe this effect as "legitimate", since in scientific theory its all about "currently generally accepted or something, isn't it?

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the least-cited sections some months ago. The tone isn't too far off. The effect is certainly a legitimate hypothesis and probably somewhat more than that. We certainly shouldn't imply it is all accepted, but it is a serious scientific idea and evidence has been sought and presented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing article at