Talk:Somatic hypermutation

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 Low-importance).

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. Information from this article appears on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section.

Does anyone have references for any of this stuff, apart from needing a cleanup, this page needs to sort out what is speculation and what had been published in the area. Ansell 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on soma-to-germline feedback is obscure. All the references point to a single author. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a conduit to promote the research of one person. It should represent the entire field. 73.61.18.107 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article had some major problems, mostly that it did not explain SMH with regards to who, what, when, why, and how. It also contained some inaccurate information which I have removed including statements such as:

• Large creatures such as vertebrates typically have a long generation time, while (micro-)parasites (viruses, bacteria, fungi or worms) that they play host to often have a short generation time.-huh?
• "the less efficient innate immune system"-the innate system is no less "efficient" than the adaptive system, they just have different jobs.
• This process takes 3 weeks, and speeds up that which would otherwise require centuries of evolution- this is a
  logical fallacy
  , (three weeks!! we would all be dead by now if that were true.)
• Some worm species avoid the adaptive immune response by modifying their external skin or secretions every couple of weeks- so what, SMH plays very little role in immune system escape by parasitic infections, plus every couple of weeks, what?

Also, I have included some references that can be used for further study, for those interested. Cheers--DO11.10 18:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with almost all of these criticisms of the previous version of the article (which I did not write). There is certainly an interesting parallel between the process of hypermutation of IgV regions and the high mutation rate of micro-organisms. In a fuller article, this should be included. It's true that the process would take many centuries if germline IgV regions were fixed. A logical fallacy it isn't! Only bit I agree with is that the innate immune system cannot be legitimately described as less efficient. --User:Rclb

While I agree with your feelings that there may be interesting correlations here, there are several problems with the material I specifically mentioned above. With point three the problem is that 1) this process does not take three weeks and 2) it attempts to argue that SHM is somehow involved in human evolution, while it is much more likely that it is involved in adaptation by pathogenic micro-organisms (this is a logical fallacy or more specifically a post hoc fallacy).

The problem with point one is really the statements: Large creatures such as vertebrates and (micro-)parasites (viruses, bacteria, fungi or worms) bacteria, fungi or worms are not exclusively (or even usually thought of as) "parasitic" and fungi and worms are not "micro", finally many species of these "micro" are larger than some vertebrates.

Point number four is just poorly written.

The number one biggest problem with ALL of these statements was that they included no references. You may wish to consider that, should you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope that you do. (I am not implying that you did not cite, it is just that many people don't, and then articles like the one I described above happen.)--DO11.10 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of hypermutation is misleading, since the text is describing a specific process of elevated mutation rates in B-cells after being activated. —The preceding

Done---DO11.10 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most biology papers, the abbreviation is actually SMH. I've read a lot but am not an expert in the field, so I'm not going to make the change without approval. However, pretty much every paper I've read on the subject is SMH. Examples: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16075892 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366624/ https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(10)01416-8/pdf johnnyb (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two articles V(D)J Recombination & Somatic Hypermutation should include explanations of how these processes relate to one another, since they work together to produce B-cells expressing a diverse range of antibodies. I do not have the expertise needed to explain this. Thanks! -Verazzano

Verazzano (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the article: "Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring," confuses me. Does this mean that SHM mutations are not passed down to mitotically divided clonal offspring of B-cells? Or does it mean that B-cells cannot be passed down to human offspring of a human parent who possesses a particular set of B-cells with a particular antibody? I think this should be stated more clearly. Thanks! -Verazzano

Verazzano (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]