Talk:Vesicular monoamine transporter 2

Comment

"Impairment and Disfunction" seems mistitled; Immunoreactivity is also reduced (with partial effects still observable 24 hrs later) from Amphetamine administration. See "New Insights into the Mechanism of Action of Amphetamines", Fleckenstein et al., Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2007. 47:681-98, doi: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105140--143.44.71.255 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

God gene hypothesis

I reinserted the "God gene section" section since it is both notable (has received wide attention in the press) and takes a neutral point of view (discusses the case for and against the hypothesis). Boghog (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence for the God gene is very weak. However some readers may be come to this page searching for more information on this topic and for that reason, the topic should be mentioned in this article with a link to the God gene article. The later article gives a very complete overview of the topic including all the scientific criticism that has been leveled against the hypothesis. Not mentioning the hypothesis does a real disservice to the reader. Ignoring a topic that you do not like does not make it go away. It is better to discuss it stating the pros and cons and let readers draw their own conclusions. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

God Gene does not help understanding of VMAT2 function

Discussion of the God Gene is not found in any textbook that discusses VMAT2. There is no scientific basis for this and it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia to include it in a scientific context, especially with its own heading. The standard for inclusion into wikipedia should be based on peer reviewed journals not popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.252.248 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree there is no scientific basis for the God gene. I also strongly agree that scientific topics should be supported by citations to peer reviewed articles. At the same time, I disagree that the scope of this article is limited to a purely scientific discussion of the VMAT2 gene/protein. The topic of the God Gene has entered the popular press including the New York Times, Washington Post, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the cover of Time Magazine. Some readers may be find this article wanting to learn more about why VMAT2 has been proposed to be a "God Gene". Therefore it is very appropriate that this topic briefly be discussed in this article with a link to the God gene article. It is also very appropriate that this topic be given its own section to cleanly separate this very controversial hypothesis from the purely scientific discussion of the structure, function, and clinical significance of the VMAT2 gene/protein. Finally mentioning this hypothesis in this article along with why it has been severely criticized by the scientific community strengthens the credibility of Wikipedia. Boghog (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist pointing out this hilarious take on the "God Gene". Boghog (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Boghog. Wikipedia contains information about all kinds of nonsense, from Moon landing conspiracy theories to Intelligent design to Holocaust denialism. As long as these topics are covered from a neutral point of view their coverage does no harm to Wikipedia's credibility. Even from a utilitarian point of view, I'd much rather people read about such things here than in the popular media, which tend to present a "balanced" view that far too often means giving equal space to arguments for and against, typically resulting in overly sympathetic coverage of nonsense. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another point in favour of inclusion: VMAT2 is not really too visible: 35ish people a day visit it (bar today with over 150) and God gene 100ish. Being well hidden from view, it does not matter too much in the grand scheme of things. --Squidonius (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It should definitely be included, so I will restore the material under a popular culture heading. I think that's fair since it has been published in a mass-market book rather than in a scientific venue. Also, I have no clue about genetics and biology, so I find it very confusing that this article says VMAT2 is a protein coded by the SLC18A2 gene, but the protein is itself referred to as a gene? Is it a common convention that the gene and the protein it codes are used interchangeably? Vesal (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting the popular cultural heading which more clearly separates the scientific from the cultural aspects of this topic. Concerning the gene and proteins names, I agree that this is somewhat confusing. Ideally the approved/recommended name of the protein and the gene should coincide, but as in this case, they often don't. The currently approved HUGO gene name and symbol (see SLC18A2) are "solute carrier family 18 (vesicular monoamine), member 2" and "SLC18A2" while previous name and symbol were "vesicular monamine transporter" and "VMAT2". The recommended UniProt protein name and symbol (see Q05940 ) are "synaptic vesicular amine transporter" and "SVMT" while an approved alternate name and symbol are "solute carrier family 18 member 2" and "SLC18A2". Hence the gene and protein names overlap and therefore can be used interchangeably. Please note however that by convention, gene symbols are italicized whereas protein symbols are not. Boghog (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. I'm personally satisfied, but you may want to consider doing something about the last sentence in the lead which caused my confusion: "In humans, the VMAT2 protein is encoded by the SLC18A2 gene". In light of your discussion, I'm not sure what information the sentence is trying to convey: it is either a trivial statement or somehow those particular aliases are important, but I don't see why. The citation given, on the other, is about how some scientists found the gene in humans and located it in the 10th chromosome or something. Regards, Vesal (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have revised the lead so that hopefully it doesn't sound quite as trivial. As discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear in the lead that the scope of Gene Wiki articles encompasses (1) both the gene and the protein encoded by that gene and (2) not only the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Finally, the purpose of the citation is to document that the gene does exist in humans increasing the notability of the article. Boghog (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. And since the UniProt recommended name seems to be Synaptic Vesicular Amine Transporter (SVAT), rather than VMAT2, your rewrite makes it more clear what the sentence is really saying. At least, I now understand the meaning of such sentences. :) Thanks, Vesal (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another point to consider: Silveira LA (2008). "Experimenting with spirituality: analyzing The God Gene in a nonmajors laboratory course". CBE Life Sci Educ. 7 (1): 132–45. doi:10.1187/cbe.07-05-0029. PMC 2262126. PMID 18316816. In this free full-text article, the authors discuss the scientific evaluation of the God Gene concept (as it relates to VMAT2) within a college-level course. It's a unique WP:RS and can easily be cited to support statements such as "Hamer's claim that the VMAT2 gene contributes to spirituality is controversial". — Scientizzle 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a great source Scientizzle. Per your suggestion, I have added your statement and citation to the popular cluture section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, all, I don't want to resurrect the old thread. But it seems, that according to the conversation here, adding a wikilink in this article to God gene sounds like a minimum consensus that we can reach. I understand that it still remains to be a controversial since it lack a lot of scientific basis. I agreed that maybe making a Subtitle related to God Genes might reduce its scientific merits. So how about we add a wikilink in this article to God gene. I found it is very hard to find VMAT2 to be not associated with god gene in popular media. Adeuss (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: covering the God gene hypothesis

I've contacted WT:MCB to garner further input on whether or not to cover this topic in the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the above sections? This is a controversial theory that has received wide spread attention in the popular press hence by definition it is notable. As long as we make clear that this hypothesis has not received support in the scientific community, I most definitely think it should be included. Hence I have restored it. Boghog (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: It's not WP:NOTABILITY that I'm concerned about. It's WP:FRINGE, specifically WP:ONEWAY article linking from, but not to, articles on fringe theories with respect to related topics ("many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories."). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

From WP:ONEWAY: Fringe views ... may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.

The topic of the God Gene has entered the popular press including the New York Times, Washington Post, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the cover of Time Magazine. It has also been mention in Nature Genetics in a book review. These are reliable sources when it comes to popular culture. Furthermore all of these publications have linked VMAT2 to the God Gene in a serious and prominent way. Finally have you read the discussion in the above sections? Boghog (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: Just because a topic is covered in a report by news media doesn't mean we should cover it in our articles, especially when we're dealing with a science-related topic; in such cases, we should be citing academic literature. I'd be okay with covering this topic in this article as long as PMID 18316816 is cited and the following underlined assertions (the bolded ones in particular) are covered in this article. Otherwise, we're really overstating the proposed relationship between VMAT2 and spirituality, in which case I'd still oppose covering this topic in this article.

"In his book, Hamer contends that one's predisposition toward spirituality is influenced by genetic factors. More controversially, he proposes that the VMAT2 gene is one of many potential genes that impinge on spirituality. Hamer identifies one particular variation, a change from an A to a C, present in 28% of the alleles in his data set, as a marker for the more “spiritual” version of this gene. This work has not been published in a scientific journal. ... In addition to its high profile, The God Gene was likely to provoke discussion because it touches on an area of personal interest for many of the students and had substantial gray areas—the work had not been subjected to rigorous peer review, Hamer's observed correlation of a particular VMAT2 allele with spirituality had not been reproduced in another population, and, as Hamer notes, VMAT2 is at best a small player in influencing spirituality."

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit: No, I didn't read through the entire thread. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The present discussion is a rehash of the above thread. Of course the God Gene hypothesis is dodgy and I am not defending it. Quite to the contrary, PMID 18316816 is already cited and it is already stated that the study is controversial and has not been published in the peer reviewed literature. Furthermore the material is covered in a section entitled "In popular culture" to make clear that it is outside of realm of science. If you don't want to read the above thread, at least read the section in the article. Boghog (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I said didn't, not haven't. As of writing my last reply, I'd read through the entire thread. I also read through the article section, which needs to be revised based upon what I've quoted. There's also 2 typos in the last sentence that need to be fixed. I need to log off now though, so I'll do this later, or alternatively you could do it now provided that you have the time.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I also don't know why you're still being confrontational over this issue; I've already said I'm okay with covering this topic here as long as we update the section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not being confrontational, just expressing my frustration that you didn't read the above thread from the beginning. If you had, it would have saved a lot of grief. Also your objections were largely addressed in the present version. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not supportive of covering the god gene theory in this article. I'm simply indifferent as to whether we cover it or not because we now have a reliable academic source that provides an accurate description of it as a fringe theory. I strongly disagree that covering this topic enhances the credibility of this article; I don't think that mentioning this topic, or any other popular culture topic in a science article, helps a reader understand what the topic is about, since the content that ends up going into popular culture sections is basically just a collection of "fun facts" or trivia. In a nutshell, all we're really saying about the god gene hypothesis in this article is "some guy said something stupid about this gene and people took notice."
If you really want to cover it here, then I'm fine with ignoring WP:ONEWAY as long as the sourcing is okay and the theory is accurately portrayed as a fringe theory, which it now is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for bringing this concern back again. I'm supporting any of the consensus that can be made by the discussion. In my opinion popular section on VKMAT2 will make the article looks better. It can also make some people think or try to investigate it in the future. Adeuss (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal - God gene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge

---

Hi, I propose that God gene be merged into VMAT2. VMAT2 is about the gene itself, God gene is about the claim that the same gene predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. I consider this duplicate/overlap. The claim in the God gene article can be better explained in the context of the gene itself. I suggest to not merge all the content of the article but only a selection, see WP:FRINGE. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally, fringe theories are not covered at all or even linked to in mainstream science articles. Regardless, what parts do you want to merge? The imported content should be fairly limited in size; given the size of that article relative to this one and the fact that there's literally only 1 academic source published on the god gene hypothesis relative to hundreds about the gene that have been published, merging even half of that article into this one would be WP:UNDUE. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a better look and all information in the god gene article that is interesting enough is already mentioned here. So basically it will be just a redirect to the "in popular culture" section. An improvement could be to add the year when the claims where made. maybe using this source. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that we shouldn't merge the article. The reason why God Gene need to be mentioned in the VMAT2 article is due to its popularity in popular sources linking this gene with the God gene term. Further explanation about it will be better to be kept in other article due to the nature of the cited references (academics vs popular sources). I think the explanation of God Gene in this article should be kept as minimum as possible. Adeuss (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are convincing arguments. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.