Talk:Bivalent (genetics)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was WP:WITHDRAWN..

	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
???	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).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Cleanup

This article was tagged for cleanup but I don't know what cleanup is being requested so I am removing the cleanup tag. RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renovation

On April 2016 I renovated the article, organized sections and provided appropriate references. It would be good to obtain some image of light microscopy of a bivalent under creative commons license to illustrate the text (annotate centromere, chiasmata, homologs, chromatids etc...).

Definition

Is it correct, that bivalents have at least 1 cross over? According to Essential Cell Biology (Alberts et al.), they don't need to have a cross over. Can we have a citation for the defenition? Some of the earliest version from 2013 also stated that bivalents are just 2 chromosomes (4 chromatids) held together by a complex: nothing about any cross over? None of the later citated sources contain any actual definition of bivalents, they just mention them in a context to other subjects? Benj5378 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A research article abstract is copied into the "Function" section

In the first paragraph of the "Function" section, a sentence is interrupted and the abstract to a research article about bivalent genes is suddenly inserted. The inserted text is not relevant. 2603:6011:800:3BE6:DC54:379B:6E6D:2DFB (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology Collision and Plagiarism

Wanted to point out a couple issues on this page beyond mere writing quality errors. For one, while the article focuses on bivalents as the meiotic concept, there's also discussion inserted suddenly in the middle of bivalent genes, an epigenetics concept. I suspect these two topics should be split into separate pages, or at least somehow distinguished from one another. Secondly, it looks like the Function section continues to contain a copy-pasted abstract, plagiarizing from Jeon & Kellogg, BMC Genomics (2020), again colliding bivalents in meiosis with bivalent genes.

I'm going to add an Unreferenced Section template for the Function section at minimum, because I'm pretty sure the description of meiosis is also out-of-date per this 2023 review on meiosis & aneuploidy, but hopefully someone with more time/energy can swing through and clean the page up better. 198.184.147.58 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]