![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
It is now possible to use content from WikiData to drive infoboxes in English Wikipedia. This will greatly improve our ability to keep trusted, structured content cleanly presented and up to date in the context of Wikipedia. Members of the Gene Wiki project are now deploying bots for populating wikidata with infobox-relevant content. As an example, I temporarily altered the article on the RREB1 gene to make use of a new 'gene' infobox built using wikidata. Doing this brought up the fundamental issue of what these articles are about: genes, gene products or both? In wikidata, the community has decided that genes, proteins, and other products (e.g. RNA) should all have distinct entries ('items') in wikidata. In order for that infobox to work, the sitelink needs to exist between the Wikipedia article and the WikiData item about the gene. Right now, a lot of these sitelinks connect such articles to entries about proteins. For example, click on the 'wikidata item' link in the navigation panel on the left of the VIPR1 article and you end up on a protein item (that, confusingly, has an RNA expression image attached to it). In the next phase of WikiData technology release (already available on many non-english Wikipedias) it will be possible to build infobox content from multiple wikidata items. This means that we can attach images, gene ontology annotations etc. to the appropriate protein items and then render that information on a unifying gene article. But, for everything to work, we need a consistent policy for linking gene articles to gene items in wikidata. I've started a discussion on wikidata about this issue and hope that you can join in. --Benjamin Good (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have created Category:Protein articles without symbol. It is populated by the templates ((Infobox protein)), ((Infobox protein family)) or ((Infobox nonhuman protein)), when an article has no symbol (|Symbol=
).
In general, it is bad practice to have a "?" shown in mainspace to say "to be edited". The reader does not know what it means. A maintenance task could be to either find the symbol, or to enter a text on why there is no symbol. (At this moment, minutes after the template edits, 35 articles are listed).
I myself was looking for a wikilink to that "Symbol" definition for proteins, but could not find one. Is there an institute or system to generate these? Can it be linked to by Symbol? -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|Symbol=
is from HUGO, so I guess they only exist for human genes? If that's the case, perhaps the "Symbol" text in the infobox should link out to HUGO. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this fits into this class or species, but shouldn't this article include information on the ocelloid bearing dinoflagellates (warnowiids?) - quite unique in being a very complex single-cell organism which simulates a relatively complex 'eye' called an ocelloid that has structures in it similar to parts of mammalian eyes?
The photosensitive ocelloid probably forms from a chloroplast and might be used to hunt or evade. The ocelloid can also be directed within the cell. The erythropsidinium ocelloid dinoflagellates are also apparently unique in that they have a piston-like structure which they can use to move. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead sentence. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Reading several articles about different cell lines, I noticed that they are mostly very different in regard to style and scope. I was thinking that an infobox that summarises facts that are relevant to all cells lines could be useful in giving them a common appearance and in making key facts more accessible. For example, it could comprise facts such as the tissue and species of origin (epithelial / lymphoid..., human / mouse...), growth type (adherent / suspension) and maybe shortcut links to databases such as ATCC, ECACC or DSMZ using the respective identifiers. Do you think such an infobox could be useful?
I am currently building an experimental template on my userpage, you can access it at User:Shinryuu/Template:Infobox cell line. In my sandbox I created a test infobox based on the widely used HEK 293 cells to test the template. However, it is the first template I ever built, and it is still fairly rudimentary. If you think this could be a useful contribution, any advice or contribution would be very welcome. Shinryuu (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The naming of Radical (chemistry) is under discussion, see Talk:Radical (chemistry) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am planning a major overhaul of Cell (biology) in the next couple of months. Please see my full proposal at Talk:Cell (biology)#Proposed major overhaul and leave any suggestions or comments you have for me there; I would like to keep the discussion all in one place if it's at all possible. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Pangenom was recently created. I suspect it may be about the same subject as the article pan-genome, but in any case it needs attention from members of this WikiProject. Everymorning (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I created a new article by this name about a a week ato, submitted for checking. How long until it apprears> Graybeard biochemist.
A recent AfD for channelomics ended in a decision to merge with channelome, but nobody has strong opinions on which way the merge should go. Thoughts at Talk:Channelomics#Merge_discussion? We have a number of similar pairs of articles - glycome/glycomics, lipidome/lipidomics, etc. - for which this might be relevant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Per this section on my talk page, there is concern that the term beta cullularis, which was added to the Humoral immunity article, is not an actual term. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Mouse TAAR4 has been identified as a (the first?) kairomone receptor that detects phenethylamine in cat urine and causes avoidance behavior when activated (i.e., detecting the compound helps the mouse avoid becoming a snack). We don't have an article on TAAR4 because it's not a human receptor. Is there any reason to create this, or should it just be mentioned at TAAR?
-http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q5QD15 + PMID 23904448
Semi-related tangent: TAAR3 is an article on a human pseudogene and is probably a pheromone receptor for sex pheromones in mice; should that be kept/deleted?
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Can someone with a little more knowledge of plant metabolism please take a look at the article.
"Of high importance to all photogenic organisms is chlorophyll, and so, its synthesis and breakdown"
I believe that all plants look good in a photo, and that chlorophyll could probably be promoted from "high importance" to "necessity".
There are a few others I noted, but if it is full of these, I would prefer someone else to check the accuracy of the chemistry and biological processes mentioned.
"chlorophyllase initiates the catabolism of chlorophyll to from chlorophyllide" - is it really both ways? "Chlorophyll degradation occurs in the turnover of chlorophyll" - unexplained "After Pheophorbide a is formed, the poryphin ring is cleaved by Pheophorbide an oxide to form RCC causing the plant to lose its green color. RCC is then broken down into pFCC." - should that be "an" or just "a" or do they mean "an oxide" & meaningless acronyms unless accompanied by a first use explanation.
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Circular DNA was redirected earlier this year. Could someone check that and make sure it was a desirable change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Aye, disambiguate this. If it turns out that "circular DNA" is article-worthy we can simply move the disambiguation to Circular DNA (disambiguation).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Pretty clear consensus that the proposed title is more common in reliable sources and more correct. I'll move the project and the subpages, project members should probably do the rest about updating templates, categories, etc. Drop me a note if there's anything that requires admin assistance, though. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology → Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology – This has bugged me for absolutely ages: Nobody says 'Cellular Biology'. The field is Cell biology. Therefore, I'd suggest moving the project to WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. It's simpler, shorter, and more common parlance. I'm happy to be voted down if people think it'd be too much of a hassle, but I thought it should at least be discussed (I'm not even certain that Wikiprojects can be renamed). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look here and see what you think?
Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please folks, zip over there and have a look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that many, if not all, the amino acids on their individual pages and on the amino acid page are represented in their non-ionic form. I feel this is misleading, or misinforming, as it is the form least likely found in nature. The Zwitterionic form would be the best form to include, in my opinion. How does anyone else feel? I would be happy to change the structures if the community doesn't mind. I have noticed there has been some discussion on the amino acid talk page, and on some of the individual pages, but nothing has been changed. There also seems to be some discussion in the WikiProject:Chemistry, so I will ask there as well.Htienson (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I found an article titled Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase which is very good created by University of Barcelona biochemistry students. The problem is the article orphaned. What is the proper title so it is not orphan anymore? MRFazry (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Would somebody check if there's references availble for these statements. " APAF-1 and CED-4 homologs have been found in all currently sequenced animal genomes." Also, do you guys think the statement "The Apaf-1 protein was identified by Xiaodong Wang.[3]" should be part of the introduction of should it have its own section?
Mostafa Elbery (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The American Society for Cell Biology is running a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the annual meeting in San Diego, CA this year from 8am-12noon on Sunday, December 13. However, we’re lacking experienced editors to help facilitate. We’re hoping to recruit 10 facilitators (who’ll get complimentary meeting registration) to assist a maximum of 100 participants.
If you can’t make the meeting in person, we’d also love remote admin help (in case we run into issues with with account creation, though we’re requesting participants do this ahead of time) or simply any advice on how to run the event! Please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thanks in advance! Jessica Polka (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
((intro to))
template. So far, I have finished the ones for text editing, referencing and images (which should be enough for most new editors). The (draft) navigation page for these is Help:intro to.I recently looked at the article for nullomers and found that the first sentence was not coherent with the cited sources, so I corrected it. I would appreciate it if someone could look over my edit and confirm that it is technically correct. The second sentence poses me a greater problem, because it seems to me that one of the sources contradicts it – see Talk:Nullomers. However, I feel that my (very limited) knowledge of natural selection does not allow me to judge whether it is, indeed, false. Again, I would appreciate a sufficiently knowledgeable person helping me out here. Thanks! 5mv2 (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I remember recently some biological topic was very advanced in using and updating Wikidata. Can someone give a link? -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The Experimental Biology 2016 conference (San Diego, April 2-6 2016) is looking for volunteers to help with a Wikipedia edit-a-thon on articles related to biochemistry and molecular biology. Volunteers get free conference registration. For more details, see http://www.asbmb.org/meetings/AM2016/publicengagement/Wikipedia/. Best, Andrew Su (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in a new paper in Science that advances an regular organizational principle for proteins on patterns of their structures (dimers, cycles, etc.) A simplified explanation here and a searchable interactive website is here. This might be linkable with some of the wikidata work going on. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all - I recently stumbled across this image (which I originally created back in 2006) in an article and was reminded that it is currently a featured picture. I nominated it for delisting here, but the discussion there is more interesting than I expected and more input would be appreciated. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been doing some updates on the Serpin article. If you have a moment, it'd be good to have a couple of editors cast their eyes over it to see if it makes sense! They're a pretty interesting superfamily. I'm planning on throwing it in the ring for Featured article at the end of the year. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to get your opinion if the information gathered for micro-RNAs from text mining sources is relevant and of enough quality to include in wiki talk pages for potential use in wiki articles. As an example, I have prepared the one for mir-194 I would appreciate if you could take a look at the page and provide your feedback on the content. Carighi (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
References
|NotAProtein=
parameter. I have edited the bot generated lead sentence in MIR194-1 so that it is now clear that this is a non-coding RNA. I have also made a few adjustments to the "protein" infobox. The rest of the article should be fine. Boghog (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)I have been searching unsuccessfully for the contemporary name of the protein chondronectin, which I hope will lead me to the gene encoding it. "Chondronectin" does not appear in any contemporary protein databases that I could find. Can anyone help?
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this person notable? --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
According to the popular pages stats, xDNA is listed as the most viewed MCB article in the last month. This is a rather remarkable result for such an obscure topic. I suspect it may have an alternative meaning that is driving traffic to xDNA, perhaps:
Any ideas? Boghog (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello all! As a spare time project, I’m looking to do spend some time in the next few months messing around with R, its graphics packages in particular. I’d be interested in combining this with my contributions to Wikipedia (do two obsessions together!) - does anyone have suggestions for any publicly available biosciences data that might be interesting to do something with? Blythwood (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at Draft:Meso-zeaxanthin. I'm also posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, since I think it could be evaluated by someone from either group. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This has kind of mildly annoyed me for a while now - the PBB infoboxes are often populated by RNA expression by tissue graphs like this one, which is a good idea in principle, but they're tiny and unreadable and unlabeled, and the data is from 2007. I don't think these are adding anything to the articles they appear in at this point. Any interest in/objections to removing these? Legible re-renderings of current data could be added later if available, though I'd be more inclined to use text aggregated at the organ level ("brain", "kidney", etc., preferably supplied by bot), with links to sources of finer-resolution data. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello all! The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a guidebook for higher ed students in the USA and Canada who are assigned to write articles about genes and proteins. If anyone has good advice for students, or would like to review the contents of the handbook to suggest changes, we'd love to hear from you! You can find the proposed draft here. This guide is intended to serve as a complement to a series of guidebooks on editing basics and participating in the community. The core of the brochure is therefore focused exclusively on writing these kinds of articles. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I came to Hybridoma technology from Genetic Engineering -> Genetic_engineering#Manufacturing -> Monoclonal antibody -> Monoclonal antibody#Production. A couple of points:
(1) The article's writing is way too technical for a general purpose encyclopedia. The starting sentence is:
Despite having a considerable amount of upper level education and a Masters degree in science, I read that sentence and feel like I have no clue what Hybridoma technology is or why it is important. Further reading in that article and monoclonal antibodies did not help much for the same reason. Imagine the frustration of the lay person with no background in science.
(2) According to the Genetic Engineering article:
((cite journal))
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)
The material in monoclonal antibodies#Production and Hybridoma technology do not echo what is said in the above sentence, i.e. that genetic engineering is important in their production. Also, the sentence makes it sound like monoclonal antibodies and the other items are all drugs and that does not sound correct. I would post this to the talk page, but there is not much activity there. I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject area and WP:RS of monoclonal antibodies#Production and Hybridoma technology to be able to correct them at this time.
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance: shouldn't his one be empty?: Category:Protein articles without symbol -DePiep (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Locked nucleic acid and Bridged nucleic acid describe the same concept: synthetic nucleotides with sugar rings locked in pucker formations to favor one helical form over the other. They are clearly talking about the same thing, and the terms have been used interchangeably in the literature (e.g. Kuwahara & Obika, "In vitro selection of BNA (LNA) aptamers", Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA (2013) 4:39-48 PMID: 24044051). They should probably be merged. Both articles solely reference locking the sugar in the 3'-endo pucker (there are also 2'-endo-locked versions - see Vesper & Wingel, Biochemistry (2004) 43:13233–13241 PMID: 15491130), so their is room for expansion as well. 134.121.126.47 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor is changing an entire paragraph in the lead, apparently in disagreement with who discovered IgE. Could some knowledgeable project members from here take a look? Thanks - theWOLFchild 23:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
A user with the handle User:Winterysteppe has proposed the article NFE2L1 for deletion. As the articles on human genes go, this one is pretty good: citing 38 different peer-reviewed journal articles and providing quite a bit of useful text. If it gets deleted on the grounds of 'no original research', basically all the articles on Wikipedia that cite research indexed in PubMed (meaning nearly every article of interest to the MCB project) would stand to be deleted. Please help me protect this article along with the rest of science... (I'm not sure exactly how to do that.) --Benjamin Good (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Protein Expression and Purification is about the journal but this recent edit has added content about the general process. As I have no background in biology, I'm wondering if someone could have a look and decide where this has to go. Does this title merit a general article of its own, with the current one better moved at Protein Expression and Purification (journal)? Or this wouldn't make sense as there are already Protein production (biotechnology) and Protein purification. Should the content be merged there, or somewhere else, say Pichia pastoris? Uanfala (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey all! I recently stumbled upon a couple of clarification-needed tags at Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the paragraph in question (at the bottom, about the electron transport chain in Green Sulfur Bacteria). Any chance anyone here with a bit more experience in biochemistry could make sense of the paragraph, clean it up, add a citation, and save the day? Thanks a bunch!! Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, would someone with editing image experience remove the CD45 marker for thrombocytes in this image: [2]. Correct me if I am wrong but CD45 is not present in thrombocytes (and neither in red blood cells but they are not in this image but I digress). I got this info from the following source: [3], although not sure if things have changed since then. Happy to be corrected. I also made a similar request for this image: [4], see: [5] Thank you for your assistance.Calaka (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage of Basophil and basophil cell is under discussion, see talk:Basophil granulocyte -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
COI concerns have been raised w.r.t. Genome engineering (and other articles - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cellectis). It would be well for a neutral and informed editor to review the content of the article, noting that it started as a large dump of text from a user never heard from again, quickly followed by edits from a user with suspected COI. Per the citation thread at the top of the article talk page, it is possible that the company with COI interest, Cellectis, is seeking to promote its interest in Meganuclease in part by criticising other techniques.
So. If someone who understands the subject could have a read through, especially with a view to the slant of the article being in the direction of Meganuclease or against other techniques. I note that CRISPRs, which I though was all the rage, seems to be described as an also-ran in comparison with Meganuclease. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Can someone help me with this article: Track hub. I used this as the source of information (and a few sentences unfortunately): https://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/help/hgTrackHubHelp.html#Intro
IMHO that page is too complex, and a nice compact WP article covering the basics is useful for all (especially as this is an open standard).
Many thanks, --Dan Bolser (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Dynamic instability has been nominated for deletion at RFD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
An article on Cubosomes was created by a university writing cours, it looks like it is also in the focus in your project. The article needs still a liitle look. Thanks. --Stone (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please create a page on CrmA? It's in the Serpins template, and Serpin is the featured article of the day, so I wouldn't mind :'> 96.237.16.46 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
For those interested in these things, the Serpin article has recently been promoted to Featured Article and will be on the front page on the 2nd of April! It's nice to add another to the MCB trophy cabinet. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:UNC13A and declined it as not showing the subject’s notability, with only one reference, and that reference cannot be displayed. I also noted that that reference, in its title, refers to ‘’C. elegans’’, which is a worm species, while the article refers to the gene in humans.
User:Biolprof then posted the following:
First, thank you for you amazingly quick response to my submission of Draft:UNC13A as an article for creation. I am a WP Teaching Fellow/University Professor and have a student that would like to expand this article, but I don't want her to be held up by the AfC process. I can have her work further on this stub, but my understanding is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology has a project to create a stub for every human gene/protein with the expectation that the stubs will be fleshed out as our knowledge improves. The style guide for these articles is found here. The content of the article I submitted was automatically generated by the GeneWikiGenerator following WP style guidelines. I thought I should be able to automatically send it to WP from the Biogps site, but since I could not, I submitted it as an AfC. Many similar stub articles with just one or two references have been created, some generated by a bot. (For example: ALDH16A1). My response to your specific comments: my understanding is that WP:MCB has determined that every human gene is notable. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the related genes UNC13B and UNC13D each have a page and neither was created with much more information. The broken link to the reference has now been repaired. Apologies that I missed this. Entrez Gene is a definitive reference for all human genes and is cited following the first sentence of all gene/protein articles that I am familiar with. "(C. elegans)" is included as part of the name for the human protein in Entrez Gene/NCBI web site and was included in the WikiGeneGenerator text, but it is not included in the WP pages for the UNC13B and UNC13D homologs, so I have deleted that. One additional comment: if you still think this article should not be approved, would you consider asking someone from the WP:MCB for a second opinion. Thank you for your consideration. Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As requested, I am posting to the Molecular and Cell Biology talk page. If there has been a decision that every human gene is notable, then that is presumably a notability guideline that establishes ipso facto notability, in that all human genes may be notable if they are properly documented. However, such a guideline must itself be documented as a written guideline, or non-conforming AFC drafts will be declined, and non-conforming articles will be nominated for deletion. I am aware of guidelines that certain people, such as professional athletes in first-tier leagues, and politicians in national or state legislatures, are ‘’ipso facto’’ considered notable; however, references are required to document that they played in those leagues or held those high offices. If the project decides that all human genes are notable, they should publish such a guideline. However, it will not exempt them from the requirement to have references.
You imply that there is a stub generator to turn out stubs for every human gene without references. Has automatically generating those stubs been approved either by consensus or by the WMF? If so, please show the consensus. Otherwise, there is likely to be considerable controversy. I can see that stubs that have been generated without references are, as it stands, likely to be nominated for deletion.
You speak of not wanting to have the AFC process hold up creating the stubs. Once again, please explain what the authorization is for creating these stubs that evidently do not document their own notability.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I just posted a question here and then noticed that the last comment on that talk page is quite old, so am posting the link here. Sorry for the redundancy. Biolprof (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAI_%28Arabidopsis_thaliana_gene%29 it is proposed as I read that GAI is similar to a putative transcription factor. in this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC316750/ it is mentioned that it could be gene transkripted into a receptor, any suggestions? 2A02:1205:C697:9500:E18B:47F7:11FB:A08D (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Neurotrophins currently contains a number of neurotrophic factors which are not neurotrophins. Should this category be renamed to Category:Neurotrophic factors, or should the articles that aren't about neurotrophins simply be removed from the category? The nav template below lists the 4 neurotrophins + an assortment of other neurotrophic factors (it's not a complete list of factors). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Neurotrophins | |
---|---|
GDNF family | |
Ephrins | |
CNTF family | |
Other |
Would it be possible for a knowledgeable person to review this article? There have been some problems with other articles by the same creator.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC).