This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Isn't it a bit weird to start an article with a negating sentance? Moreover, in numerous university courses I have been taught that it is a photosynthetic protein, showing that photosynthesis has developed at least twice independantly, etc. subasd 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed it... subasd 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/060708/139/65pz8.html 66.178.22.82 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrongo! "At the heart of each protein chain [of bacteriorhodopsin]is a molecule of retinal, which is bound deep inside the protein and connected through a lysine amino acid."
This sentence is awkward and suffers from multiple personality disorder:
Rhodopsins also contain retinal; however, the functions of rhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are different, and there is only slight (Something cannot be "slightly" homologous, it either is or isn't homologous. Maybe the poster meant to say shows REGIONS of homology within the amino acid sequence). homology in their amino acid sequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.39 ( talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do these two articles talk about the same thing ? I don't know enough to tell, but if so, they should be merged. -- George ( talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Rhodopsin#Microbial rhodopsins
If we had an article on microbial rhodopsins, "Bacterial rhodopsins" could become a disambiguation page.
Zyxwv99 ( talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I'm going to create an article on Microbial rhodopsin since we need one. The disambiguation page should be Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). The current page Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) should be deleted. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've created the article '''Microbial rhodopsin and the disambiguation page Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). Now all we need to do is look at the Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) to see if there is anything that needs to be migrated here. Somehow I think not. Then we need to request that Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) be deleted. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 23:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Archaearhodopsin →
Bacteriorhodopsin – Even though the protein is used by archaea, its official name is still bacteriorhodopsin. Please do not confuse it with archaearhodopsin1, an entirely different protein
Whyintheworld (
talk) 10:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
section on history of discovery (who, where, when);
section on applied research for commercial exploitation (i.e. tumor detection); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard from NYC ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Isn't it a bit weird to start an article with a negating sentance? Moreover, in numerous university courses I have been taught that it is a photosynthetic protein, showing that photosynthesis has developed at least twice independantly, etc. subasd 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed it... subasd 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/060708/139/65pz8.html 66.178.22.82 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrongo! "At the heart of each protein chain [of bacteriorhodopsin]is a molecule of retinal, which is bound deep inside the protein and connected through a lysine amino acid."
This sentence is awkward and suffers from multiple personality disorder:
Rhodopsins also contain retinal; however, the functions of rhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are different, and there is only slight (Something cannot be "slightly" homologous, it either is or isn't homologous. Maybe the poster meant to say shows REGIONS of homology within the amino acid sequence). homology in their amino acid sequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.39 ( talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do these two articles talk about the same thing ? I don't know enough to tell, but if so, they should be merged. -- George ( talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Rhodopsin#Microbial rhodopsins
If we had an article on microbial rhodopsins, "Bacterial rhodopsins" could become a disambiguation page.
Zyxwv99 ( talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I'm going to create an article on Microbial rhodopsin since we need one. The disambiguation page should be Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). The current page Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) should be deleted. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've created the article '''Microbial rhodopsin and the disambiguation page Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). Now all we need to do is look at the Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) to see if there is anything that needs to be migrated here. Somehow I think not. Then we need to request that Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) be deleted. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 23:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Archaearhodopsin →
Bacteriorhodopsin – Even though the protein is used by archaea, its official name is still bacteriorhodopsin. Please do not confuse it with archaearhodopsin1, an entirely different protein
Whyintheworld (
talk) 10:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
section on history of discovery (who, where, when);
section on applied research for commercial exploitation (i.e. tumor detection); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard from NYC ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)