![]() | Protein C has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The comment about activated protein c being effective in septic patients with an APACHEII score < 25 is inaccurate. The ADDRESS trial was stopped early because 28day mortality in such patients was worse (not statistically significant) in those receiving activated protein c compared to placebo. Furthermore, subgroup analyses of PROWESS and ENHANCE both support this finding. PROWESS concluded that activated protein c was effective only in those with APACHEII scores > 25, though these results are debatable. A meta-analysis of PROWESS and ADDRESS data by J. Friedrich (NEJM 2006;354(1):94-96.) suggests that activated protein c is ineffective even in those with severe sepsis (i.e. APACHEII score > 25 or multiple organ system failure). As such, many would debate that activated protein c has yet to demonstrate conclusively its worth in sepsis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daleyc78 ( talk • contribs) . -- Daleyc78 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't protein c activated by thrombomodulin, not thrombin? 128.253.178.201 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)brook
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Rmrfstar, thank you for all your hard work in rewriting this article. It is a major improvement!
Below is my reasoning for the citation format that I tried to introduce in this article. Using List-defined references:
... can help separate large reftags with long cite entries from the ordinary text, making it easier to read and to edit.
Many of the references are cited multiple times within the text so that the text and the corresponding citations are already often separated from each other. Moving all the citation templates to the {{ reflist}} template makes the document less cluttered and better organized. Also this syntax is compatible with vertical formatting of the templates as I introduced in this . So, I don't understand what about this syntax is difficult to read. If anything IMHO, this syntax makes underlying text easier to read and to maintain.
Finally, if you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool ( instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. In addition, this tool will add PMID, DOI, and PMC parameters that assist users in quickly finding the full article as well as helping bots such as Citation bot maintain these citations. These citation parameters were included in a previous version of this article but now have been removed. Boghog ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sasata ( talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've signed up for the review. I read the comments on the talk page that this was headed for FAC? If so, I can gear my commentary for that (which won't, of course, affect the GA assessment). Anyway, I'll have some notes up in a few days. Sasata ( talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments, questions and suggestions from 1st read-through for prose/jargon/MOS compliance. Sasata ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
After the above comments are addressed, I'll read through the article again and check citation/sources more carefully. Sasata ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to keep this in GAR limbo any longer, my remaining suggestions are minor and I'll sure they'll be dealt with on the workup to FAC. I spot-checked a few citations and everything seemed ok; all images have appropriate licenses; all other GA criteria are met or exceeded. Thank you for an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the FAC! Sasata ( talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is currently some inconsistency in the residue numbering in the "synthesis, structure and activation" section. The numbering in the first paragraph is based on the full length protein that includes the N-terminal signal peptide. The numbering in the second paragraph is reset so that the new N-terminus produced after cleavage of the signal peptide is now designated residue #1. I think is would be less confusing if a consistent numbering scheme based on the full length protein is used throughout (see the "sequence annotation" section of UniProt entry P04070 and File:Protein_C_1D_schematic.png). For example, the catalytic triad of the serine protease would be changed from 211, 257, and 360 to 253, 299, and 402. Does anyone have an objection if I make this change? Boghog ( talk) 18:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we consider changing the {{ rp}} numbers to the page of the article, rather than the journal? At the moment having a four digit number after a reference tag looks rather ugly. For example, for the first citation in the article, I would suggest changing 6822 > 1 and for the one after the first use of reference 4, 35 would be changed to 3. This would still allow the reader to easily find the information on the page if they wanted to but would make the article a little prettier. SmartSE ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Martí-Carvajal, AJ (2011 Apr 13). "Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (4): CD004388.
PMID
21491390. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
the article indicates that it is an autoprothrombin, but that is incorrect. Protein C is by nature an anticoagulant, so it can't be a prothrombin since thrombin is a procoagulant. The rest of article states that it functions as a natural anticoagulant, which is correct, but it doesn't mention it's primary roll with PAI-1 (plasminogen activating inhibitor-1). It inhibits PAI-1 which disinhibits tPA which allows dissolution of a formed clot. 71.61.221.173 ( talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Blood doi:10.1182/blood-2015-02-355974 JFW | T@lk 09:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
and 3K3A-APC "being developed to treat stroke patients could also prevent Alzheimer's disease." Stroke drug may also prevent Alzheimer's disease, study says 2019 - Rod57 ( talk) 12:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Protein C has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The comment about activated protein c being effective in septic patients with an APACHEII score < 25 is inaccurate. The ADDRESS trial was stopped early because 28day mortality in such patients was worse (not statistically significant) in those receiving activated protein c compared to placebo. Furthermore, subgroup analyses of PROWESS and ENHANCE both support this finding. PROWESS concluded that activated protein c was effective only in those with APACHEII scores > 25, though these results are debatable. A meta-analysis of PROWESS and ADDRESS data by J. Friedrich (NEJM 2006;354(1):94-96.) suggests that activated protein c is ineffective even in those with severe sepsis (i.e. APACHEII score > 25 or multiple organ system failure). As such, many would debate that activated protein c has yet to demonstrate conclusively its worth in sepsis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daleyc78 ( talk • contribs) . -- Daleyc78 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't protein c activated by thrombomodulin, not thrombin? 128.253.178.201 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)brook
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Rmrfstar, thank you for all your hard work in rewriting this article. It is a major improvement!
Below is my reasoning for the citation format that I tried to introduce in this article. Using List-defined references:
... can help separate large reftags with long cite entries from the ordinary text, making it easier to read and to edit.
Many of the references are cited multiple times within the text so that the text and the corresponding citations are already often separated from each other. Moving all the citation templates to the {{ reflist}} template makes the document less cluttered and better organized. Also this syntax is compatible with vertical formatting of the templates as I introduced in this . So, I don't understand what about this syntax is difficult to read. If anything IMHO, this syntax makes underlying text easier to read and to maintain.
Finally, if you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool ( instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. In addition, this tool will add PMID, DOI, and PMC parameters that assist users in quickly finding the full article as well as helping bots such as Citation bot maintain these citations. These citation parameters were included in a previous version of this article but now have been removed. Boghog ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sasata ( talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've signed up for the review. I read the comments on the talk page that this was headed for FAC? If so, I can gear my commentary for that (which won't, of course, affect the GA assessment). Anyway, I'll have some notes up in a few days. Sasata ( talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments, questions and suggestions from 1st read-through for prose/jargon/MOS compliance. Sasata ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
After the above comments are addressed, I'll read through the article again and check citation/sources more carefully. Sasata ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to keep this in GAR limbo any longer, my remaining suggestions are minor and I'll sure they'll be dealt with on the workup to FAC. I spot-checked a few citations and everything seemed ok; all images have appropriate licenses; all other GA criteria are met or exceeded. Thank you for an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the FAC! Sasata ( talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is currently some inconsistency in the residue numbering in the "synthesis, structure and activation" section. The numbering in the first paragraph is based on the full length protein that includes the N-terminal signal peptide. The numbering in the second paragraph is reset so that the new N-terminus produced after cleavage of the signal peptide is now designated residue #1. I think is would be less confusing if a consistent numbering scheme based on the full length protein is used throughout (see the "sequence annotation" section of UniProt entry P04070 and File:Protein_C_1D_schematic.png). For example, the catalytic triad of the serine protease would be changed from 211, 257, and 360 to 253, 299, and 402. Does anyone have an objection if I make this change? Boghog ( talk) 18:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we consider changing the {{ rp}} numbers to the page of the article, rather than the journal? At the moment having a four digit number after a reference tag looks rather ugly. For example, for the first citation in the article, I would suggest changing 6822 > 1 and for the one after the first use of reference 4, 35 would be changed to 3. This would still allow the reader to easily find the information on the page if they wanted to but would make the article a little prettier. SmartSE ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Martí-Carvajal, AJ (2011 Apr 13). "Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (4): CD004388.
PMID
21491390. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
the article indicates that it is an autoprothrombin, but that is incorrect. Protein C is by nature an anticoagulant, so it can't be a prothrombin since thrombin is a procoagulant. The rest of article states that it functions as a natural anticoagulant, which is correct, but it doesn't mention it's primary roll with PAI-1 (plasminogen activating inhibitor-1). It inhibits PAI-1 which disinhibits tPA which allows dissolution of a formed clot. 71.61.221.173 ( talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Blood doi:10.1182/blood-2015-02-355974 JFW | T@lk 09:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
and 3K3A-APC "being developed to treat stroke patients could also prevent Alzheimer's disease." Stroke drug may also prevent Alzheimer's disease, study says 2019 - Rod57 ( talk) 12:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)