A fact from Rubicon (protein) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 00:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
Frome the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
Created by Prodigiousfool ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
one of the few known negative regulators of autophagy– "one of the few known" is key here, and I didn't find that in the cited source. I did however find
Rubicon is one of very few known broadly acting negative regulators of autophagyin reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/).
cytosolic materialsshould probably be "cellular components".
impairs the autophagosome-lysosome fusion step of autophagy through inhibition of PI3KC3-C2– It seems to me that the source to cite here is reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/), which says "
Rubicon disrupts autophagosome–lysosome fusion by inhibiting the class III phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex 2 (PI3KC3-C2)" rather than the sources it cites in the spirit of WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. It would at any rate have saved me as DYK reviewer a considerable amount of time in checking that the claims in the article are supported by the sources.
Rubicon has been shown to positively regulate LC3-associated phagocytosis (LAP) and LC3-associated endocytosis (LANDO)whereas the body says
Rubicon is required for LC3-associated phagocytosis (LAP) and LC3-associated endocytosis (LANDO). Is it a positive regulator or required?
direct interaction with multiple effector molecules– is "effector molecules" really the right term here?
The Rubicon homology domain is rich in histidine and cysteine residues– cysteine, yes, but histidine? Of the four zinc fingers, two have 3:1 cysteine:histidine ratios and the other two 4:0.
The C-terminal Rubicon homology domain mediates interaction with Rab7, and is shared by other RH domain-containing autophagy regulatory proteins, including PLEKHM1 and Pacer (also known as RUBCNL, Rubicon-like Autophagy Enhancer).is unsourced, though I think reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/) would do.
conformationalshould link to protein conformation.
Rubicon recruits PI3KC3 to phagosomes– what the source says is that
in the absence of Rubicon, Beclin1, UVRAG, and VPS34 recruitment was reduced, suggesting that Rubicon plays a role in the retention of the complex at the LAPosome.
in some cases exacerbate infection– this is a statement about the clinical course of the infection. What the source says is that it
facilitates viral replication. More viral replication does not necessarily translate to a worse clinical infection.
Rubicon suppresses interferon and cytokine responses– interferons are a subgroup of cytokines, so this is phrasing is a bit odd. I would also link interferon and cytokine.
Since reduced autophagy is associated with decreased lifespan and increase susceptibility to disease, therapeutic modulation of Rubicon is of great interest in aging and age-related diseases.categorically needs to be sourced.
Rubicon knockout increases lifespan in worms ( C. elegans) and flies ( D. melanogaster) through modulation of autophagy.– The source attributes this to autophagy modulation for the former (
C. elegans Rubicon regulates lifespan via modulating autophagy.) but not for the latter as far as I can see. Moreover, this only applies to female D. melanogaster, according to the source (
whole body dRubicon knockdown slightly but significantly extended the lifespan in female specific manner).
the Rubicon C-Terminal domain and RH domain– the RH domain is the C-terminal domain, no?
This is consistent with subsequent structural studies investigating the Rubicon:Rab7 interface.– this seems to be your WP:ANALYSIS.
See Alsoshould be "See also" with a lowercase "a".
... that when crossing out Rubicon, the time to die is cast later in roundworms and female fruit flies?to get a pun on crossing the Rubicon and Alea iacta est both. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
As discussed on the DYK talk page, it needs a new hook. Schwede 66 09:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate ALT3: "... that genetic deletion of the protein Rubicon reduces hallmarks of aging in roundworms, fruit flies, and mice?". I know that TompaDompa finds this form uninspiring (see their comments on the similar ALT1), however I'd argue that both to scientific and general audiences this is an interesting piece of information. From a scientific perspective, this protein was discovered and its function elucidated quite recently, and as the article says it is a potential target for novel therapeutics. To a general audience, the concept of aging mitigation is likely of interest and the Rubicon article can provide a gateway to reading about multiple related topics, including autophagy. I don't think the fact that the results originate from model organisms detracts from the hook, especially given the lack of controlled aging trials in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigiousfool ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
... implicit suggestion that this might have medical implications for humans.Personally I didn't see that connection at all. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: Just wanted to say I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that I don't see an implicit implication here. I am aware WP:MEDRS has somewhat higher sourcing requirements, but afaik an DYK hook simply must not be actively misleading and cited in the article. These aren't actively misleading, as the claim in the hooks is entirely correct. They're just hooky. Of course the whole science in this area (and in most areas) is done in hopes of eventually finding something that is useful for humans. But that this was achieved here is not claimed, and imo only tabloid papers would misquote it as such.
Totally unrelated, but out of curiosity: Prodigiousfool why are your signatures not timestamped? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 16:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
~~~~
) to the end of your comment, it turns into your signature including the timestamp when you save the page. Three for just the signature, five for just the timestamp. See
WP:TILDE for details.I cannot in good conscience approve a hook I don't think is interesting, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from approving ALT4 if they disagree (though it should really specify female fruit flies, in my opinion). Alternatively, you could try coming up with a hook that focuses on some different aspect, such as being independently discovered/characterized as part of investigations of autophagy (a universal process) and Salih ataxia (an extremely rare condition).
TompaDompa (
talk) 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
A fact from Rubicon (protein) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 00:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
From the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
Frome the abstract: "Consistent with this idea, knockdown of Rubicon extends worm and fly lifespan and ameliorates several age-associated phenotypes. Tissue-specific experiments reveal that Rubicon knockdown in neurons has the greatest effect on lifespan. Rubicon knockout mice exhibits reductions in interstitial fibrosis in kidney and reduced α-synuclein accumulation in the brain."
Created by Prodigiousfool ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
one of the few known negative regulators of autophagy– "one of the few known" is key here, and I didn't find that in the cited source. I did however find
Rubicon is one of very few known broadly acting negative regulators of autophagyin reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/).
cytosolic materialsshould probably be "cellular components".
impairs the autophagosome-lysosome fusion step of autophagy through inhibition of PI3KC3-C2– It seems to me that the source to cite here is reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/), which says "
Rubicon disrupts autophagosome–lysosome fusion by inhibiting the class III phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex 2 (PI3KC3-C2)" rather than the sources it cites in the spirit of WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. It would at any rate have saved me as DYK reviewer a considerable amount of time in checking that the claims in the article are supported by the sources.
Rubicon has been shown to positively regulate LC3-associated phagocytosis (LAP) and LC3-associated endocytosis (LANDO)whereas the body says
Rubicon is required for LC3-associated phagocytosis (LAP) and LC3-associated endocytosis (LANDO). Is it a positive regulator or required?
direct interaction with multiple effector molecules– is "effector molecules" really the right term here?
The Rubicon homology domain is rich in histidine and cysteine residues– cysteine, yes, but histidine? Of the four zinc fingers, two have 3:1 cysteine:histidine ratios and the other two 4:0.
The C-terminal Rubicon homology domain mediates interaction with Rab7, and is shared by other RH domain-containing autophagy regulatory proteins, including PLEKHM1 and Pacer (also known as RUBCNL, Rubicon-like Autophagy Enhancer).is unsourced, though I think reference 8 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382272/) would do.
conformationalshould link to protein conformation.
Rubicon recruits PI3KC3 to phagosomes– what the source says is that
in the absence of Rubicon, Beclin1, UVRAG, and VPS34 recruitment was reduced, suggesting that Rubicon plays a role in the retention of the complex at the LAPosome.
in some cases exacerbate infection– this is a statement about the clinical course of the infection. What the source says is that it
facilitates viral replication. More viral replication does not necessarily translate to a worse clinical infection.
Rubicon suppresses interferon and cytokine responses– interferons are a subgroup of cytokines, so this is phrasing is a bit odd. I would also link interferon and cytokine.
Since reduced autophagy is associated with decreased lifespan and increase susceptibility to disease, therapeutic modulation of Rubicon is of great interest in aging and age-related diseases.categorically needs to be sourced.
Rubicon knockout increases lifespan in worms ( C. elegans) and flies ( D. melanogaster) through modulation of autophagy.– The source attributes this to autophagy modulation for the former (
C. elegans Rubicon regulates lifespan via modulating autophagy.) but not for the latter as far as I can see. Moreover, this only applies to female D. melanogaster, according to the source (
whole body dRubicon knockdown slightly but significantly extended the lifespan in female specific manner).
the Rubicon C-Terminal domain and RH domain– the RH domain is the C-terminal domain, no?
This is consistent with subsequent structural studies investigating the Rubicon:Rab7 interface.– this seems to be your WP:ANALYSIS.
See Alsoshould be "See also" with a lowercase "a".
... that when crossing out Rubicon, the time to die is cast later in roundworms and female fruit flies?to get a pun on crossing the Rubicon and Alea iacta est both. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
As discussed on the DYK talk page, it needs a new hook. Schwede 66 09:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate ALT3: "... that genetic deletion of the protein Rubicon reduces hallmarks of aging in roundworms, fruit flies, and mice?". I know that TompaDompa finds this form uninspiring (see their comments on the similar ALT1), however I'd argue that both to scientific and general audiences this is an interesting piece of information. From a scientific perspective, this protein was discovered and its function elucidated quite recently, and as the article says it is a potential target for novel therapeutics. To a general audience, the concept of aging mitigation is likely of interest and the Rubicon article can provide a gateway to reading about multiple related topics, including autophagy. I don't think the fact that the results originate from model organisms detracts from the hook, especially given the lack of controlled aging trials in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigiousfool ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
... implicit suggestion that this might have medical implications for humans.Personally I didn't see that connection at all. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: Just wanted to say I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that I don't see an implicit implication here. I am aware WP:MEDRS has somewhat higher sourcing requirements, but afaik an DYK hook simply must not be actively misleading and cited in the article. These aren't actively misleading, as the claim in the hooks is entirely correct. They're just hooky. Of course the whole science in this area (and in most areas) is done in hopes of eventually finding something that is useful for humans. But that this was achieved here is not claimed, and imo only tabloid papers would misquote it as such.
Totally unrelated, but out of curiosity: Prodigiousfool why are your signatures not timestamped? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 16:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
~~~~
) to the end of your comment, it turns into your signature including the timestamp when you save the page. Three for just the signature, five for just the timestamp. See
WP:TILDE for details.I cannot in good conscience approve a hook I don't think is interesting, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from approving ALT4 if they disagree (though it should really specify female fruit flies, in my opinion). Alternatively, you could try coming up with a hook that focuses on some different aspect, such as being independently discovered/characterized as part of investigations of autophagy (a universal process) and Salih ataxia (an extremely rare condition).
TompaDompa (
talk) 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)