![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
To state that KcsA belongs to the family of voltage gated channels is very misleading since it implies that KcsA is also voltage gated. This IMHO is unacceptable. It is acceptable to state that KcsA is evolutionarily related to voltage gated ion channels, but is not itself voltage gated. A fundamental flaw in the TCDB is that it does not clearly distinguish between structure and function. It is naming evolutionary related protein families after the predominate function of the majority of family members and this causes confusion when referring to members of this family that don't share this function. It would have been better to use function neutral names for these families, for example, seven-transmembrane domain family instead of GPCR. Boghog ( talk) 17:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Transporter Guy and My very best wishes: I find this very disturbing. This is a clear example of ref spam and undue weight. GPCRs are not transporters. Full stop. GPCRs transduce signals, not transport molecules. Any classification system that categorizes GPCRs as transporters is highly suspect. The TCDB seems to be a made up ad hoc classification system. I agree with Tryptofish that the TCDB is only one of several transporter classification systems. I also agree with Tryptofish there are significant copyright concerns with Transporter Guy's contributions. Boghog ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There's a draft over at AfC that it would be a good thing if someone with a bit more knowledge of the subject took a look at: Draft:Chloroplast migration. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Andrew Su, I9606, and Julialturner: I am posting here because this issue may be of general interest to the MCB community.
Previously in Gene Wiki articles, only a single accession code was generally displayed for UniProt (reviewed Swiss-Prot only) and RefSeq (experimental NM/NP only) entries. I noticed that the Gene Wiki Infoboxes now display additional UniProt TrEMBL entries as well as predicted XM/XP RefSeq entries (see for example, ETHE1). My question is whether multiple UniProt and RefSeq links should be displayed. My own opinion is that only the Swiss-Prot UniProt and experimental RefSeq links should be displayed if they exist because they are the highest quality and determining which of the several displayed links is the most relevant is not immediately apparent. If Swiss-Prot or RefSeq NM/NP entries do not exist, then it may be appropriate to display TrEMBL or XM/XP links. However I would be interested in hearing how others think, especially those maintaining this data. Cheers. Boghog ( talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
See this diff which was made by a bot, User:ProteinBoxBot. Just wanted to make sure you all were aware of this. Jytdog ( talk) 03:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states that this deletion syndrome is a protein, which strikes me as odd. Also, there is already an article on the Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, called DiGeorge syndrome. -- Arno Matthias ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all, but shouldn't there at least be a link to DiGeorge syndrome in the article? Or, if the are the same, only one article? -- Arno Matthias ( talk) 06:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
(Also posted on project PHARMA)
User:Medgirl131 has recently created {{ Cytokine receptor modulators}} and {{ Nitric oxide signaling}} navboxes and has been adding these to a large number of articles. My major concern is that they combine endogenous proteins and recombinant protein drugs in one infobox which I think is confusing. Additional concerns that I have about these navboxes are their large size and that they violate WP:Bidirectional which makes navigation more difficult. I have highlighted my concerns on their talk page here. What do others think about these navboxes? Boghog ( talk) 06:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made a new metro-style map of the major metabolic pathways, which was inspired by the already existing one ( Template:Metabolic_pathways) and other excellent online resources (e.g. [12], [13]). The map encompasses most of the biochem pathways in human, but also include important ones in plants / fungi / microbes (double lines). The metabolites are grouped as general terms (e.g. "Hexose Phosphates") instead of the specific ones in the existing map. I'm also going to make it a clickable map.
Some questions:
Thanks! (also posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/Metabolic_Pathways_task_force/proposals#New_map_of_Metabolic_Pathways) Chakazul ( talk) 17:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
annotated image 4}}
to convert it into an interactive diagram (like
Template:Glycolysis summary). I have a few suggestions for improvements:
{{
annotated image 4}}
template only allows adding wikilinked text over the image. Adding
click-able field shapes / image maps tends to be trickier.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC){{
Annotated image 4}}
, but it'd probably be a little more tedious to set up relative to annotating text onto an image without pre-existing text. Basically, all you have to do is create a piped wikilink to a bunch of non-breaking spaces (produced via the text
). Adding a space between non-breaking spaces will take up less room in the source code (i.e., use
instead of
). As an example, the next line contains an invisible link to the MCB project page and the line after that contains an invisible link to a redirect to this page:<br />
included in the piped link when the text in the diagram is on different lines.[[wikitext|this wikilink<br />spans several lines via 2 forced<br />line breaks.]]
produces:
this wikilink@ Evolution and evolvability and Seppi333: Thanks for the suggestions! Here is a trial version of the template: User:Chakazul/sandbox.
The first one is the diagram without text, added two wikilinks for testing; the second one is the original diagram, using Seppi's method. Both methods have their own merits. Style 1 is a bit easier to match the positions, and can show the availability of the wiki page (blue or red). Style 2 gives more control on the color (most texts are in black BTW), but matching the white spaces needs more work. So Evo&Evo it's up to you to choose which method for annotation. Chakazul ( talk) 18:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Beautiful! A few suggestions:
Awesome work!
Adrian J. Hunter(
talk•
contribs)
14:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Metabolic_metro now created. My sandbox can be used for drafting. @ Evolution and evolvability:. Chakazul ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Major metabolic pathways | |
---|---|
|
Esteemed members of this project may be best placed to work out whether the speedy deletion tag on Flow-through test should stay or go ... the subject matter appears to be within your sphere of interest. Grateful if someone would take a look (preferably before it gets speedied) - it's an article which popped up on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Conversation on controversial changes to epistasis article being discussed on the WP:GEN talkpage. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone with some experience help double-check on FAM163A? The title is FAM163A but the infobox is FAM136A. It seemed like it was previously clear with this version but this edit flipped the name but not the infobox and changed none of the citations which is mighty odd. Does a history split need to be done and other fixes? See also User:Flameep/sandbox. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We are proposing a Wikimedia Project Grant (WikiFactMine) which will automatically scan the daily peer-reviewed scientific literature (up to 10000 articles /day) and extract biological entities (definable in Wikidata). We concentrate on genes and species which have high precision and recall, but with Wikidata-based dictionaries this can be extended to other well defined entities (e.g. cell types or diseases). These, with their citations, are then offered to Wikidata editors for potential inclusion/update. These can also alert Wikipedia editors to new citations. The project includes a Wikimedian in residence in the University of Cambridge. We'd be grateful for comments, endorsement and offers of help. Petermr ( talk) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi... can anyone start writing about Gasdermins? -- محمود ( talk) 21:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_2#Misfolded is ongoing. We are not sure whether "misfold" is a purely biochemical term or if it could WP:SURPRISE people who were looking for info about folding blankets. Your input would be much appreciated.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone review/assess the Phosphatidylserine article? I hope this is the correct place to request this. VeniVidiVicipedia ( talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone review/assess the Cyclopentenone prostaglandins article? The article has recently been greatly expanded. Although it is currently categorized as a pharmacy and pharmacology article, it may be better categorized in the Molecular and Cellular biology section. Very similar prostaglandins are so categorized (e.g. see prostaglandin). Suggestions on its improvement would be appreciated. Also, the article as currently formatted is correctly redirected from 15-deoxy-Δ12,14-prostaglandin J2 (15-d-Δ12,14-PGJ2), a principal cycloentenone prostaglandin. Is it possible to similarly redirect it from other cyclopenentone prostaglandins viz., Δ12-PGJ2, PGJ2, PGA2, and PGA1, discussed in the article (but not given separate Wikipedia pages elsewhere) and, if so, how do I do that? Thanks, ( User talk:joflaher) 12:01 P.M. 29 Oct 2016.
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed in the CRISPR article the following sentence in the lead section: "The CRISPR interference technique has many potential applications, including altering the germline of humans, animals, and food crops." My background is chemistry and I am confident that that statement is incorrect. That can be a very time-consuming error for the reader to sort out. I think the article should mention something about the Cas9-gRNA complex, since it is the synthetic gRNA that makes it into a gene editing tool and a Breakthrough. The press just calls it "CRISPR", but we should try to sort it out for the reader. I think the article should be split, splitting out the engineering technology from the native phenomena (that is some work). It would be nice to note that Cas9 corresponds to CAS III in the diagram at the top of the page. See [14] for some details. Can any of you experts help out?-- 172.56.0.153 ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
References
---Reply---
Done Not sure what the history is here. But made the more specific requested change. Thanks for pointing that out!
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, given that it is one of the most viewed articles within this project's scope, I was thinking that it might be a good candidate for doing some sort of joint publication, where we make a concerted effort to bring it up to high-standard and then submit to an academic journal for peer review. The lure of a possible publication could entice some academics with greater experience in the area. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 06:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Should this redlink be redirected to microfilament, actin, cytoskeleton, or related article, or does it merit its own independent article? I can't really tell since I'm not that familiar with the topic. There's 4 incoming links from articles to that redlink. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks! Super-resolution microscopy has had a "clarification-needed" tag for about a year now in the section on Structured illumination microscopy. I find I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. Any chance someone with a bit more experience in this kind of thing could take a peek and clarify the paragraph in question? Thanks a bunch! Ajpolino ( talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This has come up before on the talk page ( Talk:VMAT2#God Gene does not help understanding of VMAT2 function), but I figured I'd raise the issue here to attract more input. God gene hypothesis is a fringe theory that suggests that a neurotransmitter transporter which is located on synaptic vesicles in monoamine neurons ( VMAT2) has some form of significant role in spirituality. I've removed content which covers the god gene hypothesis from the VMAT2 article twice now - once recently and once a while ago - per WP:ONEWAY. The question I have for you all is this: should this article cover a fringe theory because the theory is covered in popular culture? Please respond here if you have any input: Talk:VMAT2#Re: covering the God gene hypothesis. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed that the article Neto 1 be merged into NETO1 as both articles appear to be on the same topic and "NETO1" is currently a more thorough discourse of the topic. I have created a proposed merger Talk Space on the NETO1 page and listed what I need help with.
I am not a scientist, biologist, etc., so I am not sure which article title is correct. I would appreciate any pertinent information that you can provide. If someone can assist with rewriting the article after the merger is complete that would be appreciated. Currently both articles are lacking substance and incoming links. I'm being pretty bold proposing a merger after being on the site for less than two months, so your patience while I learn more about editing on Wikipedia is appreciated.
Thanks for your help! Zcarstvnz ( talk) 22:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Splitting_articles_about_endogenous_molecules_used_as_drugs Jytdog ( talk) 23:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
maybe i have missed it, but i have never found a page that gives an overview of reagents. I just added a tiny bit at that article but it is a chicken scratch. Is there a master artcle somewhere that talks about reagents and their importance? Jytdog ( talk) 06:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Trivial difference that's been bothering me: Translation (biology) vs Transcription (genetics). Would it make sense to harmonise them both to XYZ (genetics)? I can't imagine it actually causes any confusion, it just seems untidy. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Archive 7 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This template has surprisingly few fields. I wanted to add alt names to Histidine—tRNA ligase and the only place I could do it was in the "name" field which seems like clutter. Shouldn't this have most everything in Template:Infobox protein? Jytdog ( talk) 06:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|AltNames=
might be useful, hence I have added this as an optional parameter to the template.
Boghog (
talk)
06:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|ECnumber=
in {{
Infobox protein}} should be able to list more multiple EC numbers. I will look into this.
Boghog (
talk)
07:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently renominated this article at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2) and was wondering if anyone from this WikiProject would be interested in doing a review of this article's pharmacology content. Every statement in this section is supported by at least 1 WP:MEDRS-quality review.
Since this compound's immediate biomolecular targets aren't known, there's a large amount of material on its downstream signaling pathways (primarily through mTORC1 and its interactions with the ubiquitin-proteasome system) in the pharmacodynamics section; this content is mostly based upon clinical trials in humans, but there's some contextual information on its signaling mechanisms which comes from in vitro and animal studies (I've clearly indicated what statements are supported by human in vivo research vs in vitro or animal research in the article text). The pharmacokinetics section covers its biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in humans. Consequently, it would be ideal for someone with a pharmacology and/or molecular biology background to take on a review of this material.
I would really appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject would take on a review of this article content at FAC. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about metabolism is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. A new user created testosterone-cortisol ratio through AfC and requested some help improving it. I did a copyedit and formatted some references but have no knowledge about the subject itself (or molecular biology for that matter). Maybe someone here can help this user out? The topic sounds interesting enough to be featured in T:DYK if the article were expanded a bit more. Regards So Why 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've been going through the backlog at CAT:ORPHAN lately, and I keep running across articles like EAF1, E2F7, etc etc for various genes and proteins. There's a ton of them and they're all orphans, almost all created by User:ProteinBoxBot, all the way back from 2009 and earlier. I don't know the first thing about molecular biology, so I have no way to determine if these articles are correct, useful, or notable...really anything about them. I would like to be able to de-orphan them in order to clear out the backlog there, but I don't want to make a mess of anything given my lack of knowledge.
Is there any policy or guideline covering the notability of proteins/genes as separate articles? Is there a central list article they could be linked at for the purposes of de-orphaning? Or even a group of such articles, like "genes on human chromosome 3" or something?
Any input would be a huge help, like I said I'd love to do anything that can clear out the backlog, but I don't want to break anything out of ignorance. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This section is poorly written with misleading information. This requires serious editing. Andrzej Slominski, MD, PhD Endowed Professor of Dermatology Professor of Pathology Program Director of Dermatopathology Fellowship Senior Scientist, Comprehensive Cancer Center Cancer Chemoprevention Program Member of the Editorial Boards of Exp Dermatol, J Pineal Research, PLoS ONE, Dermato-Endocrinology, Int J Mol Sci, Melanoma Management, Pol J Path Department of Dermatology University of Alabama at Birmingham Volker Hall 476C Box 109 1720 2nd Avenue South VH 476C Birmingham, AL 35294 Phone: 205.934.5245 e-mail: aslominski@uabmc.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.187.167 ( talk) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Two weeks ago I tried to make a meaningful contribution to the NAD article on Wikipedia.
It was labeled as «promotional garbage» by user:Jytdog. The last part of his edit summary was also pure and intended nonsense, and had nothing to do with the content of my original edit.
Within a couple of hours or so I was «edit warring», guilty of «sock puppetry» and given a free, one week sabbatical from Wikipedia.
My original edit, a short passage, is now on display at the NAD talk page.
Feedback from other users is appreciated. Thank you. Clowns und Kinder ( talk) 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikidata_again. This is like playing whackamole. Jytdog ( talk) 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are requested at Talk:Expanded genetic code#mouse code about whether certain content is an acceptable use of primary sources. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 06:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on this merge proposal (or other ideas on what to do with History of penicillin) would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello WP:MCB! In infoboxes of gene/protein articles, there are small thumbnail images of RNA expression pattern. I proposed switching these small thumbnail to full size image, because Wikipedia/Mediawiki image system was changed. Since image data are recalled from Wikidata, I post the proposal at Wikidata page ( wikidata:Property talk:P692#How about using full size image instead of small thumbnail?). I would like to get your thoughts on that. Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 06:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/ WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.
Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article "Mitochondrial protein-transporting ATPase" there are only four citations present. Three out of four of the citations used are 20 or more years old. To make this Article on Wiki better more recent citations should be used. Also more Citations should be referenced as well. Dintamang ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The journal group PLOS is extending its ' Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).
Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see
these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know:
T Shafee (PLOS Gen),
D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
12:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
While diagnosing how
alcohol dehydrogenase displayed compared to
inositol oxygenase, the former has a
BRENDA link autogenerated when |EC_number=
is present as a feature of {{
infobox enzyme}}. The latter does have an EC number passed, but no such link, which it turns out is because {{
infobox protein}} does not have the BRENDA-link feature. But I also notice that this infobox uses a different parameter for the EC number (|ECnumber=
, note lack of underscore). So three concerns:
I'll post pointers from both templates' talkpages to here momentarily. DMacks ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. After the RM results at Talk:Light-independent reactions, the article " Light-independent reactions" needs attention. The scope of this article is confusing as the article suffered from naming and scope issues. I think participants here may be interested in this. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on a few requests for comments on the Microscope article.
Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_how_a_scanning_electron_microscope_works
Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope
Talk:Microscope#RFC_should_article_focus_on_instrument.2C_microscope.2C_or_technique.2C_microscopy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, -- 2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 ( talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The above navboxes are being proposed for deletion. Your comments are welcome here. Boghog ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
To state that KcsA belongs to the family of voltage gated channels is very misleading since it implies that KcsA is also voltage gated. This IMHO is unacceptable. It is acceptable to state that KcsA is evolutionarily related to voltage gated ion channels, but is not itself voltage gated. A fundamental flaw in the TCDB is that it does not clearly distinguish between structure and function. It is naming evolutionary related protein families after the predominate function of the majority of family members and this causes confusion when referring to members of this family that don't share this function. It would have been better to use function neutral names for these families, for example, seven-transmembrane domain family instead of GPCR. Boghog ( talk) 17:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Transporter Guy and My very best wishes: I find this very disturbing. This is a clear example of ref spam and undue weight. GPCRs are not transporters. Full stop. GPCRs transduce signals, not transport molecules. Any classification system that categorizes GPCRs as transporters is highly suspect. The TCDB seems to be a made up ad hoc classification system. I agree with Tryptofish that the TCDB is only one of several transporter classification systems. I also agree with Tryptofish there are significant copyright concerns with Transporter Guy's contributions. Boghog ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There's a draft over at AfC that it would be a good thing if someone with a bit more knowledge of the subject took a look at: Draft:Chloroplast migration. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Andrew Su, I9606, and Julialturner: I am posting here because this issue may be of general interest to the MCB community.
Previously in Gene Wiki articles, only a single accession code was generally displayed for UniProt (reviewed Swiss-Prot only) and RefSeq (experimental NM/NP only) entries. I noticed that the Gene Wiki Infoboxes now display additional UniProt TrEMBL entries as well as predicted XM/XP RefSeq entries (see for example, ETHE1). My question is whether multiple UniProt and RefSeq links should be displayed. My own opinion is that only the Swiss-Prot UniProt and experimental RefSeq links should be displayed if they exist because they are the highest quality and determining which of the several displayed links is the most relevant is not immediately apparent. If Swiss-Prot or RefSeq NM/NP entries do not exist, then it may be appropriate to display TrEMBL or XM/XP links. However I would be interested in hearing how others think, especially those maintaining this data. Cheers. Boghog ( talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
See this diff which was made by a bot, User:ProteinBoxBot. Just wanted to make sure you all were aware of this. Jytdog ( talk) 03:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states that this deletion syndrome is a protein, which strikes me as odd. Also, there is already an article on the Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, called DiGeorge syndrome. -- Arno Matthias ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all, but shouldn't there at least be a link to DiGeorge syndrome in the article? Or, if the are the same, only one article? -- Arno Matthias ( talk) 06:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
(Also posted on project PHARMA)
User:Medgirl131 has recently created {{ Cytokine receptor modulators}} and {{ Nitric oxide signaling}} navboxes and has been adding these to a large number of articles. My major concern is that they combine endogenous proteins and recombinant protein drugs in one infobox which I think is confusing. Additional concerns that I have about these navboxes are their large size and that they violate WP:Bidirectional which makes navigation more difficult. I have highlighted my concerns on their talk page here. What do others think about these navboxes? Boghog ( talk) 06:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made a new metro-style map of the major metabolic pathways, which was inspired by the already existing one ( Template:Metabolic_pathways) and other excellent online resources (e.g. [12], [13]). The map encompasses most of the biochem pathways in human, but also include important ones in plants / fungi / microbes (double lines). The metabolites are grouped as general terms (e.g. "Hexose Phosphates") instead of the specific ones in the existing map. I'm also going to make it a clickable map.
Some questions:
Thanks! (also posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/Metabolic_Pathways_task_force/proposals#New_map_of_Metabolic_Pathways) Chakazul ( talk) 17:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
annotated image 4}}
to convert it into an interactive diagram (like
Template:Glycolysis summary). I have a few suggestions for improvements:
{{
annotated image 4}}
template only allows adding wikilinked text over the image. Adding
click-able field shapes / image maps tends to be trickier.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC){{
Annotated image 4}}
, but it'd probably be a little more tedious to set up relative to annotating text onto an image without pre-existing text. Basically, all you have to do is create a piped wikilink to a bunch of non-breaking spaces (produced via the text
). Adding a space between non-breaking spaces will take up less room in the source code (i.e., use
instead of
). As an example, the next line contains an invisible link to the MCB project page and the line after that contains an invisible link to a redirect to this page:<br />
included in the piped link when the text in the diagram is on different lines.[[wikitext|this wikilink<br />spans several lines via 2 forced<br />line breaks.]]
produces:
this wikilink@ Evolution and evolvability and Seppi333: Thanks for the suggestions! Here is a trial version of the template: User:Chakazul/sandbox.
The first one is the diagram without text, added two wikilinks for testing; the second one is the original diagram, using Seppi's method. Both methods have their own merits. Style 1 is a bit easier to match the positions, and can show the availability of the wiki page (blue or red). Style 2 gives more control on the color (most texts are in black BTW), but matching the white spaces needs more work. So Evo&Evo it's up to you to choose which method for annotation. Chakazul ( talk) 18:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Beautiful! A few suggestions:
Awesome work!
Adrian J. Hunter(
talk•
contribs)
14:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Metabolic_metro now created. My sandbox can be used for drafting. @ Evolution and evolvability:. Chakazul ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Major metabolic pathways | |
---|---|
|
Esteemed members of this project may be best placed to work out whether the speedy deletion tag on Flow-through test should stay or go ... the subject matter appears to be within your sphere of interest. Grateful if someone would take a look (preferably before it gets speedied) - it's an article which popped up on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Conversation on controversial changes to epistasis article being discussed on the WP:GEN talkpage. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone with some experience help double-check on FAM163A? The title is FAM163A but the infobox is FAM136A. It seemed like it was previously clear with this version but this edit flipped the name but not the infobox and changed none of the citations which is mighty odd. Does a history split need to be done and other fixes? See also User:Flameep/sandbox. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We are proposing a Wikimedia Project Grant (WikiFactMine) which will automatically scan the daily peer-reviewed scientific literature (up to 10000 articles /day) and extract biological entities (definable in Wikidata). We concentrate on genes and species which have high precision and recall, but with Wikidata-based dictionaries this can be extended to other well defined entities (e.g. cell types or diseases). These, with their citations, are then offered to Wikidata editors for potential inclusion/update. These can also alert Wikipedia editors to new citations. The project includes a Wikimedian in residence in the University of Cambridge. We'd be grateful for comments, endorsement and offers of help. Petermr ( talk) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi... can anyone start writing about Gasdermins? -- محمود ( talk) 21:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_2#Misfolded is ongoing. We are not sure whether "misfold" is a purely biochemical term or if it could WP:SURPRISE people who were looking for info about folding blankets. Your input would be much appreciated.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone review/assess the Phosphatidylserine article? I hope this is the correct place to request this. VeniVidiVicipedia ( talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone review/assess the Cyclopentenone prostaglandins article? The article has recently been greatly expanded. Although it is currently categorized as a pharmacy and pharmacology article, it may be better categorized in the Molecular and Cellular biology section. Very similar prostaglandins are so categorized (e.g. see prostaglandin). Suggestions on its improvement would be appreciated. Also, the article as currently formatted is correctly redirected from 15-deoxy-Δ12,14-prostaglandin J2 (15-d-Δ12,14-PGJ2), a principal cycloentenone prostaglandin. Is it possible to similarly redirect it from other cyclopenentone prostaglandins viz., Δ12-PGJ2, PGJ2, PGA2, and PGA1, discussed in the article (but not given separate Wikipedia pages elsewhere) and, if so, how do I do that? Thanks, ( User talk:joflaher) 12:01 P.M. 29 Oct 2016.
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed in the CRISPR article the following sentence in the lead section: "The CRISPR interference technique has many potential applications, including altering the germline of humans, animals, and food crops." My background is chemistry and I am confident that that statement is incorrect. That can be a very time-consuming error for the reader to sort out. I think the article should mention something about the Cas9-gRNA complex, since it is the synthetic gRNA that makes it into a gene editing tool and a Breakthrough. The press just calls it "CRISPR", but we should try to sort it out for the reader. I think the article should be split, splitting out the engineering technology from the native phenomena (that is some work). It would be nice to note that Cas9 corresponds to CAS III in the diagram at the top of the page. See [14] for some details. Can any of you experts help out?-- 172.56.0.153 ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
References
---Reply---
Done Not sure what the history is here. But made the more specific requested change. Thanks for pointing that out!
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, given that it is one of the most viewed articles within this project's scope, I was thinking that it might be a good candidate for doing some sort of joint publication, where we make a concerted effort to bring it up to high-standard and then submit to an academic journal for peer review. The lure of a possible publication could entice some academics with greater experience in the area. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 06:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Should this redlink be redirected to microfilament, actin, cytoskeleton, or related article, or does it merit its own independent article? I can't really tell since I'm not that familiar with the topic. There's 4 incoming links from articles to that redlink. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks! Super-resolution microscopy has had a "clarification-needed" tag for about a year now in the section on Structured illumination microscopy. I find I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. Any chance someone with a bit more experience in this kind of thing could take a peek and clarify the paragraph in question? Thanks a bunch! Ajpolino ( talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This has come up before on the talk page ( Talk:VMAT2#God Gene does not help understanding of VMAT2 function), but I figured I'd raise the issue here to attract more input. God gene hypothesis is a fringe theory that suggests that a neurotransmitter transporter which is located on synaptic vesicles in monoamine neurons ( VMAT2) has some form of significant role in spirituality. I've removed content which covers the god gene hypothesis from the VMAT2 article twice now - once recently and once a while ago - per WP:ONEWAY. The question I have for you all is this: should this article cover a fringe theory because the theory is covered in popular culture? Please respond here if you have any input: Talk:VMAT2#Re: covering the God gene hypothesis. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed that the article Neto 1 be merged into NETO1 as both articles appear to be on the same topic and "NETO1" is currently a more thorough discourse of the topic. I have created a proposed merger Talk Space on the NETO1 page and listed what I need help with.
I am not a scientist, biologist, etc., so I am not sure which article title is correct. I would appreciate any pertinent information that you can provide. If someone can assist with rewriting the article after the merger is complete that would be appreciated. Currently both articles are lacking substance and incoming links. I'm being pretty bold proposing a merger after being on the site for less than two months, so your patience while I learn more about editing on Wikipedia is appreciated.
Thanks for your help! Zcarstvnz ( talk) 22:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Splitting_articles_about_endogenous_molecules_used_as_drugs Jytdog ( talk) 23:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
maybe i have missed it, but i have never found a page that gives an overview of reagents. I just added a tiny bit at that article but it is a chicken scratch. Is there a master artcle somewhere that talks about reagents and their importance? Jytdog ( talk) 06:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Trivial difference that's been bothering me: Translation (biology) vs Transcription (genetics). Would it make sense to harmonise them both to XYZ (genetics)? I can't imagine it actually causes any confusion, it just seems untidy. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Archive 7 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This template has surprisingly few fields. I wanted to add alt names to Histidine—tRNA ligase and the only place I could do it was in the "name" field which seems like clutter. Shouldn't this have most everything in Template:Infobox protein? Jytdog ( talk) 06:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|AltNames=
might be useful, hence I have added this as an optional parameter to the template.
Boghog (
talk)
06:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|ECnumber=
in {{
Infobox protein}} should be able to list more multiple EC numbers. I will look into this.
Boghog (
talk)
07:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently renominated this article at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2) and was wondering if anyone from this WikiProject would be interested in doing a review of this article's pharmacology content. Every statement in this section is supported by at least 1 WP:MEDRS-quality review.
Since this compound's immediate biomolecular targets aren't known, there's a large amount of material on its downstream signaling pathways (primarily through mTORC1 and its interactions with the ubiquitin-proteasome system) in the pharmacodynamics section; this content is mostly based upon clinical trials in humans, but there's some contextual information on its signaling mechanisms which comes from in vitro and animal studies (I've clearly indicated what statements are supported by human in vivo research vs in vitro or animal research in the article text). The pharmacokinetics section covers its biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in humans. Consequently, it would be ideal for someone with a pharmacology and/or molecular biology background to take on a review of this material.
I would really appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject would take on a review of this article content at FAC. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about metabolism is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. A new user created testosterone-cortisol ratio through AfC and requested some help improving it. I did a copyedit and formatted some references but have no knowledge about the subject itself (or molecular biology for that matter). Maybe someone here can help this user out? The topic sounds interesting enough to be featured in T:DYK if the article were expanded a bit more. Regards So Why 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've been going through the backlog at CAT:ORPHAN lately, and I keep running across articles like EAF1, E2F7, etc etc for various genes and proteins. There's a ton of them and they're all orphans, almost all created by User:ProteinBoxBot, all the way back from 2009 and earlier. I don't know the first thing about molecular biology, so I have no way to determine if these articles are correct, useful, or notable...really anything about them. I would like to be able to de-orphan them in order to clear out the backlog there, but I don't want to make a mess of anything given my lack of knowledge.
Is there any policy or guideline covering the notability of proteins/genes as separate articles? Is there a central list article they could be linked at for the purposes of de-orphaning? Or even a group of such articles, like "genes on human chromosome 3" or something?
Any input would be a huge help, like I said I'd love to do anything that can clear out the backlog, but I don't want to break anything out of ignorance. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This section is poorly written with misleading information. This requires serious editing. Andrzej Slominski, MD, PhD Endowed Professor of Dermatology Professor of Pathology Program Director of Dermatopathology Fellowship Senior Scientist, Comprehensive Cancer Center Cancer Chemoprevention Program Member of the Editorial Boards of Exp Dermatol, J Pineal Research, PLoS ONE, Dermato-Endocrinology, Int J Mol Sci, Melanoma Management, Pol J Path Department of Dermatology University of Alabama at Birmingham Volker Hall 476C Box 109 1720 2nd Avenue South VH 476C Birmingham, AL 35294 Phone: 205.934.5245 e-mail: aslominski@uabmc.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.187.167 ( talk) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Two weeks ago I tried to make a meaningful contribution to the NAD article on Wikipedia.
It was labeled as «promotional garbage» by user:Jytdog. The last part of his edit summary was also pure and intended nonsense, and had nothing to do with the content of my original edit.
Within a couple of hours or so I was «edit warring», guilty of «sock puppetry» and given a free, one week sabbatical from Wikipedia.
My original edit, a short passage, is now on display at the NAD talk page.
Feedback from other users is appreciated. Thank you. Clowns und Kinder ( talk) 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikidata_again. This is like playing whackamole. Jytdog ( talk) 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are requested at Talk:Expanded genetic code#mouse code about whether certain content is an acceptable use of primary sources. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 06:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on this merge proposal (or other ideas on what to do with History of penicillin) would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello WP:MCB! In infoboxes of gene/protein articles, there are small thumbnail images of RNA expression pattern. I proposed switching these small thumbnail to full size image, because Wikipedia/Mediawiki image system was changed. Since image data are recalled from Wikidata, I post the proposal at Wikidata page ( wikidata:Property talk:P692#How about using full size image instead of small thumbnail?). I would like to get your thoughts on that. Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 06:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/ WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.
Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article "Mitochondrial protein-transporting ATPase" there are only four citations present. Three out of four of the citations used are 20 or more years old. To make this Article on Wiki better more recent citations should be used. Also more Citations should be referenced as well. Dintamang ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The journal group PLOS is extending its ' Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).
Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see
these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know:
T Shafee (PLOS Gen),
D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
12:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
While diagnosing how
alcohol dehydrogenase displayed compared to
inositol oxygenase, the former has a
BRENDA link autogenerated when |EC_number=
is present as a feature of {{
infobox enzyme}}. The latter does have an EC number passed, but no such link, which it turns out is because {{
infobox protein}} does not have the BRENDA-link feature. But I also notice that this infobox uses a different parameter for the EC number (|ECnumber=
, note lack of underscore). So three concerns:
I'll post pointers from both templates' talkpages to here momentarily. DMacks ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. After the RM results at Talk:Light-independent reactions, the article " Light-independent reactions" needs attention. The scope of this article is confusing as the article suffered from naming and scope issues. I think participants here may be interested in this. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on a few requests for comments on the Microscope article.
Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_how_a_scanning_electron_microscope_works
Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope
Talk:Microscope#RFC_should_article_focus_on_instrument.2C_microscope.2C_or_technique.2C_microscopy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, -- 2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 ( talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The above navboxes are being proposed for deletion. Your comments are welcome here. Boghog ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)