Talk:Engineered negligible senescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Engineered negligible senescence article.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Journal Image Caption

    The journal image caption is currently long, but it does provide germane information regarding the scope of the journal and the research being done in this area. Image side-bars with long captions are commonly used in print texts, and there are instances of much longer captions in other Wikipedia articles, such as Race_and_intelligence#Socio-economic_factors.--Nectarflowed (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Good point. And I see that the second sentence is a little better now that the "world leaders" bit has been taken out. I didn't like that bit, and that's why I zapped the sentence. I do usually favour brevity, but I will let this version remain. —RadRafe | t 13:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    the caption --even modified -- is unjustified altogether, the picture is unjustified altogether, and I have removed it--it amounts to placing he name of one particular worker at the head of an article on a general subject in an unduly prominent position. I'll be glad to discuss it here, but I seriously suggest you consider whether this article would not be considerably stronger and more defensible without it. iI cannot think of any parallel to such a picture in such a place. DGG (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] SENS criticism added

    This article does not seem to give the views of SENS critics a hearing, NPOV section added.--User:213.186.192.40

    [edit] Glucosylation vs Glycosylation

    Should it not be Glycosylation insted of Glucosylation? Fortunatedly there already is a decent article on Glycosylation... may I suggest modifying this? -Curious

    I'd probably second this concern, as I had thought it was Glycosylation as well. It's a difference of Glucose and Glycogen apparently... hmm. Well, I'm going to change it soon if no one objects, and modify the Gly page with a link to ENS as well. If someone objects, please do so now (or then) and I request that you also define the Glucosylation page in the process. I googled the word so it definately does exist, but has yet to be defined. Can we cross-reference this with De Gray's website (if he has one) to determine the correct term? --Tyciol 09:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    I just read a number of articles, including "In planta sequential hydroxylation and glycosylation of a fungal phytotoxin: Avoiding cell death and overcoming the fungal invader", in PNAS USA 2001 January 16; 98(2): 747–752 that use "Glycosylation" in the title, and "Glucosylation" in the article body as a synonym. Glucosylation, I believe, refers more specifically to bonding glucose to a larger molecule e.g. a protein, whereas glycosylation more generally refers to bonding any saccharide of any size similarly. In another article, "PROTEIN GLUCOSYLATION AND ITS ROLE IN PROTEIN FOLDING" in the Annual Review of Biochemistry of July 2000, the term "glucosylation" is used consistently, and unambiguously indicates that an oligosaccharide bonds with a protein through its glucose residue. Tyciol, glycogen is just one isomer of poly-glucose, so it sort of makes sense that glucosylation would refer to the oligosaccharides, whereas glycosylation would refer to larger molecules. (DAH 9/3/07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.249.55 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] paragraph of AD in overview

    I wasnt the one who removed it, but its out of place there, and I think it would be excessive detail in the article in general, which is not about the ravages of AD. In the absence of argument, I will remove it. DGG (talk)

    [edit] Section 1.2

    Entitled "The Seven Causes of Aging", may need some revisions for clarity. I'm a biochemist, and there are a few sentences that I just can't make sense of, so I imagine the general public may have a problem with it as well. I don't want to be nit-picky, but someone really should go over the grammar and syntax of the whole section, too. "1. Cell Loss or Atrophy" has a confusing sentence structure; "this research involves a large number of details, and is already occurring on many fronts" could be interpreted to mean that the research itself is particularly nuanced, whereas I think its intended meaning was that the "details" in question are still unknown. "2. Nuclear Mutations and Epimutations" claims that cancer can be cured through "whole-body interdiction of lengthening telomeres", but the links supporting this point are dead, and for such a controversial and emotional topic, the editor really needs to be more clear about what this means. Does this therapy consist of transfecting every somatic cell with a gene? Is there a drug that affects telomere extension? Furthermore, the linked article on telomeres clearly establishes that they actually prevent mutations during replication, an inconsistency that may be overlooked by a casual reader and thus cause a misinterpretation of the article. In "3. Mitochondrial Mutations [...] Dr. de Grey claims that experimental evidence demonstrates that the operation is feasible," but neither Dr. de Grey nor the evidence of which he speaks is cited. The entirety of "5. Extracellular Cross-Links" is confusing and fails to convey a coherent idea; why is it important that the extracellular matrix is not inside the cell? Why does Dr. de Grey propose to develop drugs to disrupt "chemical bonding" when "In senescent people many of these become brittle and weak."? These are two very different ideas that need to be rectified in order to make the paragraph make sense. "6. Junk Outside Cells" and "7. Junk Inside Cells" need to be much, much more specific. I know what a beta sheet structure is on a protein, but anyone who doesn't have a background in biochemistry has no idea, so "Junk outside cells might be removed by [...] small drugs able to break chemical beta-bonds [sic]," doesn't really mean anything to the layperson. Also, an editor should reconsider the use of the word "junk" when it is being used to refer to plaque. The only other useless materials of which I am aware that will not be excreted are the appendix and tumors. The identity of intracellular "junk" should be specified, because I can barely begin to guess. Finally, the editor should explain what prevents the "enzymes [...] taken from bacteria, molds and other organisms that are known to completely digest animal bodies," from digesting functional cell components. -DAH24.131.249.55 05:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)