Talk:Motor protein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
I think this article should be merged with molecular motors and/or deleted. "Moving proteins" doesn't appear to be a scientifically valid term. The Science paper cited in the article talks about kinesin, a motor protein. I can't find any Pubmed citations for the term "moving proteins" in the sense this article is using it. Movement proteins on the other hand is a scientific term, but those proteins have different functions from the ones described here. - tameeria 06:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Looking over the molecular motors article, I think this one should be moved to motor protein and disambiguated from the molecular motors (where motor protein currently redirects to). The three classical motor proteins are myosin, kinesin, and dynein, which seems to be exactly what this article is talking about. - tameeria 07:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move request
I've placed a request for moving this page to motor protein for the following reasons:
Moving proteins is not a scientific term. Motor protein appears to be the most accurate scientific term for the content of this article. Currently, Motor protein redirects to Molecular motors, however it is only a subsection of that article covered only by a list of links, but no real content on the topic. Also, there is a Category for "motor proteins" and it would be helpful to have a page of the same name dedicated for collecting information on topics placed in that category.
If you have comments or concerns on this move, please discuss them here. - tameeria 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Just a few numbers pulled from PubMed as justification of this move:
- The phrase moving protein(s) results in 21 hits (e.g. articles talking about "moving proteins from here to there").
- The phrase motor protein(s) results in 3188 hits, mostly on myosins, kinesins, or dyneins.
- The phrase molecular motor(s) results in 2585 hits.
Clearly, the term motor protein is well used in scientific literature, and while motor proteins are molecular motors, not all molecular motors are motor proteins, so the redirect is like redirecting poodle to dog. - tameeria 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved the page, per the request at WP:RM and explanation here. There was a non-trivial history already at Motor protein, which I swapped with the article history at Moving proteins, so the old edits can be found there, under the redirect. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SMC Proteins are proven molecular motors?
The section on molecular motors includes a protein whose in vitro and in vivo activities are poorly understood. To my knowledge, the papers which propose that SMC proteins are motors each make this argument by modeling/structural homology. Isn't this just conjecture at this point? The thirteen-year-old reference supplied also does not argue that SMC proteins are motors — even the title is a question. This is an outstanding question in biophysics, which is why I ask if its inclusion is appropriate in the section. --chodges 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I got the Cell reference from Moriya et al., 1998, A Bacillus subtilis gene-encoding protein homologous to eukaryotic SMC motor protein is necessary for chromosome partition. I have to admit that I haven't read the Cell paper as I don't have access to it online, but I thought it would be a better reference for SMC proteins than the paper about a Bacillus homolog. It doesn't look like there's much else on "SMC motor protein" on PubMed though, maybe with the exception of a 1995 review on yeast motor proteins that might be speculative as well. I would expect to find more recent reviews on SMCs being motor proteins if it was proven, I just hadn't checked for it in greater detail. I agree that if it's controversial, then it should either be stated as such or removed. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out! - tameeria 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
