Talk:Nuclear receptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
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.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template)

Contents

[edit] Article rating and importance justification

Medium importance rating: nuclear receptors (NR) are involved directly or indirectly in many diseases and are the targets of relatively large number of approved drugs. In addition NRs play critical roles in development and metabolism.
Quality rating: certainly enough detail to be rated at least start class. Boghog2 08:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Previously the talk page for "Nuclear hormone receptor" topic was redirected to Talk:Intracellular receptor. Now "Nuclear hormone receptor" has it's own unique talk page (this page).Boghog2 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] figures?

this page needs some figures... Roadnottaken 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mechanism

OK Roadnottaken and 172.142.77.165, the mechanism section and accompanying graphic was not as clear as it should be. I tried to find the right compromise between clarity and accuracy. But even the existing mechanism discussion is over simplified since there are other mechanisms (e.g., transrepression, receptor cross talk, squelching, etc.) which are not yet mentioned. When I find time, I will try to expand and add better graphics. Anyone else want to lend a hand?

Boghog2 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Boghog2, I am sorry for deleting "Gene" links, so you had to restore them. Do you suggest always to keep such links rather than replace them with internal WP links?Biophys (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem Biophys. Ordinarily the changes you made would be OK, except for this particular protein family where many of the pages already existed before the start of the PBB project and were named after the protein instead of the gene. (/begin rant/ Who on earth calls the estrogen receptor alpha, ESR1?? /end rant/ ;-) opps, I guess that I also have been guilty of this from time to time ;-). For consistency with the pre-existing articles, I renamed some of the pages that PBB automatically created for this family from the gene acronym to the protein name. As a consequence, after I finished renaming the pages, the links that you added that were initially OK became double redirects. Hence that is why I needed to add new links that pointed directly to the protein pages and restore the original gene links. My own preference is to use protein names in preference to gene acronyms for gene/protein pages that deal with well characterized proteins where most of the published literature discusses the properties of the protein. On the other hand, there are many genes where the function/properties of expressed protein is not known. For these genes, name WP pages after the gene acronym is appropriate. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear. Should I replace HUGO links (e.g. KCNA1) by internal WP links (e.g. KCNA1) assuming that articles like KCNA1 will be eventually generated by ProteinBoxBot? Such changes are easier to make in the whole article (e.g. Voltage-gated potassium channel) using "substitute" function of text editor. It seems that KCNA1 links for human genes are no longer needed?Biophys (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, sorry for not explaining myself better. My preference would be to wait until the target page is actually created before making the change. The reason is two-fold. First, the final target page may not be the gene name (e.g., someone could come along and do this: Kv1.1). Of course this could be fixed later by using for example replacing {{KCNA1}} with {{Kv1.1|KCNA1}} to remove the double redirect link. But then someone would have to come back to edit the link. Second why replace a functional (blue) link with a non-functional (red) link? Granted, this will eventually be rectified, but there will be a period of time when the non-functional link is in place. Finally I agree with you that PBB should first enumerate major gene/protein families so that we can integrate the PBB contributions with related pages and NavBoxes in a more systematic fashion. So I suggest that we first forward the Entrez ID for the ion channel family to AndrewGNF and start making changes to related pages after the target pages have been created. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this more cautious approach is reasonable. But then we should forward Entrez IDs to the Bot for all major human protein families.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)