Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the WikiProject Molecular Biology talk page. Please post any comments, suggestions or questions. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

WikiProject Molecular Biology Archives: 1, 2, 3

Taskforce archives:

MCB: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Genetics: 1, 2, 3, 4
Computational Biology: 1, 2
Gene Wiki: 1, 2, 3, 4

Biophysics (inactive): 1, 2
Metabolic Pathways (inactive): 1
Cell Signaling (inactive): 1
RNA (inactive): 1

Why is Transpeptidase a disambiguation page?

[edit]

I'm pretty sure transpeptidases are a class of enzymes; yet a disambiguation page exists rather than an article, and it's being treated like a list/category page containing links to various specific transpeptidase enzymes. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a distinct class of enzymes? I tried a Google Scholar search and reviews for the term transpeptidase exclusively bring up gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase. There's also no top-level EC classification for peptide to amino acid/peptide transfer, at least in transferase. This was just a cursory search on my part and you might want to double check on your side. ⇌ Synpath 15:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when I look a little longer I find it: EC 2.3.2.-. Most of those are not transferring between amides though. ⇌ Synpath 15:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm incorrectly using "class" here, but what I meant was that there are various proteins that are called "transpeptidase", and the disamb page just lists some of those. Does it have to be that way, actually? CheckNineEight (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be that way. An an article can be written or a list made as long as there are references to support it, preferably based on a review focused on enzymes that transfer acyl groups between amides. I feel like such a review should exist (tough reaction, clear scope, involved bacterial cell wall biosynthesis), but haven't turned it up myself. ⇌ Synpath 03:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project § Requested move 15 September 2025

[edit]

An editor has requested that Talk:Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of MicroRNA and microRNA target database

[edit]
Notice

The article MicroRNA and microRNA target database has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be converted to a "List"? (seeWikipedia:Contents/Lists). It's useful information, but like you said it's really not appropriate as an article. BetsyRogers (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for creation and correction of inappropriate redirect

[edit]

Hello, I was trying to research FEZF2 (FEZ family zinc finger 2) and discovered that this currently inappropriately redirects to FEZ2 (Fasciculation and elongation protein zeta-2). I know that gene pages follow some highly specific formatting, especially in the infobox, and don't feel comfortable creating the page FEZF2 myself. At the very least I can do some homework for you:

•NIH

•OMIM

•An article discussing its function as a complement to the better-known AIRE, in thymic mTECs. This is the context I was researching it in.

The gene also has some role in neurology and/or embryologic neurological development, but this is outside of my current scope of research. This seems like a rather important gene though, just from its thymic functions alone, so I'll try to remember to come back to help on the page once someone can get it up and running :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be wasting time on a new article for FEZF2 considering all the work that needs to be done cleaning up and correcting the basic articles on molecular biology. Genome42 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenetic clock Horvath errata

[edit]

The article heavily relies on a paper by Horvath which has an errata. The errata is substantial, and it honestly too dense for my non-expert eyes to make any sense of it. If someone could review the errata and the article, make any updates, or simply add |checked=yes to the erratum template if things are all cool, that would be great. I'll also notify WP:MED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: erratum and Retraction Watch article CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising! Looking at the erratum and the wiki article, this appears quite straightforward. The erratum only applies to cancer cells, while the fundamental idea is sound. I will take a stab at revising. Dbsseven (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Escherichia coli

[edit]

Escherichia coli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need to create about 1000 pages and move a fair number of existing ones

[edit]

Long story short, I created a data pipeline using python and SPARQL that made a diff between the list of human protein-coding gene entries (i.e., wikilinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia) and existing en-wiki sitelinks from HGNC-linked or uniprot-linked wikidata items. I've known there were a lot of redlinks that should be blue for a while now based on the number of bluelinks in the wikipedia lists and the number of en-wiki sitelinks on Wikidata.

In any event, there's over 1000 redlinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia that should be blue. I'll parse and upload the complete list with redlinks at a gene symbol and the corresponding bluelinks from Wikidata within like a day. Most of the cases are:

  • "SYMBOL" (redlink) and a "SYMBOL (gene)" bluelink
  • "SYMBOL" (redlink) and a "Protein_name" bluelink"

For now, the simplest and smallest bucket of page fixes to address is these: "SYMBOL" (redlink) due to borked capitalization (see the examples I've included a redlinked gene symbol page move target to below; the same convention applies to the rest of these). If anyone wants to move them to correct capitalization, I'd appreciate it. Need to write more python and regex. >.>

  1. Ccdc60 -> CCDC60
  2. CD1b -> CD1B
  3. ClpX
  4. Fam78b
  5. Fam89A
  6. FAM227a
  7. Golph3 -> GOLPH3
  8. Kiaa1755
  9. Loricrin -> LORICRIN
  10. Naa80
  11. PrimPol
  12. Proser2
  13. SnRNP70
  14. Tafazzin
  15. Timeless (gene) -> TIMELESS (gene)

I'm very likely going to automate fixing the rest with a bot script. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: just a reminder to myself, need to sort out and fix shit like this too:
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of additional page moves

  1. AGTPBP1 <-> AGTPBP1 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
  2. ATOH8 <-> ATOH8 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
  3. C1QTNF4 <-> C1QTNF4 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
  4. CAMK1G <-> CAMK1G (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
  5. CCDC88C <-> CCDC88C (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
  6. CLYBL <-> CLYBL (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
  7. DENND2B <-> ST5 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
  8. FAM170B <-> FAM170B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 3 -- 1)
  9. HACL1 <-> HACL1 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
  10. INO80B <-> INO80B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
  11. KIAA1549L <-> KIAA1549L (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
  12. LHFPL3 <-> LHFPL3 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
  13. NOTUM <-> NOTUM (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 5 -- 1)
  14. PLA2G4E <-> PLA2G4E (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 6 -- 1)
  15. PRXL2B <-> PRXL2B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 6 -- 1)
  16. SP140 <-> SP140 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 7 -- 1)
  17. THADA <-> THADA (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
  18. TMEM150B <-> TMEM150B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
  19. TMPRSS7 <-> TMPRSS7 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
  20. TNIP3 <-> TNIP3 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
  21. TYMP <-> TYMP (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I don't really understand the request. Could you clarify/explain, "...(i.e., wikilinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia) and existing en-wiki sitelinks from HGNC-linked or uniprot-linked wikidata items." ? BetsyRogers (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I mainly just dumped it here for comment.
i need to sort the entries into which pages get redirected and which ones get moved. Will need to file a BRFA after that. Unfortunately, my laptop is out of commission and it’ll take a few weeks for my motherboard to be repaired. I’ll follow up again soonish. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'd be happy to help out if I can. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move TIPARP -> PARP7

[edit]

I've proposed moving TIPARP to PARP7. There are no comments yet, which may just mean that it's an uncontroversial suggestion, but if anyone has a view on whether this move would be useful it would be good to have some second opinions. The discussion's at Talk:TIPARP § Requested move 4 November 2025. Thanks, Mgp28 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chemical reaction

[edit]

I've made the {{Chemical reaction}} template meant to ease the creation of high-level chemical/enzyme reaction schemes. See the post at WT:CHEM#Template:Chemical reaction for examples and I'd appreciate if you could share some thoughts on the template. ⇌ Synpath 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Nucleic acid double helix § Article is way too DNA-centric

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nucleic acid double helix § Article is way too DNA-centric. CheckNineEight (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Amino acid

[edit]

Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:C11orf71

[edit]

Draft:C11orf71 has been submitted for review. Will someone take another look at it? My first and second thoughts are that it needs a proper lede sentence and should be accepted because it is more likely to be improved in article space than in draft space. My third thought is I'm a chemist, not a geneticist. Should we accept it? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:SIGCOV as written. Most of the references are to datapoints from databases and of the three primary references not one mentions "C11orf71", "URLC" or even "orf". So it fails WP:V too. The body of the article doesn't even make it clear why the gene is of any interest beyond changes in expression levels and doesn't explain why that even matters. Expression levels change all the time for many reasons. The reason for the change matters. The fact that the primary references failed verification has soured me on the topic and I doubt any of this stuff is even a hint of true. The author can probably salvage this if they find a review article (preferably three) and summarize that coverage judiciously. The fact that you can buy anti-C11orf71 antibodies on Sigma tells me this probably shouldn't be out of reach. ⇌ Synpath 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it also needs mentioning that the I-TASSER model is original research. ⇌ Synpath 19:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would reject the draft because I'm not a big fan of cluttering up Wikipedia with articles about all 25,000 human genes and who knows how many millions from other species.
I recognize that some genes are important enough to merit their own article but this isn't one of them. Genome42 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wiki Education assignments

[edit]

Many of these assignments expect undergraduate students to edit existing Wikipedia pages. This leads to bloating as students insert irrelevant material and/or material that is adequately covered in other articles. It's also not unusual for undergraduates to insert incorrect or misleading information.

I think we should discourage such assignments. Genome42 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handling retractions - Talk:Deborah F. Kelly

[edit]

Flagging this discussion on the Talk:Deborah F. Kelly on how to handle the increasing retractions while mindful of WP:BLP. Any input there would be greatly appreciated. Dbsseven (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? (Seriously... what?)

[edit]

"Molecular demons"...? I'm at a loss for words. I consider myself pretty well versed in molecular biology, biochem, etc., but this is the first I'm hearing about demon molecules. I'm hoping this is just some niche topic in biophysics or something like that. BetsyRogers (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a physics concept where the molecule seemingly lowers entropy, in analogy to Maxwell's demon in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The molecule does lower local entropy, but it does so by consuming energy and ends up increasing the total entropy of the system as expected. Such molecules are widespread in life; usually they are just called molecular machines or molecular motors. Ratchet mechanisms in molecular biology are one example. Demon here just means a being that does something you think should be impossible. There is no particular religious context, just physicist wordplay. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Molybdenum cofactor

[edit]
Notice

The article Molybdenum cofactor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for 16 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Attempts to source it, to ask for citations needed, and to merge have all failed over the years. This is in fact a disambiguation page with two entries.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Molybdenum#Biological role or Molybdenum in biology is more appropriate than deletion. ⇌ Synpath 14:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Just do it. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks ⇌ Synpath 23:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror-image life

[edit]

I would appreciate some additional oversight on the article Mirror-image life. There is particular contention around an edit describing concerns about mirror-image life as "overblown" in the lead, in what the source provided actually describes as a two-sided scientific debate. See this discussion. Alenoach (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4#Requested move 30 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4#Requested move 30 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology&oldid=1327525015"