Talk:DNA-binding domain

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

winged helix turn helix

Hi, should we replace chapter DNA-binding domain#ETS domain to winged helix turn helix considering discussion on the wHTH fold superfamily rather than on the ETS family? Redeemer079 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing seems reasonable to me. Changing the "ETS domain" heading to "Winged helix turn helix" would certainly be more consistent with the names of the other sections which are all descriptive of the tertiary structure of the particular domain. Therefore I support your proposed name change. Boghog2 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would external wiki links to the ETS domain be still functional after the name change? Redeemer079 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify things, I think what you mean are internal WP links (links from one WP page to another). External links are from WP articles to sites external to WP and vice versa. Assuming what you mean are internal links, any name change at worst would cause a double redirect. The link would still work, but if it exists, an effort should be made to eliminate it. I am not certain what happens if a link is to a section of a page. If the section still exists, the browser will automatically scroll down to that section. If the section no longer exists (or if the name has been changed), I think the link will still take you to the page but obviously it won't be able to scroll down to the appropriate section since it no longer exists (or exists under a different name). In any case, one can always go back to the page that links to the section on this page, and make the appropriate changes. Ultimately I think the best solution will be to make separate WP articles for each of these sections and include a brief summary in this article for each of the DBD motifs. ETS (aka Winged helix turn helix) already has a separate article. I would suggest in addition, separate articles for "Immunoglobulin fold" and "B3 DNA binding domain", leaving behind of course a brief description of these domains in this article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in this way we will avoid putting numerous and detailed citation in the root DNA-binding domain chapter. I'm going to make separate B3 article. Cheers. Redeemer079 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Creating separate articles for each of these sections is certainly the cleanest solution. Boghog2 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More less (more "less" :)) 'separating' is done with B3 DNA binding domain and Winged helix turn helix chapters, which are definitely in need for cross-validation. (Is "ETS" must have as separate article?) But DNA-binding domain#Immunoglobulin fold was completely "left behind" :). Cheers. Redeemer079 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on types has a subsection for winged-helix domains and another for winged helix-turn-helix domains. As far as I have been able to gather, they are the same thing. Does anyone have a solid reference that distinguishes the two? If not, I suggest the two subsections be merged and that the full name (winged helix-turn-helix domain) be retained. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805333/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]