Talk:Epithelial sodium channel

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Structure

ENaC structure picture is old. Can anyone change it on ASIC structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.111.83.76 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The structure and PDB number of the main image are of an adaptor protein, called AP2. This is not an ion channel. The paper cited for the image does not have the image in it. But the paper does have many nice pictures of ion channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.88.8 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic Fibrosis

Hey all. I added two paragraphs linking ENaC to cystic fibrosis. I obtained the information from Robbins Pathology, 7th edition, page 490 - 491. If someone could be bothered, they could put the citation up! M0rt (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

This article seems to be about the same thing as Amiloride-sensitive sodium channel --PhiJ 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, too. I will try to merge the artices tomorrow. Any preference which headword should be used? --NEUROtiker 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't really know anything about the subject, so which would be best I have no clue about. --PhiJ 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their are many different types of sodium channels in the body. The Amiloride-sensitive sodium channel and Epithelial sodium channel are just two types. They shouldn't be merged. It would be like merging the articles for Toyota Camry and Corolla. They kinda look the same and do the same thing, but they are not the same. D-rew 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Epithelial sodium channel article though, it is just another name for the same thing. Also if you google it, you find that there are definitely amiloride sensitive peithelial sodium channel, so if they are not the same there is obviously something to be said about it. Do you think you could do this please, as you obviously have some knowlage about this. --PhiJ 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, but i was incorrect before. I had always thought amiloride-sensitive Na+ and epithelial Na+ channels to be different, but they are evidently just shorthand for Amiloride-sensitive epithelial Na+ channels. Even going to the external link under either page you can see the longer term. Sorry for the confusion, but now i vote for merger. D-rew 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the amiloride sensitive Na channel and ENac are definately the same thing - m clunes

That is why people who are experts in topics should be the only ones to comment or edit. It creates a lot of recorrections and misconceptions in some articles because people jump in before they really understand the subject matter - SteveD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.251.167 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) There does need to be an update of this. For example the stoichiometry has been determined. SteveD. 3rd May 2008. 17:28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.20.223 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]