Talk:GPR65

	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 Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2017 and 22 December 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Neuroscienceforlife.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

The article looks wonderful. I think the graphic is very helpful in understanding this receptor. My only critic would be to expand upon some of the scientific work into lay terms, like knock out mice and the Gq/11, Gs, and G12/13 pathways. Not everyone reading the article will have the same scientific background. Great job and good luck on finals. Neuroscienceforlife (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Biolprof

Overall, this looks terrific! A few specific comments:

Species, tissue, subcellular distribution.

can you add here? Is it highly conserved across species? the RNA expression pattern graph in the info box shows it is highly expressed in only a few tissues.
ref [7] should be outside the comma.

Ligand bindig:

“a cationic lysosphingolipid” sounds too technical. Can you break it down into terms that can be linked? or maybe omit and let the link for psychosine stand by itself.
add link to “allosteric modulator”
Look for other terms that can be linked to other WP articles throughout your text. Remember that every gene/protein has its own article. Anything that looks vaguely technical can be explained to a reader simply by adding a link.

pH sensing:

Lots of links to other articles needed in this section.
“This finding directly contested the previous reporting of psychosine as an activating ligand for GPR65.” If the previous report is no longer considered correct, then you need not mention it. If it is still contested in the literature, then you need more balance and should cite the article that differs.
“Because pH plays a prominent role in several biological systems…” Limit your discussion to examples that are known or suspected to be linked to GPR65 and include citations.
“For instance…” – not a great way to start a paragraph. Can you rephrase?
“Seeing that…” – awkward sentence structure, can you rephrase?

Gastrointestinal

reference to optogenetic experiment is confusing to the average reader. Can you interpret this result more simply?

History

omit “aptly,” just say that it was named…