Talk:Kinase

	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 High-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Cell Signaling task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Physiology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Untitled

I think that lipid vs. sugar vs. protein kinases should be distinguised, but that all kinases should be grouped on one page because they all derive from a common ancestor. So there should be a huge page discussing the evolution of kinases, with alignments of every kinase and structural access etc...as well as individual kinase pages with specific function etc... any volunteers to set this up :)?

Merge?== There seems to be a lot of information on Wikipedia about various types of Kinase, could some of this be merged together? Agnellous 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: Most protein kinase and many lipid kinases derive from the same structural fold (PKL: Protein Kinase Like fold), but many sugar and other small molecule kinases are distinct (and distinct from each other). I agree with merging of kinase and phosphotransferase, which should carry an overall view of the many enzymes that catalyze these reactions, and a separate protein kinase page for the related protein kinases (which are also the dominant set of kinases within research and disease relevance).

Ceolas (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to have forgotten that "kinase" refers to an enzyme that generally speeds up a process (as enzymes usually do). An example that comes to mind is streptokinase, which is actually a protease.

"Kinase" was not originally associated with "protein" until such "kinases" were also found to be protein phosphotransferases. As one who worked with protein kinases many years ago, I was often gently admonished by "older" biochemists that use of the word kinase alone should not be done and that the adjective "protein" should be used if the intent is to refer to a protein phosphotransferase. I still do this even though I don't work with protein kinases anymore. But I still like to bug grad students about "correct usage"

Calcium (2+) ion can also be used to allow the kinase to work.

I edited the part that said phosphorylation only "activates" proteins. That simply is not correct. Phosphorylation can inhibit many proteins. In some cases, it can result in a protein being ubiquitinated and degraded.Gacggt 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merges

I oppose the first two proposed merges, but support the third. --Arcadian 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Individual pages for individual kinases seems fine, but it's silly to have a protien kinase and a kinase page... OngoingCivilUnrest 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that there is no reason to have a "kinase" page and a "protein kinase" page. However individual kinases should not be merged in the protein kinase page. Gacggt 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an undergrad studying Metabolism i agree that it is less confusing if the two articles were merged, maybe it could also further explain the differences between organic and inorganic kinases? Is it just the substrate that is different or are there seperate kinase molecules that specifically work on inorganic molecules?

No merges, please! As correctly stated in this article, protein kinases is only one group of kinases. Biophys 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New merge proposal

I suggest merging phosphotransferase into this article, since that term is completely synonymous with kinase. There doesn't appear to be that much content in the phosphotransferase article. Sakkura 04:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed merge. --Arcadian 06:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. --chodges 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. they are not synonymous, a kinase is a free(not bound to a membrane) enzyme that phosphorylates a molecule either inside or outside a cell. A phosphotransferase is a membrane spanning protein that takes a substrate from one side of a membrane(usually outside) and transfers it to the other side (inside) and phosphorylates it in the process. This means that the substrate will be continously flowing into the cell as its concentration outside is greater than the concentration inside. The phosphotransferase article just needs to be expanded and explained more. A phosphotransferase, however does have 'kinase activity' referring to its ability to add a phosphate group. Numzana 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is news to me: the "transferase" in phosphotransferase refers to the transfer of the phosphate from a donor to a substrate, not as a transporter (I work on protein kinases, but have a lot of exposure to other phosphotransferases). For instance, the aminoglycosidase phosphotransferases phosphorylate aminoglycoside antibiotics. Phosphate transport systems in bacteria (PTS) are a different system, and I have never (apart from this article) heard them referred to as phosphotransferases (there are transport processes that phosphorylate as part of a transport reaction, but that's another story).

Ceolas (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both kinase and phosphotranferase ought to remain as groups, with both proceses referenced in each. The distinction brought up by Numzana ought to be included in both. I think it is misleading to say that they are synonymous. Jacob Silver (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support the merge. As a biochemist I know that kinase (by modern definition) = phosphotransferase. I have edited the navbox as well. I think that Jacob Silver and Numzana refer to the Phosphotransferase system which is a cascade of Phosphotransferase reactions that leads to transport (transport is not the same as tranfer!). To sum up we have:

small molecule kinases: 2.7.1 to 2.7.4
small molecule dikinases: 2.7.9
protein kinases: 2.7.10 to 2.7.13 --kupirijo (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the kinase/phosphotransferase merge is not really appropriate. One is a genetic/structural biology term, the other is an enzymological term. Now, as it worked out, all phosphotransferases are kinases, but it didn't have to be so. Other enzyme families (e.g. "carbonyl reductases", an enzymological term which encompasses a bunch of structurally unrelated enzymes that perform the same reaction) maintain a necessary distinction between the enzymological and family name. Btavshan (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]