Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Collaboration of the Month/Removed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)

[edit]
Support
  1. Una Smith 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • AFP has an interesting natural history and is also an important tumor marker. I think it is one of the oldest tumor markers. Its natural history makes its use as a tumor marker somewhat complex, particularly for surveilance of teratoma and other kinds of germ cell tumor in infants. Most pages about tumor markers are inadequate; I'd like to improve this page in part as a model for the others. Una Smith 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaea

[edit]
Support
  1. EncycloPetey 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul 13:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think this domain is one of the most exciting discoveries to come out of MCB in recent decades. Its discovery and study has drastically altered the scientific concept of what life is and where it can survive, thereby renewing interest in the search for life elsewhere in the solar system. --EncycloPetey 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biomarker (cell)

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This stubbiest of stubs is rated at high importance...as it should be. Cellular biomarkers are important in any study of individual cell types. I see a great potential for elaboration upon the biomarkers used in staining techniques, cell sorting, and identification of stem cells or cancer cells. — Scientizzle 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon fixation

[edit]
Support
  1. tameeria 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important topic (generation of biomass from CO2) covered by merely an uncategorized stub. It needs expansion and inclusion of carbon fixation mechanisms other than the Calvin cycle (e.g. in autotrophic microorganisms). A general discussion of carbon fixation capacity of the biosphere and technological methods would be informative in relation to the Greenhouse effect and strategies to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. tameeria 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cell culture

[edit]

-->

Support
  1. Dr Aaron 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. M&NCenarius 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reo ON | +++ 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Considering how widely used this application is, I'm surprised that it is in such a disorganised state (although the initial history part is fairly well referenced). I think it is an important one to improve.

Cell membrane

[edit]

-->

Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reo ON | +++ 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. M&NCenarius 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This subject, one of the fundamental topics in cell biology, is in sorry shape. This could easily be brought to featured status with just a little attention from our combined knowledge. – ClockworkSoul 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell metabolism

[edit]

-->

Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. M&NCenarius 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keesiewonder 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For such a central subject this article is so bad that I would think it's a satire if I didn't know better. The main image actually has little pictures of chicken and cheese pointing into a cell to represent catabolism. This must be fixed! – ClockworkSoul 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a knack for finding the really abominable ones :) Opabinia regalis 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's no so hard... I just go through our worklist and pick out some of the red or orange ones. – ClockworkSoul 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citric acid cycle

[edit]
Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GAThrawn22 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Adenosine | Talk 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | I worked on this early, oops! I have already designed a new diagram! but it could still use work.[reply]
  5. M&NCenarius 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Bip 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Robotsintrouble 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Coenzyme

[edit]

This is currently an especially stubby stub, despite being ranked as "top" importance on the organization page. Needs lots of love. – ClockworkSoul 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Connexin

[edit]
Support
  1. JE.at.UWOU|T 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) A vote of pure faith and confidence until I'm more versed.[reply]
Comments
  • The connexin family of proteins are extremely important in biological processes, and especially in early development of embryos and cell differentiation. They are increasingly becoming a "hot topic" in molecular biology and it would be to the benifit of wikipedians everywhere to improve this page. JE.at.UWOU|T 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conserved sequence & Conservation (genetics)

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Forluvoft 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZayZayEM (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. tameeria (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • These two closely related articles might merit a merge, but are of critical importance to understand basic molecular evidence for evolution and the molecular biology tools for determing the functional attributes of a gene product. They currently have minimal text and references. — Scientizzle 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost any protein article that talks about the protein's evolution or homologs will mention conserved sequences. Forluvoft 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetic ketoacidosis (1 vote)

[edit]
Support
  1. ww 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) an article which has been awaiting informed cleanup for some time. The time has come!![reply]
Comments
  • This article is perhaps more clinical than nominations here should be, but the underlying biological process is confused here. Most humans (and all who fast, deliberately or not) go ketotic. Normally so. Only diabetics (and only some of those) progress to keotacidosis. The usual mechanisms proposed for this are unconvincing. Some biochemical system rigor deserves to be injected here, if only to avoid wikiembarrassement. ww 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endosome

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Reo ON | +++ 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (unlike in other events-improvements, I may contribute here (easilly))[reply]
Comments
  • Endosomes are very important cellular structures. The current stub suffers from a lack of images, sources & organziation. The prose is probably a little too dense for your average reader as well. — Scientizzle 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eukaryote

[edit]
Support
  1. Tycho 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. M&NCenarius 04:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Gene targeting

[edit]
Support
  1. tameeria (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. G3N3515 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. - TwoOars 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ClockworkSoul 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) – A borderline start/stub! We can't allow this state to continue! – ClockworkSoul 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Guanosine triphosphate

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Goodleh 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Forluvoft 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Hemoglobin

[edit]
Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Interferon

[edit]
Support
  1. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. G3N3515 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ClockworkSoul 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Interferons are major proteins of the immune system that are discussed in basic undergraduate immunology classes. Their use as medicines in recent years (e.g. beta-interferon) has also brought them into the spotlight of the general public. However, the interferon article is in need of a huge overhaul, and has been tagged for clean up since June 2006. Maybe it's time to put a wee bit of elbow grease to finally get this page to at least GA standard!! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinase

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --David Iberri (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Such an important class of molecules deserves more than a couple paragraphs. Much expansion could be used in the roles kinases play in signaling and regulation of proteins and other molecules. The mechanism of phosphorylation is unclear. Non-protein kinases get minimal attention and that should be rectified. — Scientizzle 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis

[edit]
Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Replisome

[edit]
Support
  1. Artman40 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

RNA polymerase (1 vote)

[edit]
Support
  1. ClockworkSoul 14:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Nominated for the same reason as above, that the elucidation of the mechanisms of this complex the subject of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The current state of this article is also okay (rated as B class at the time of this post), but certainly can use more attention, especially with all of the current media focus on it. – ClockworkSoul 14:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturated fat

[edit]
Support
  1. — Scientizzle 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Nunquam Dormio 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Sloth Loves Chunk 05:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Astrowob 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lisatwo 04:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article lacks any real information on the role & importance of saturated fats outside of dietary issues. It's a likely search term based on the current obesity epidemic, so it would be valuable to clean up this page. — Scientizzle 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article desperately needs development so could benefit enormously from a month's attention. Nunquam Dormio 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no doubt that this article needs more work and I'm willing to do my part to get it up to snuff. -Sloth Loves Chunk 05:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article presently contains too many controversial statements and should not be article of the month.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.208.246 (talk • contribs).
    • I'm not sure our anonymous editor understands that this is a nomination for Collaboration of the Month--that is, an article to be improved from its current state by a group effort. Containing too many [uncited] "controversial statements" is one reason why this article might benefit from further attention. — Scientizzle 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliceosome and Splicing (genetics)

[edit]
Support
  1. Separa (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. tameeria (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Forluvoft (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - TwoOars 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

T-DNA

[edit]
Support
  1. Reo ON | +++ 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The topic is absolutely missing, there is nothing except the redirect to Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Even there is virtually no condensed information about the T-DNA.

Thymocyte

[edit]
Support
  1. Sad mouse 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis 06:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Antibody2000 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • T cells are essential for immunity against pathogens and cancer, and drive autoimmunity. Yet absolutely nothing was written about the development of T cells in the thymocyte article. I spent quite a while writing the article, but it would be great to get others to help on it to make this essential immunology topic a featured article. Sad mouse 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most of the collaborations so far have been molecular, so it would be nice to have a cellular topic. Sad mouse 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topoisomerase

[edit]
Support
  1. SenorKristobbal 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Transcription factor

[edit]
Support
  1. Boghog2 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Scientizzle 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • (high importance article marked as needing attention since December 2006; fairly lengthy discussion page showing high interest but little recent editing of the article itself) Boghog2 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tris (2 votes)

[edit]
Support
  1. Adenosine | Talk 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | Nominate | "Which lab doesn't use this twice a day!?"[reply]
  2. ClockworkSoul
Comments
  • This article is so lacking in any sort of information. I use tris every day, I bet it's the most used buffering system in Molecular biology. It also belongs to a family of buffers (I think they're called Best buffers?) We could link to all of them! Adenosine | Talk 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine

[edit]
Support
  1. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Scientizzle 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ClockworkSoul 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A topical subject with top priority on MCB project that is clearly of interest to the general public, and yet it is still only at B quality. Has a lot of info in the article, with one or two editors trying to improve it, but needs a little love and understanding! Should really be an FA. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaccine is a medicine article which get more edits, I think getting attention in medicine portal to fix it and concentrate on other conceptual topics which are specific for MCB portal: like regulation, or cell signaling.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs)

Gene expression and retinue

[edit]
Support
  1. Squidonius (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - TwoOars 05:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ClockworkSoul
  4. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
As they form a series and I needed a break, I made a template, here is the spoiler: template:MolBioCentralDogma (I stole the formatingfrom the romans) will finish it next week eventually...----
(Fixed that link for ya) Thats really snazzy! Is it ready for prime time? – ClockworkSoul 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this... but one of my pet peeves is the misunderstanding of the central dogma to mean DNA -> RNA -> protein, because inevitably someone follows this with "and reverse transcriptase violates the central dogma!" (It does not. The central dogma is about the directionality of information: it can go from nucleic acid to nucleic acid or protein, but cannot be transferred from protein to protein or protein to nucleic acid.) I worry this template would only promote this misinterpretation. Would it be possible to use another name for this template, eg. "gene expression"? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Dogma is as the template name as it is the most catchy word in Mol Bio (that is why F Crick incorrectly chose it). gene expression actually works better (less awesome though). Consider it changed. The template picture remains as it is (simple), if that is ok. --Squidonius (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the template to the various pages but I did little or no editing. I do not think major edits may be needed, so this may be dropped. --Squidonius (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was COTM from April 2009 to February 2010. Review submitted. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology/Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/Collaboration_of_the_Month/Removed&oldid=1136064494"