Talk:Major histocompatibility complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MCB Portal

This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The most common spelling is MHC upper case. User:JOK 18 Aug 2005

see reference below
Koopmann JO, Hammerling GJ, Momburg F. Generation, intracellular transport and loading of peptides associated with MHC class I molecules. Curr Opin Immunol. 1997 Feb;9(1):80-8. Review.

I moved to the upper-case spelling since it seems like a specific named entity (albeit one that is common to many species) rather one of a crowd of entities called "major histocompatibility complexes". But I don't really know. Stan 01:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's definitely lowercase in most of the literature (even though it's acronym is MHC). --Lexor 02:12, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alberts et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell (1994) cites it as lowercase. --Lexor 02:17, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1 Histocompatibility molecule - definition
2 Reference??
3 Should this article and the one on Human Leucocyte Antigen be merged together ?
4 Evolutionary psychology of MHC

[edit] Histocompatibility molecule - definition

I followed a link for "histocompatibility molecule" from the article entitled "antigen" and got HTC.

Are these synonymous. If so please state it. If not what is the difference?

===========

I've no idea what "HTC" is. Do you mean "MHC"? "HTC" is certainly not a standard abbreviation for MHC or histocompatability. MHC is, however, close to the same thing as "histocompatibility molecule".

In terms of histocompatibility and MHC. HTC is an abbreviation for homozygous typing cells. These are reagent cell lines used to determine HLA specificities using the mixed lymphocyte culture. In more recent years they have become used as reference material for defining HLA specificities.

[edit] Reference??

I noticed we dont have any reference for the article!! Can the authors please provide them?? Also, the suggestion of merging MHC class I article should be considered. I personally think we should have them separate, with the MHC class I article having much more indepth research information. While this article will just give an overview and introduction the MHC class I molecules. And the same thing should be for Class II of the MHC molecules. What do others think?? --LowLifer 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

==========

agreed there should be a referenced page for MHC 1 AND MHC 2

[edit] Should this article and the one on Human Leucocyte Antigen be merged together ?

Should this article and the one on Human Leucocyte Antigen be merged together ?

yea please do, it is part of the same system of MHC's

No, the two articles should not be merged. But it's desirable to link them.

Often times we would like to read a one paragraph description rather than a scholarly and detailed article (which may require a commitment of large chunk of time). a link directing to the detailed article would be helpful instead of merging.

I think they should be merged. There is no functional difference, just a historical one; MHC class I and HLA class I refer to exactly the same molecules, it's silly to keep separate articles on them. (Technically MHC is a broader category than HLA, since HLA refers to the human version of MHC -- human lymphoctye antigen -- but then to be consistent you'd also have to include separate articles on bovine, swine, equine, macaque, chimpanzee, chicken ... leukocyte antigen. If you need a one-paragraph intro then put a one-paragraph intro in, don't expect people to search through multiple different sets of nomenclature for a one-paragraph summary.

Should also make a choice between "MHC class I" and "Class I MHC" and use one or the other consistently.

Editors are likely to make corrections in one, leaving another untouched, if only because they don't realize that there are multiple nearly-identical sections, or don't know which is the "right" one.

I think the best course of action is to merge all of the related articles together, but have a specific section in the article for a general discussion of "MHC", and then one for "HLA", and "MHC class I" and "MHC class II", etc.. That is to say, have a general overview of what a MHC is for the first paragraph, then have numerous content links that lead to more specific definitions and information on more specific subjects. In this way, it is plausible to make all of the information accessible from one page, while still segmenting the information in such a manner than the user only needs to read what is relevant, rather than wade thru oceans of text.

I also agree that we need to choose between "MHC class I" and "class I MHC." The textbook I use, Martini's "Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, sixth edition", uses the former arrangement.

03:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

      ------->I agree with this post...
              2016, 23 Feb, 2006 (EST)

In my own humble opinion, i think they should be merged in order to reduce the confusion most non-medically inclined people experience. And if there is need further links should be included

My sense is No, the MHC and HLA articles should not be merged. MHC is not unique to humans but is found in most vertebrates. Differences in gene structures between mice and man, for example, have been very enlightening. So, please consider this a second vote to not merge but to link these two important articles. Keesiewonder 14:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not merge. The functional descriptions of MHC in this page are more generally mechanistic than on the HLA page; the HLA page also features a substantial bent towards clinical genetic utility than this page, which I'd fear would be lost upon merging. The gene structure differences I think largely immaterial, since the MHC page doesn't discuss MHC in a manner that isn't applicable to the human system. Jbarin 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)