Talk:P53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Cell Signaling, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to cell signaling and signal transduction. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Cell Signaling WikiProject project, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	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.
B	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.

It should be pointed out that the David Lane mentioned here (History)is *not* the same person as the neo-nazi that the link takes you to!

Removed broken ^[4] to what used to be this well-known essay:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/89010952/ABSTRACT. Someone should find it again, as it was a good citation. Ixtli 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done by User:Truthflux JFW | T@lk 18:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gene or protein

The article isn't very clear on whether p53 is the name of the gene or a gene product. I thought is was name for both of them, and this page seems to agree. To make it clear on Wikipedia, should we do more than just put the gene in italics? --EnSamulili 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above mentioned opinion and I toke the lead to sort that problem JOK 10:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The name of its gene is TP53. Quite some info from this page should be moved there. --WS 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As the name of the protein. The difference is that the gene is writen in italic - TP53 [1]. There are multisubunit heteromeric proteins that are functional after their full assembly, so apparently they need to have their own names, but this is not the case for TP53 (homotetramer). -- Boris 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original references

As a big fan of original/classical references, I found that p53 was actually discovered almost simultaneously by groups that were led by Levine, Lane and Old[2]. Does everyone agree that all three references should be included here, or (alternatively) is there a good historical review that we could quote that summarises the quest for p53 and developments that lead to its discovery? JFW | T@lk 15:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wolff, i agree but we should not use any names in the article, because it would be unfair to the researchers that have worked on TP53 after that - team (or group) one, two, etc. with link ^[3] to the reference in the "Reference" section would do just fine. I also think we should add "History of discovery" (or whatever the name is) section more offten - some of the stories about the discoveries are very interesting, and the feeling i get is if i'm reading a criminal story - chasing the bad guy. Boris 15:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the original discovery should be attributed to these three authors. This is the same in many other scientific articles. If Levine, Lane and Old are mentioned then perhaps some other major breakthroughs should also be referenced. Indeed the discoveries are very interesting and often very serindipitous. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it may also contain historical material. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phosphotransferase?

Can someone provide a reference that says p53 is a phosphotransferase?
"p53 is a DNA-binding protein containing DNA-binding, oligomerization and transcription activation domains." (source)
--JWSchmidt 01:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that TP53 is a phosphotransferase? Boris 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article links to EC 2.7.1.37. The article is in this category. --JWSchmidt 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I'll check the history to see who put that. And i'll delete it right now, until they provide info. Boris 15:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I already left this question about p53. --JWSchmidt 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I find that the EC classification is arbitrary at times, or rather fails being specific enough. The article does not actually say p53 is a phosphotransferase; it simply mentions its EC code for the sake of reference. The OMIM article is silent on its phosphotransferase activity, and the long list of relevant publications in PubMed/Gene only refers to p53 activity depending on its own phosphorylation (but does it autophosphorylate and does it matter)... Perhaps the category text in Category:EC 2.7.1 should be changed. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been wanting to make Category:Transcription factors for a long time. Now I did. I suspect that p53 was called an enzyme by mistake. --JWSchmidt 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If p53 has an EC code, shouldn't that category remain? JFW | T@lk 10:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Blimey, my fault. There is no EC code for p53. I have no idea how this could have happened. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official name: Cellular tumor antigen p53 "It rymes with Jimmy!"?

I ran a search and the only hit I got was this site. Also, "rhyme" is spelled incorrectly. I am removing "It rymes with Jimmy!" from the official name since I can't find any other source.

[edit] Proposed merge from TP53

I've proposed the merge from TP53. I'm not clear, but from discussion further up the page, it seems that TP53 can refer to both the gene and the protein, which is very confusing (it seems that putting it in italics refers to the gene). Regardless of this, a lot of the information here is duplicated at TP53, so either the distinction between the pages should be much clearer, or a dab page needs to go at TP53 or P53, with a redirect going one way or the other, or pages like TP53 (gene) and TP53 (protein) need to be set up. So two issues here:

• How to ensure all the redirects and dabs avoid confusion (possibly involving renaming of pages)
• How to distribute the information between the two articles (ie. keep separate or merge).

I've also added a redirect from Talk:TP53 to here, as this is the more developed article with categories and everything (someone needs to add categories to TP53). Carcharoth 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, the redirects pointing at p53 are: Protein P53, P53 gene, P53 protein, Tumor suppressor p53, Phosphoprotein p53, Antigen NY-CO-13, Cellular tumor antigen p53, TP53 gene, Tumor suppressor protein p53.

There are no redirects for TP53.

Further investigation has revealed that there was an earlier redirect at TP53 here, and this was reverted here, with the comment "not everything is found in p53, merge first". Well, that was back in January, and no merge has yet taken place. Anyone agree there should be a merge? Carcharoth 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly fine to have an article both for the protein and the gene and I don't see any compelling reason to merge them. I won't object though if other people want to merge them, but please merge all content and don't just delete the content of one of the articles making it a redirect (I did that revert). --WS 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem with having separate articles is that currently there are several "gene" redirects that point at the protein page: P53 gene and TP53 gene. If the gene and protein pages are kept separate, then the redirects need to be corrected. Also, the gene page is pretty poor at the moment. I'll tidy that up. Carcharoth 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied up the pages so the differences are clear. I've also redirected the redirects mentioned above. I'll now remove the merge tags from both articles. Carcharoth 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can give two compelling reasons for having one page rather than two, both of which are illustrated in the case of p53: 1) the two pages will have tremendous overlap; 2) one page will invariably be clearer/better written/more complete/something. A third reason, related to the first reason, is that the gene will invariably be described in terms of the role of the protein. Keeping in mind "one gene several protein variants", I think it is far cleaner and clearer to have a single page, making it clear throughout when you are talking about one or the other (a naming convention here for genes and proteins helps, like upper/lower case, italics/roman--pick one, just be consistent). I would vote for merging them, and I'd vote to do the same for any other gene/protein page pairs. EquationDoc 07:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I change my vote--I say keep genes and proteins separate, but define more clearly what belongs where. EquationDoc 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cancer wiki

I believe that the part about the p53 and the clinical trials should be included in the 'cancer' wiki as it is a form of treatment that may not be far away.

Mike 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation?

The entire section titled: "Potential therapeutic use" appears to be a cut and paste of Section 7 of this page. Is bioinformatics.org using Wikipedia info (can't find a reference on their page) or is it the other way around?

Pete 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The bioinformatics.org server says that the page you pointed out was last edited on Friday, December 03, 2004 2:34:59 AM, so it looks like it is, in fact, a copyright violation. I'll just go and delete the section. – ClockworkSoul 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereo pair photo

Stereo-pair of DNA-binding of p53. Red surface is DNA, the spheres are Zinc and the green, blue and purple surfaces are three of the four DNA-binding subunits.

I created this stereo-pair image of the DNA-binding domain of p53. I think it's a little bit nicer than the picture that is currently on the front page since it allows for true 3D visualization of the structure. Perhaps it can be added to the main page? Mrestko 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded a new version of the image on the front page showing both surface and secondary structure. I find the cartoon representation informative because only there you can see for example how an alpha helix of a protein fits nicely into the groove of the DNA. Anyway, feel free to add the stereo image to the article if you find it useful. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that your image includes a render of the surface I actually think it's more informative than mine. However, I do value stereo-pairs since proteins are actual 3D objects and it's more intuitive to see them in true 3D. I'll work on a better stereo-pair after Thanksgiving that doesn't so closely duplicate the main image. Good work! Mrestko 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)