Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Peer review/Proteasome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proteasome

Our November collaboration effort. I think I'm just about tapped out on new content for this. Splette has expressed an interest in creating diagrams for the article, but comments on the text would be useful and appreciated - particularly if there are any major content areas that haven't been covered, or any parts of the existing text that are confusing or overly dense with acronyms. Opabinia regalis 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• For someone who has only had high-school biology and chemistry, this was a reasonably difficult read, but I think you linked it out well enough for someone who really want to read all the way through to the end to understand the mechanics of the system. I will not write on factual stuff, but only focus in on parts where I had trouble swimming through the text.

Technion research should have a year attached to it, otherwise the paragraph after it is confusing and potentially misplaced.

The use of the 26S proteasome comes out of nowhere. Why is this the example? Is this an example of a typical proteasome? Why are you expounding about the 20S and 19S particles? Are these always the core and regulatory particles, or is this just the case for the 26S?

When you introduce the beta subunits you should address them B1-B7 so that we have clear nomenclature. The 11S regulatory particle should be mentioned in the first sentence under 11S and possibly before the 20S is mentioned in the Structure and Organization section.

I think this is a sentence fragment: Ubiquitin-receptor proteins that have an N-terminal ubiquitin-like (UBL) domain and one or more ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domains. Do not ask me what any of these words mean, but I did not see one that plays the verb role. The “not yet fully elucidated” might be easier to understand (what part is missing) if this sentence were complete.

I like the Evolution section where it is, even though I could see how it might go at the end as well.

You might give a better treatment to bortezomib since it is a therapeutic proteasome inhibitor. Ritonavir might also deserve a mention since I have seen it referred to as a Ubiquitin-Proteasome System inhibitor, but that justification is over my head.

I did not notice any serious change of voice/tense problems. I am fine with passive voice just for the sake of sentence variety, but there are times when it can get on ones nerves. --Chrispounds 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This happened very slowly due to the holidays, but I think I've addressed your suggestions above. The history section is slightly expanded, the 11S cap is introduced earlier (it was accidentally left orphaned because I wrote its text well after the others), sentence fragment fixed, and the inhibitor section expanded. I thought about putting evolution at the end, but it seems out of place just after the section on inhibitors, and I usually like these things to end on a clinical note - looking back up from the details into the larger context of the research involved. Opabinia regalis 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)