Talk:Adenylate cyclase

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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start	This article has been rated as start-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.

I believe that the more correct (recent) name for this enzyme is in fact Adenylyl Cyclase. Perhaps the name of the article should be switched, and the first line edited as such?

My A-Level textbook gives the name as adenyl cyclase. Anyone care to elaborate?

I do. The enzyme can be called both ways, they are synonyms. Still we have to stick to the official name which according to NCBI and UniProtKB is "Adenylate cyclase". -- Boris 15:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Boris is right, it's just a matter of preferance, I think the english use the nomenclature "Adenylyl Cyclase" because they discovered it first (Sterichinderance 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Moving comment

This link was added by a new user with the edit summary "this is a reference to a better article about adenyl cyclase, maybe it could be integrated with the current one". I am moving the link to where it is more visible. No opinion on whether it's a better article (though it looks interesting), just being tidy. :) Franamax (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)