Talk:21-Hydroxylase/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biosynthetic pathways

@Ajpolino:, I need your advice. You have suggested in Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1 to replace "21-hydroxylase is an essential enzyme in the biosynthetic pathways that produce..." to "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of...". However, what I think is important is to emphasize that although 21-hydroxylase is essential in the biosynthesis of cortisol, the most important of all steroids (the only steroid without which a human will surely die), and aldosterone, a steroid of major importance, with very high mineralocorticoid receptor activity, 21-hydroxylase is not directly involved in a chemical reaction that yields cortisol and aldosterone. 21-hydroxylase catalyzes reaction of precursors of these steroids. In other words, 21-hydroxylase stays in a chain of chemical reaction, and is the most important enzyme in these chains. These chains of reactions are called "metabolic pathways" of "steroidogenesis". Both terms "metabolic pathways" of "steroidogenesis" have their appropriate sections in Wikipedia. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I hear your concern, though personally I don't think folks will misconstrue "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of..." to mean "21-hydroxylase directly produces...". Perhaps a better alternative is to add some context around that sentence to make it clear what exactly the function of 21-hydroxylase is. Maybe you could move the sentence 21-Hydroxylase catalyzes the addition... and 17α-hydroxyprogesterone in the "Reaction" section to the "Function" section. Then move the remaining This reaction was first described in 1952. to a new "History" section. Also, if you feel strongly about it, you can just leave it as is. Ajpolino (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Text Observations

@Ajpolino: I have edited the lead, made sure it covers every aspect (every section) of the article, albeit briefly. I didn't add references to the claims that I have added, but kept the references in the existing claims of the lead. I have also edited every sentence or paragraph that you have mentioned, but not in all cases I have literally put the variant that you have suggested. However, I have carefully considered your variants as ideas. Please let me know whether the text is now OK. If it is still not OK but can be fixed with minor edits, could you please make the edits? Otherwise, let me know what is left. Let us please first make sure that the text is OK, so we can then proceed with the images. I didn’t do anything about the images yet. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead currently does not cover any of the material in the "Structure", "Genetics", or "Clinical significance" sections. I'm not sure it needs to cover anything in the Structure section, but surely some mention of CAH is merited.

Also I've made a few edits, hopefully to improve clarity. Please review them to make sure I didn't introduce any errors. I've still got the other criteria to work through, so please pardon the slow progress. Busy week in real life. Ajpolino (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Sorry, my edits in the lead didn't get saved. I don't know why it happened, but sometimes it happens with me when my edits are not saved. Maybe it is me who misses something, I have to figure out the reason yet. I have edited the lead again, and checked. It is now saved. Please review. I think I have now given the meaning, i.e. briefly written in the lead what is written in details in the sections. Maybe it is the style which has room for improvement. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, it looks better. I've finished the rest of the review above. Feel free to work on things in any order you'd like. Just so you know, I'll likely be offline this weekend, so no big rush on my end. I'll be back to this Monday, and am happy to help get this across the "finish line" so to speak. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I've done with the images. I have removed one section with just one sentence and an image (the section had lot of whitespace), so we have been able to get rid of the "clear" template that produced this whitespace. I have moved that sentence and the image to the middle of another section. I have also removed the "px" pixel specification from thumbnails. As a result, the page looks much better on a desktop computer. Although the images became much smaller, with some details barely visible, you can still click on them and the a full-screen images in high resolution and large-sized details. And on a mobile phone, the page now looks very well! Please let me know whether you are now satisfied with the images. Should I do other work on the article? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm back. Pardon the absence. Regarding images, it's much better. My preference would still be to pick just one infobox to display, either {{Infobox enzyme}} (which is currently at the top) or {{Infobox gene}} (which currently crawls along the side of the second half of the article). I realize they have different links in them, but I'm not sure how much value the second infobox really adds to the article. That said, if you strongly prefer keeping both infoboxes, I won't stop you.

Regarding other work on the article, my full GA review is above at Talk:21-Hydroxylase#GA_Review. You can work on things in any order you like. To summarize, some of the referencing should be improved, especially at 21-Hydroxylase#Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia, and a caption should be improved. If you have questions or concerns, I'm happy to help. Just let me know. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Thank you, I will made the edits according to your observations. I have removed a reference to MDPI. It was only needed as an example of the use of an alternative name of the enzyme - 21α-hydroxylase - and the article was the latest one found via PubMed. I have removed it and put two subsequent articles sorted by date, descending, from the list of PubMed search results.

I have already referenced the article from the NEJM in Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency and even here, in the 21-Hydroxylase, in the section of Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. By the way, I have nominated the article Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia for Good Article, and it got the status. We can copy the text from it if you find it having better quality. However, In my opinion, even the articles currently cited, reiterate all the same. I mean that the claims that we put to Wikipedia are found in all the articles. I think that the two most authoritative articles on the these CYP21A2-related illnesses are the one from NEJM and the https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6456929/ (An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline). I didn’t read the article from the Lancet, however. Thank you for mentioning it. Will try to find it. As about the article from the NEJM, I read it when it came out on September 24. Here are the most relevant conclusions given in this article:

• Fetal and postnatal exposure to androgens and glucocorticoids in CAH patients can affect brain development and function, resulting in mental health problems. In male patients, the prevalence of anxiety, depression, alcoholism, personality disorders and suicidal tendencies is higher, and in females, the prevalence of adjustment disorders is higher. Substance abuse and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have higher prevalence in patients with severe (null) mutations. Compared with unaffected girls, girls with classic CAH are reported to have more aggressive behaviors but improved spatial navigation ability, and the amygdala activation patterns are different between affected and unaffected girls.
• Avoidance of romantic relationships is common in women with CAH
• Glucocorticoid treatment in CAH can affect working memory and cause brain changes, including white-matter hyperintensities, and reduction in the structural integrity of white matter. Cognitive impairment (if present) is sometimes thought to be related to hypoglycemia and salt loss.
• 10% of CAH patients suffer from CAH-X syndrome, which is characterized by CAH combined with the characteristics of the hypermobility-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and is due to continuous gene deletions diagnosed by genotyping that disrupts both CYP21A2 and TNXB.
• All patients in classic CAH (and probably even in the non-classic CAH) lose salt to some degree, so the division to Salt-Wasting and Simple-Virilizing forms is irrelevant.
• During the follicular phase, progesterone accumulates upstream of 17-hydroxyprogesterone, which thins the endometrium and changes cervical mucus in a manner similar to the effect of progesterone contraceptives, and also leads to oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea. Non-classical CAH is sometimes diagnosed when evaluating oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea and infertility. However, it is estimated that 90% of women with non-classical CAH have never received a diagnosis. Once attempting to conceive, approximately 83% of women with non-classical CAH will become pregnant within 1 year with or without glucocorticoid therapy, but such women have an increased risk of miscarriage.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response, so perhaps I didn't make my concern clear. I think it's great that you've also improved the other CAH-related articles. I'm not challenging your familiarity with the topic. My concern is that much of the material in 21-Hydroxylase#Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia, i.e. the paragraph that begins Genetic variants..., is cited to older sources and primary sources. Newer, secondary sources on the topic are available and so those should be used instead where possible and practical. If all the articles say the same thing, then you should reference the most authoritative source available, which you've suggested above in many cases is the NEJM source. Folks who come to read our articles will probably not be reading all available sources on the topic. They won't know who wrote this article, or how much they knew about the topic. They'll only know this article is reliable because they'll see it cites reliable authoritative sources. The community's thinking on the topic of "what constitutes a reliable source for medical topics" is summarized at WP:MEDRS. If the rationale for updating the sources isn't clear, I'm happy to discuss that further. Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino:Yes, I will replace older sources with the most recent secondary sources, but will keep the text, and will check that all the claims are formally found in these newly mentioned sources. As about the enzyme infobox and gene infobox, can we keep both, since they are filled very well and contain different information. The enzyme infobox contain the enzyme number and the chemical substance CAS number, and the metabolic pathways, while the gene infobox contains gene-related info for the mouse and the human like chromosome location. Although the information in these two infoboxes partially overlap, e.g. both indicate the enzyme EC number, but most of the information do not overlap. So if we delete one of the infoboxes, we will lose information. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, let me know when you're done and I'll have another look. Keeping both infoboxes is fine. This is really starting to come together I think! Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I have finished editing these two sections, changed the text. I have also removed primary sources and the claims that didn't find in secondary sources. Also added a few secondary sources (reviews). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I've made a couple of minor edits as well. I think this now meets the GA criteria, so I'll mark this review completed. Thanks for your time on this. Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Thank you very much for your contributions! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

21-Hydroxylase → 21-hydroxylase –

As in the article text. Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Umm, do you mean "21-hydroxylase", Tony? At the moment, your proposed title is the same as the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Jenks. Tony (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Prefixes in titles:

When the chosen article title starts with a prefix including positional identifiers (ortho-, meta-, para-, α-, β-, γ-, etc.), isomeric identifiers (sec-, tert-, etc.), stereochemical identifiers (cis-, trans-, (E)-, (Z)-, etc.), chiral identifiers ((R)-, (S)-, D-, L-, (+)-, (−)-, etc.), or numbers, the first letter after the prefix in the name should be capitalized: hence 1,1,1-Trichloroethane not 1,1,1-trichloroethane. A redirect from the uncapitalized version should be created to simplify linking from other articles. Non-numerical prefixes are italicized and uncapitalized (tert-Butanol, for example). Both numerical and non-numerical prefixes are followed by a hyphen.

137.205.21.92 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I can take this on, just give me a few days to get through it. Sorry to see such a long wait in the queue! Ajpolino (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll mostly assess the criteria in order and will work in bits and pieces. You're welcome to address things and reply to my comments as I go, or to wait for me to finish reviewing. Pardon the slow process, fitting this in as I find bits of time. Stay well! Ajpolino (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and lists):

The prose could use some minor cleanup to improve readability. Suggestions:

• Lead - The products of the conversions then continue through their appropriate pathways towards creation of... to "The products of the conversions are then used to create..."
• Function - The steroid 21-hydroxylase (or simply 21-hydroxylase) enzyme.... You could just mention "21-hydroxylase" as a common name at the top of the lead, and then use that name from there.
• Function - ...21-hydroxylase) enzyme is called this way because it hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position to "...21-hydroxylase) enzyme hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position."
• Function - 21-hydroxylase is an essential enzyme in the biosynthetic pathways that produce... to "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of...".
• Mechanism - However, understanding of human 21-hydroxylase structure and function is of particular clinical value, as a failure of the enzyme to act appropriately results in congenital adrenal hyperplasia. can probably be removed. It's covered elsewhere in the article.
• Genetics#Role in the human major histocompatibility complex - the first paragraph here seems like too much detail on MHC class III for an article on 21-hydroxylase. I'd suggest removing that paragraph entirely, and bringing the second paragraph up with the rest of the section (i.e. removing the two subheadings for the Genetics section).
• Clinical significance - A related pseudogene is located near this gene. can be removed. We just read that in the section before this one.
• Clinical significance - In general, you can remove terms like "Studies have shown that..." without losing meaning. The manual of style section on weasel words uses a similar example.
• Clinical significance - but exhibit other phenotypical symptoms... - remove "phenotypical".
• Clinical significance#Congenital adrenal hyperplasia - I feel this section would be clearer if it was reorganized a bit. Let me think about it and get back to you.

The article has some MOS issues that we should address:

• Lead - The lead should be a concise summary of all the major points of the article (WP:LEAD). At the very least, a sentence or two on CAH should be added. I'd suggest you go through the article, keep in mind what the major points are, and then scroll up to the top and make sure they're all covered in the lead.
• Lead - we typically do not include citations in the lead (see WP:WHENNOTCITE) as all material in the lead should be repeated in greater detail with citations in the article body. That said, nothing strictly forbids citations in the lead (folks often include them for numerical data, quotes, and controversial material). So if you feel strongly about it, they can stay.
• Images - I can't find a particular requirement in the MOS, but I think this article has too many images/non-text elements for the size of the article. On my screen about half of the article is whitespace due to large images blocking out the text. The point of the manual of style is for articles to have a consistent look, and this one has an unusual look indeed. My suggestions would be to pick just one infobox (the later infobox is huge and forces the next section down farther than my screen length!), consider moving any less-essential images to a gallery or removing them, and reduce some of the images' size. Also setting a particular pixel size is discouraged (see WP:IMAGESIZE), so consider toying with the "thumbnail" size and scaling them using "upright" to see how that changes display.

Just as an FYI, if you have two images that you wish to display together, another option is {{Multiple image}} which can accomplish some nifty tricks. Sadly, it forces you to pick a pixel size, but other than that it's pretty neat. As an example, I've gone ahead and fit the two reaction images into one frame. Feel free to undo, just wanted to show how it looks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Could you fill in the details on the two references that just URLs? They're currently reference 1 and 42.

In general, we strive to use secondary sources (i.e. reviews) as references where possible (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources) as they're a more reliable indicator of mainstream scientific thinking than primary sources. It's completely fine to use primary sources to source uncontroversial facts, and to add detail not available in reviews, especially for a somewhat niche topic like this one. But wherever you can replace older primary sources with newer secondary sources, it improves the reliability of our articles. Also molecular biology changes quickly, so the newer the source, the more likely our article will be up-to-date and reliable. Some specific examples:

• Most of the citations in the "Congenital adrenal hyperplasia" subsection could be replaced with citations to recent reviews of CAH, e.g. 2017 Lancet and 2020 NEJM. If you don't have access to either, I'm happy to send them along.
• For the genetics section, the two reviews I linked above have some nice info, but I see there's also a 2018 review of the 21OH variants that cause CAH. I don't have access to that review, so I don't know how good it is. If you don't have access either, we can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

One of the citations in the lead is to this paper which is in a journal published by MDPI. MDPI has attracted some controversy over the years for having, at times, lax peer review. That's not to say that everything in an MDPI journal is flawed, but just that papers in those journals should be viewed with a touch of caution.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

Pass. If you're interested in adding more to this article in the future (i.e. Not required for this review!), it'd be great if you could add some more detail on the reaction itself to beef up the "Reaction" section, some more info on evolutionary relatedness (right now the Genetics section just mentions mouse, chicken, and quail) if available, and a brief History section. Otherwise looks great!

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

All images are appropriately licensed.

Can you change the caption for the last image? Maybe something like "Evolution of the CYP21A locus in humans and mice."? Captions don't need the "This diagram provides" bit.

Overall:

Pass/Fail: