Talk:Activin and inhibin

Contradiction

There is a big contradiction in this article - it says inhibin STIMULATES FSH release in men, which opposes what is said above. I don't know enough to fix this, but someone needs to.

I am not sure what the contradiction is. Please elaborate. Boghog (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article split

This article should be divided into two separate articles, one for activin and another for inhibin. This is a general rule in Wikipedia.--Miguelferig (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Yin and yang? ;-) The activin and inhibin protein complexes are highly related both in sequence (the beta subunit can be identical) and in function (although the function is opposite each other). Since the two complexes are so interrelated and would contain an overlapping set of protein infoboxes (4 of the 5 info boxes would need to be duplicated in split articles), it makes sense to cover both complexes in the same article. Boghog (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your explanation and I don't insist in splitting the article, but I would want to make some remarks:

• There are several proteins that share some chains. For instance, the gonadotropins FSH, LH and hCG are heterodimers. They have the same alpha chain and a different beta chain, but they were explained in Wikipedia in different articles. There is also an article called "gonadotropin" in which they are treated together as a family of molecules.
• Ying and yang are not good examples because they are not different "molecules" but complementary philosophical concepts. They cannot be alone. Inhibin and activin are not exactly "complementary" in the same way. They just have opposite actions by evolutionary chance, and they are not necessarily opposite as ying and yang (another molecule could have evolved to oppose inhibin, and activin could have evolved to do a different thing). Also, they have other different functions.
• However, I admit that in this case the homology and partially related function of both is very important and this is a good reason for keeping the two proteins in the same article. Yet separating them in different articles is not a nonsense either.--Miguelferig (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If there were separate activin and inhibin articles, I still think there would be a need for an article that talks about both. Perhaps it would be better to rename this article to "activin/inhibin family" that would be cross linked to separate "activin" and "inhibin" articles. The family article could focus on structure while the individual activin and inhibin articles could focus on function. Does this sound reasonable? Boghog (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is how the articles are organized in other languages:

Inhibin	Activin
ca:Inhibina	Activina
de:Inhibin	Activin
dv:އިންހިބިން	?
es:Activina e inhibina	es:Activina e inhibina
fr:Inhibine	fr:Activine
gl:Inhibina	gl:Activina
it:Inibina	Activina
nl:Inhibine	Activine
ja:インヒビン	ja:アクチビン
pl:Inhibina	—
pt:Inibina	—
sv:Inhibin	Aktivin
zh:激活素与抑制素	zh:激活素与抑制素

Most languages only have an inhibin article, and in these inhibin articles, activin is sometimes briefly mentioned.

I agree.--Miguelferig (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Diagrams/Illustrations

I feel it is difficult to visualize the differences of the inverse effect these two proteins have on each other. I am interested in developing this article for a class assignment (Fall 2013), and my work would involve updating the clinical significance section, as well as helping separate the two proteins so that their roles are clearly understood to the reader while still allowing the concept of them belonging to the same family. To avoid doubling the work and redundancy, please contact me so we can collaborate on this topic and present resources that may be of use. SOTTET05 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Activin and inhibin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422225137/http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/14/1699.asp to http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/14/1699.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16127153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)