Talk:Cation channel superfamily

Requested move 15 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Ion channel family → Cation channel superfamily – The current title, "Ion channel family", is insufficiently precise (in that there are many distinct ion channel families, not just one). First of all, a grouping as large as this one is typically referred to as a "superfamily", containing multiple families within it. See, for example, [1], which defines a ligand-gated ion channel superfamily, and [2], about a voltage-gated ion channel superfamily. This page is largely about the latter, but also includes a few sections about ligand-gated channels. Thus, "superfamily" is the more accurate term here, as reflected also in the lead sentence. Second, as the lead sentence also specifies, the page name should be restricted to cation, not anion, channels. The superfamilies described in both of the above sources also include anion channels (such as chloride channels), which are excluded from this page. (Obviously, there are multiple sourced ways to define these superfamilies, but I am leaving any consideration of a different definition to a later discussion.) By and large, the source material does not seem to require adding the implicit "transmembrane" to the name: compare [3] and [4], where the phrase "cation channel superfamily" is widely used in sources. -- Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have heard the family described as the "tetrameric cation channel superfamily", which reasonably well describes the channels in this article. However, I do not have a reference immediately available. Dbsseven (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like both are used, and I have no objection to doing it either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer the tetrameric addition as it adds specificity to the fold/family relative to other cation channel families.Dbsseven (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I made a mistake, sorry. I read what you said as "transmembrane" when of course you actually said "tetrameric". I don't have a strong objection to doing it that way (and adjusting the lead sentence accordingly), but I have the concern, based on [5] and [6], that it is much less frequently used in the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is not a definitive source or review for a title, but I am fine with either. (However, [7] and [8] are better searches, and "cation channel superfamily" will always have more results as it is a superset of the other.) Dbsseven (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right about the search structure, thanks. It seems to me that the actual usage of the terms is more relevant here than are the numbers of search results. There simply are very few sources that employ the longer term at all (as that search demonstrates when one looks at the excerpted texts), whereas "cation channel superfamily" is widely used (and there is no need for us to distinguish from trimeric, pentameric, and so forth). But in any case, what I think is most important is that we both agree that either of these changes would be better than the current pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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