Talk:Protein phosphorylation

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge portions from Phosphorylation to Protein phosphorylation, in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Klbrain (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

This page is less exhaustive than Phosphorylation and should be merged. --hroest 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.192.72 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• agreed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.172.231 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• If all phosohorylation is done to proteins, than it should definitely be combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.16.207 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• i agree they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.237.50 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes please. This makes sense even at my distance as a non-expert. Tony (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also agree. Phosphorylation page is quite comprehensive, and almost entirely about proteins. --131.229.145.91 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• agreed. surprised this has not happened yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.203.229 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Phosphorylation can be done to many different compounds not just proteins. The most appropriate choice would probably be writing Phosphorylation in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with additional details in protein phosphorylation. Also worth considering is that since this merger was proposed Protein phosphorylation has been expanded significantly to the point where merging would be inappropriate. Trialpears (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Trialpears that Phosphorylation is broader. I think that Phosphorylation#Protein phosphorylation was probably meant as a summary with a link to the main page, but seems to have expanded unnecessarily. I think that point of the merge proposal is that there is a lot of useful material in that section which would be better placed on the Protein phosphorylation page, so perhaps we could merge the section, rather than merging the whole page. Klbrain (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The biological and chemical aspects of phosphorylation are so vast that they require separate articles. The biological point of view is "a protein is changed and participating in different pathways". For the most part, it ignores the subtleties of the how the atomic structure of the changed and focuses on how the protein's pathways have changed, since that's already deep enough. In contrast, the chemical point of view looks at how the atomic structure changes. So the biological article wouldn't really need to know about any structural changes since it's primarily focused on the protein's pathways. However I do think that the chemical and biological articles should make sure not to overlap. I also agree with Trialpears that phosphorylation as a general chemical modification is not limited to proteins. Jamgoodman (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional note

Merger was also suggested on Talk:Phosphorylation:

• 2012 - Merger proposal
• 2016 - Merger proposal for Function section

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Posttranslational?!

The article begins: Protein phosphorylation is a post-translational modification. This is factually true. But it is also misleading. It could very easily be construed as saying that this is making the protein into something else, for example on a path to becoming functional. But in a vast majority of cases, this modification is only a step in the normal functioning of the protein. For example, it could be a muscle fiber that is lengthened, in preparation for performing needed contraction work. The central aspect here is that phosphorylation is a process by which energy is added to the protein so that it becomes able to perform the action for which it exists. --Ettrig (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think it's misleading to describe phosphorylation as a modification? It changes the structure of the protein, which is definitely a modification in my book. Also you seem to have a few mistakes here. I've never heard of phosphorylation working by "adding energy" - as far I've ever seen, the mechanism of phosphorylation is due to steric and electrostatic hindrance from the phosphate group so the protein substrate undergoes a structural change. The structural change causes the protein to adopt an active conformation (i.e. switched on, as with phosphorylation of Y598/S602 in RAF-1) or the phosphate causes steric and electrostatic hindrance and the protein can't participate in certain reactions (as with hyperphosphorylation switching off RAF-1). This also points out your other slight error that "it becomes able to perform the action for which it exists" - this isn't always true. Phosphorylation can turn proteins on or off. Or even both, for proteins that can by phosphorylated multiple times (as I showed with RAF-1). Jamgoodman (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that it's reasonable to call it post-translational modification because reliable sources use that term to describe protein phosphorylation in that way (see the well-referenced page on post-translational modification). That is, the use of the term is consistent with WP:VERIFY, whether or not we personally like it. Klbrain (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Levene discovered protein phosphorylation?

In the article, it is stated: In 1906, Phoebus Levene at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research identified phosphate in the protein vitellin (phosvitin)... I read the cited article of reference, but this doesn't result from the article mentioned. He merely states that phosphotungstic acid can be used for amino-acid separation, which implies that phosphorylation is possible for certain amino-acids (in certain context), not that vitellin contains phosphate. Moreover, he established phosphorylation as method of amino-acid separation rather than a possible functionality of proteins (i.e. protein phosphorylation). Vitellin was known to contain phosphorus since late 19th century Therefore, I request modification regarding the (first) discoverer of phosphorylation. Stingaciu Radu N. 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GratarGratar (talk • contribs)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eajredini.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)