Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Help/Archive 1

Tools

I have never really found satisfactory, free (like beer), free (like GFDL) software for creating molecular structures. Anyone have any suggestions? --Oldak Quill 20:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking about small molecules or large molecules? --JWSchmidt 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The structures of small molecules as appear on many chemical articles. --Oldak Quill 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/Draw 2.5 is free, but its export function is faulty. I use it sparingly. ChemDraw is supposed to be better. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use ISIS/Draw 2.5 a lot (although i don't remember how i got it). I use the "Copy/Paste" method - when i am in ISIS i go "CTRL-A" (select all) and "CTRL-C" (copy), from there i go to Microsoft's MS Print (which is already opened) and do "CTRL-V" (paste all) here i can save it in any format but i preffer ".bmp" because if i go for another using MS Paint, i will reduce the quality (actually the program warns me about it) - the image saved in a different format looks just bad. So after i save it as ".bmp" i open the file with "Infan View" and then i save it in whatever format i want, and i do that because ".bmp"s are at least 10 times larger than any other fornat that gives the same quality. The only problem i have with this method is that sometimes MS Print shrinks the dimensions (but maintains the ratios) of the original diagram, sometimes it makes it bigger, sometimes its sizes are the same - why? i have no clue, all i know is that i didn't have this problem on my old comp (Win98) - my new one runs with Win Exp. Most probably, b/c it is a Microsoft product, heh. Boris 15:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The JME Molecular Editor is simple but useful. An example of it in action is available here. --Arcadian 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use ACD Chemsketch. It's a free program which is similar to ChemDraw, and I find it very useful for drawing chemical structures. If you want to see examples, look at my page for images I've created. Inositol 07:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a question for ya? Why is the structure of you images like this:
.........................
: A --> B --> C :
:                       :
: C --> D --> E :
:                       :
: E --> F           :
.........................

instead of like this:
.........................
: A --> B --> C :
:                   | :
:                   v :
: F <-- E <-- D :
.........................
this way you don't have to double "C" and "E" -- Boris 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it just seems more organized to structure it that way. If you want, I can redo the images so that there's less redundancy. Inositol 19:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'll be great. It's not the redundancy only, this change will make your images smaller - easier to fit, faster to download. -- Boris 20:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to distinguish between the final products of ISIS/Draw, JME Molecular Editor andACD Chemsketch?

Call for comments

Hi all. I have been using Wikipedia for years but only started contributing a couple of weeks ago. Could you tell me what you think of the cancer stem cell article I've put together? In particular, what do you think of the diagram and are there any passages that are unclear? General comments on style and compliance with policy and accepted guidelines are more than welcome! Peter Znamenskiy 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for major families of biochemicals

Hi all,

I'm trying to construct a linked series of templates that group all the major families of biochemicals, as you can see on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Style guidelines (the series with the pink headings). I think they might be useful for navigating through the articles. They're linked end-to-end between related families and also to a central "hub" {{Biochemical families}}. But they're still under construction; I wouldn't want to "post" them to pages until they're finished and we agree that they'd be useful. I'd appreciate any suggestions/comments and hope that people will point out any families that I overlooked! Eventually, I was planning on doing a similar linked set of templates for the major biochemical pathways. Thanks muchly :) Willow 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I noticed that there's no page for Tetrapyrrole, only a redirect to Polypyrrole. How many types of polypyrroles are there besides tetrapyrroles? I'll confess, I've never heard of them, unless perhaps they mean intermediates in the synthesis or degradation of tetrapyrroles. :( Willow 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer-review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi there. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA discussion for Enzyme kinetics

Hi all. The enzyme kinetics article is being proposed as a Featured article. If you have any comments or suggestions its discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 14:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work on biochemistry

I’ve just come back to Wikipedia after a break of about 3 weeks (while I settled down in university). I’m delighted to see that the article about the photosynthetic reaction centre (one which I did a lot of work writing) has been selected for the molecular biology Wikiproject, which I didn’t know existed. Now I’m able to work on Wikipedia again I would like to help improve some articles relating to biochemistry; which I’m quite knowledgeable in. Are there any articles in this field which are in need of improvement in some way? Miller 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Biochemistry do you specialise in? There are a lot of stubs that need expanding and you could pick any of the "B-class" or "Start" class articles listed in the article worklist and try to improve these. TimVickers 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a biochemist by profession, but I know quite a lot about the light reactions of photosynthesis, oxidative phosphorylation and translation.Miller 22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome then, get stuck right in. Gene might be in your area of interest and was recently demoted from FA. TimVickers 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson's Disease

I'm not sure if this is the right project to investigate this one but since Ferguson's Disease was started I have wondered if it is real as I cannot find any evidence online using the title or Algagenic pruritus and now the added links Molluscum contagiosum but none of the links mention Dr. Ferguson, except for a current consultant named Ferguson who cannot possible be the same person. An expert should look at this. It might be an AfD but this inquiry might not even be correct here, in which case move it to a more appropriate medical project. Thanks ww2censor 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, ww2censor. It looks like TimVickers has submitted it to AfD. – Clockwork Soul 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article now deleted. TimVickers 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer-review of Influenza

Trying to bring this to FA quality, comments welcome. Review page is Wikipedia:Peer review/Influenza/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza

Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protein peer review

I've been intermittently working on the protein article for a little while and have requested a peer review here to get more ideas on how to improve it. If anyone has any comments, they'd be very helpful. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered that Category:Proteins is completely overloaded, and that it rather lacks a good substructure. Any ideas how we could deal with that? JFW | T@lk 02:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "overloaded"? There's been some discussion of the sections and ordering on the talk page, so further discussion is probably best left there on on the peer review page rather than here. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... sorry... This was a comment aimed at the category (I've corrected the link now). It was not on the protein article, for which I will leave separate comments. JFW | T@lk 06:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I get it now, thanks. I completely agree on the category, but will have to think on what to do about that. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclol peer review

Hi, I've just added the Cyclol article to our peer review page. Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated! :) Willow 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peptin

Can some knowledgeable person check this odd stub? Rmhermen 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to pepsin as a possible typo/misspelling (peptide seems less likely). There are a few peptides whose names end in "peptin", but only atriopeptin (which I'm pleasantly surprised we have an article about) ever seems to be referred to by just its suffix, and only in quite old literature that I can see. Opabinia regalis 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peptin is a ligand that binds to a receptor. Don't know much about it but it is NOT pepsin. SenorKristobbal 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it ought to be a disambig. It seems that you'd search for something like angiopeptin or leupeptin with the full name, but I could be wrong - maybe there is a peptide that answers to just "peptin", or maybe the abbreviation is more common than I thought. Feel free to edit it, of course. Opabinia regalis 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hits for "Peptin" in Pubmed or SWISS-PROT. TimVickers 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topoisomerase

Very important neglected page. I've started adding to it. Could someone rate importance and quality in its current state please? SenorKristobbal 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can use some work. You may want to also add it to the Collaboration of the Month runnings. – Clockwork Soul 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclol is an FA candidate

Hi, Cyclol is now a featured article candidate. Constructive criticism — or unabashed Support ;) — would be much appreciated! :) Willow 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some unabashed support: the article is fantastic. I wish I knew more about the subject, so that I could make suggestions, but alas, I do not. (Excuse me, my mathematician is showing.) ~Doc~ EquationDoc 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks¹⁹, Doc! :) If you would be so kind to copy your review to the FAC page, I'd really appreciate it! Willow 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitosis peer review

I'm having some trouble according to our ranking the mitosis article: it's clearly well beyond the B class, but I'm unsure that it's of A-class quality. If anybody has time, would you pop over to the peer review and let me know what you think of the article? Many thanks! – Clockwork Soul 17:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MCB articles needing attention

I've created a new category containing MCB articles that have been tagged as requiring immediate attention, appropriately named Category:MCB articles needing attention. Please take a peek at it from time to time, just to see if anything has appeared. You can easily add articles to this category by adding the argument attention=yes to the {{Wikiproject MCB}} template. Cheers!

Bacteria

This artice's GA status has been revoked because it doesn't have enough (any?) inline citations. If I had some time, I would fix it myself, but I'm swamped. Could somebody go in there and add a few? – Clockwork Soul 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun adding some, suggest others interested in helping lift the refs from microorganism where relevant since large overlap between these articles. TimVickers 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Von Hippel Lindau Binding protein 1

I am working on de-orphaning articles and cleaning them up. I ran across this article, it appears to fall under the scope of your wiki-project. It needs some cleanup etc and I do not posess enough knowledge to appropriatley repair this article. If this is the wrong project, please let me know and I will try to forward it on to the right group! Thanks for the help -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector?

Hi all,

I'm about to leave for a month or so, and it's unlikely that I'll have access to a computer, or just sporadically. So — happy holidays, everyone! I hope that the time is brimming with affectionate friends and family. :)

May I ask a favor? A few months ago, I adopted a physics article, Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, which I've been gradually coaxing forward by fits and starts. It's already had a scientific peer review and a normal peer review, so I think it's scientifically correct throughout. However, it may not be accessible/readable for Wikipedia's readership, and I'm worried that it will fail its FA candidacy on those grounds. It certainly would be a very technical FA.

If any of you have time and inclination over the next month, could you please look it over and make any suggestions/amendments that occur to you? Opabinia regalis has already helped out a lot, so it might not be too unreadable, despite being so alien to molecular and cellular biology. Thanks in advance for your time and effort! :D Willow 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rashly, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector as a Featured Article candidate. I realize that's far afield from MCB but, if perhaps some of you could look it over and offer suggestions as scientists (even if you can't Support it), that'd be very helpful. :) Thanks muchly and Happy New Year! Willow 10:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Replication rewrite

Based on a request for "attention from an expert in the field", I'm undertaking a rewrite of the DNA Replication entry and I wanted to find out if there's somewhere I should note this fact to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks in advance. Lance Langston

I added an "Under construction" tag for you. TimVickers 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]