This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It cleaves the envelope polyprotein gp160 into envelope glycoproteins gp120 and gp41 in the golgi apparatus in the final stages of the HIV life-cycle.
apparently this line was incorrect. I don't really know, but if anyone out there knows can they please describe the exact reaction catalyzed by this protease? Roadnottaken 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
gp160 does get cleaved into gp120 + gp41. That line is probably incorrect in the sub-cellular localization of this reaction to the Golgi. I'm not sure exactly where this happens, though. Its in the field lit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argantael (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The article currently mentions only the naming proposed by Perryman. The image caption in his original paper mentions another nomenclature as a "convention" (implying that it is more widespread) so this seems like undue weight to me. I've tried to find some source describing the "convention", but have not come up with anything yet. Does anyone know perhaps of any paper discussing it? --Eleassarmy talk 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner. I have been looking for HIV-1 protease naming conventions and so far I have not found any beyond the most basic "flap" and "hinge" terminology. I am still looking. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone object to removal of the inbalanced/inaccurate flag on this section? In my research I have not come across anything other than Perryman's system and "flap"/"hinge" naming. Other researchers are using Perryman's system.  The flag is a bit obtrusive, and I don't know that it's necessary. Biscotta (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I think the flap is obtrusive too. I guess its okay to represent in this article the plain fact that this is SOME of the terminology used when referring to structure-function details of this molecule, but the dog and cat comparisons are colloquial aids in structure-function annotation. The actual molecular regions indicated by the names may be functionally distinct, but they might be a sort of "paraphyletic" comparison, divergent from the real structure-function sub-domains or regions of the molecule. That's how you would address this naming issue. Argantael (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I added an external link, one to a page in another wiki resource called Proteopedia. The page I linked to provides a 3d interactive structure of HIV-1 protease with hyperlinks in the text (appearing as clickable green links), that when clicked, prompt changes in the 3d structure to reflect concepts described in the text. This link was removed and the user that removed it cited that the link was in violation of WP: ELNO 1 and 12. This is not the case. Linking to Proteopedia articles does not violate WP ELNO 1 because even if the Wikipedia article were a full featured article, it would not contain interactive 3d visualizations of the protein structure. It also does not violate WP ELNO 12 because Proteopedia is not an open wiki. Only registered users may edit pages in Proteopedia, and only members of the scientific community are invited to request accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add information on drugs that target this enzyme. For now, perhaps just the FDA-approved ones (Saquinavir, Indinavir, Nelfinavir, Fosamprenavir, Atazanavir, Tipranavir, Darunavir, Lopinavir), because I don't know if I'm up for cataloging every HIV protease inhibitor in clinical trials. But I think this section should focus more on HIV protease. Any objections? (I'm new at this, sorry if I mess up formatting or any such thing.) Biscotta (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)