|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
The chemical structure image file of purine had to be modified anyway because there was a missing electron pair on the #3 atom (a nitrogen). I took the then-existing image file, made the electron pair correction, and moved the "colored ball" picture of the molecule down below the other purine structures so the picture would be less wide. The previous width of the picture made the table wide, which unsatisfactorily compressed the text to the left of it. This new arrangement looks better on my computer screen. It does not hide any information in the purine-pyrimidine base "chart" for DNA. I use America OnLine (AOL) which by default makes the Wikipedia row span about 538 - 540 pixels wide. I'm sure many other readers/users of Wikipedia get a similar view of a Wikipedia page, although some other internet users may get a wider screen view and may not realize the "compressed text" problem. I anticipate that this picture modification will not adversely affect these other users. A similar problem exists for other Wikipedia articles on "Simple aromatic rings". I can similarly change those pictures too to produce less wide, better-looking tables. H Padleckas 10:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Better resize the images. Sooner or later I will produce high resolution variants to be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Cacycle 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm, the structure of uric acid here has a hydroxyl group where uric acid has an oxygen group (the hydrogen is moved to an adjacent nitrogen atom). Which one is right? Taral 16:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Both are right, see Keto-enol tautomerism. I don't know which form predominates, though, but I'm guessing it's the one shown in the uric acid article. Anyway it wouldn't hurt to make them match. Molybdenumblue 16:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No purine biosynthesis pathway?
I haven't come across the purine biosynthesis pathway either diagrammatically or in a detailed step-by-step synopsis.
This is probably one major reason that people come to this page, and it should be noted that wikipedia has one for the pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway.
This article discusses the class of biologically active compounds based on purine, it is not an article about purine itself!
7H-purine or 9H-purine
There seems to be an error in the naming. The compound, given in the picture is 9H-purine. The two forms are can easily transform in each other but still if you have chosen to draw one of them, give the correct name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Purine" VS "purines"
On thing is the compound "purine", which is just one; it has chemical formula C5H4N4 and CAS number 120-73-0, a fixed melting point, solubility, etc. One other thing is "purines", which have the same carbon and nitrogen backbone as purine but they are many different compounds with different formulas, properties, biological role, etc. I think that the two entries should be kept separate, otherwise the chemical compound purine is hardly described at all in the article, which only discusses "purines" in general, in contrast with the chembox that only describes the properties of purine. My proposal is (and not only for this entry): one entry for "purines" and one entry for "purine"; of course, the latter should have a link to the former in the "See also" section. Geon79 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
"Theobromine" spelled "Theobrmine" in Image
The line "Purines are also much larger than pyrimidines." at the end of the History section seems out of place. It should be placed somewhere else, or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam5253 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Fischer synthesis in 1884 is cited as "Fischer, E. Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 1899, 32, 2550". But in Wiley online library this page Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 1899, 32, 2550 is referred to August Klages and A. Kraith, Untersuchungen in der Carvonreihe (pages 2550–2563) not Fischer's paper. --Kurgus (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)