|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Hmmm... How come this page about Receptors is under 'Proteomics' ? How about 'Cell Biology' or 'Pharmacology' ? - PFHLai 14:11, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
I concur. Although receptors are mainly proteins, not all are. This article should be moved and edited to correct this. - Centrx 21:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Revision: I don't know much about biology, so I don't know if all neuronal/tissue receptors are proteins. However, this article conflates both these kind of receptors, which recognize neurotransmitters, hormones, etc., and immune receptors, which are on a region of antibody molecules and recognize antigens. The latter kind are not proteins.
Conclusion: 1) Properly, the latter kind should not be discussed in this article. 2) If it is not true that all receptors of the former kind are proteins, this article should be renamed and edited to correct this. - Centrx 22:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
"Many genetic disorders involve hereditary defects in receptor genes..." why the heck is this the first paragraph in the overview? i'm making into its own section. Amutepiggy 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to be redirected from a page on the electroreceptors in the platypus bill to this page. Aren't we talking about two different things here, or am I mistaken?Adambrowne666
fixed - hope no one minds Adambrowne666
- If some receptors are functionally interdependent they might be called sympathetic receptors --Fuelbottle 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nuclear Receptors and Transcription Factors
The writers need to include NUCLEAR RECEPTORS... include a description and link to the Wikipedia article on Nuclear Receptors.
Also, the section on Transcription Factor needs to be changed... while it is true that the various steroidal nuclear receptors are technically transcription factors, this is conceptually upside down. The BASIC CONCEPT is that steroidal hormones fit the classic Ligand-Receptor interaction model. They should be described as nuclear receptors first, and transcription factors second.
changing disambiguation structure?
If you look at receptor, it has many incoming links, almost all meant for this article. I propose this article is moved to receptor, and the disambiguation page moved to receptor (disambiguation), with a link to that placed at the top of (the new) receptor. ssepp(talk) 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Toll-like receptors ?
Could these be added to the appropriate section (whatever that is) Rod57 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some TLR (eg TLR4, but maybe not TLR3) seem to be transmembrane proteins but may also belong to other of the categories listed here ? Rod57 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How can receptors enter the nucleous?----
two senses of receptor
I think the term receptor refers to two separate concepts in biochemistry and these should be covered in separate articles to avoid confusion.
- signal transduction receptor is a protein involved in converting an extracellular signal to an intracellular signal. The extracellular signal can be a molecule (neurotransmitter, hormone, antigen, etc.) or a physical stimuli (light, electric field, physical deformation due to touch, sound, etc.). The signal can be relayed in terms of opening a channel, activating a kinase, binding to DNA, etc. So this category includes neurotransmitter receptors, nuclear hormone receptors, photoreceptors, etc.
- attachment receptor is a molecule (not necessarily a protein) that enables specific binding of a ligand to a cell. Examples would be viral receptors (e.g. the lamB porin for lambda phage or CD4 for HIV), endocytic receptors (eg. LDL receptor for LDL, sialic acid for influenza virus and ganglioside GM1 for cholera toxin), and cell adhesion receptors (N-CAM for nerve cells binding each other, adhesins receptors mediating binding of bacteria to epithelial cells).
Kd and its reaction as shown is wrong
The equation L.R <--> LR is wrong.
It should be
L + R <--> LR
In other words, the sign should be + not "."
And the constant corresponds to Ka, not to Kd (the reaction as it is shown correspond to an association, not to a dissociation).
Plain English at top
The section on receptor desensitization, under Receptor Regulation, has two bullet points:
- Uncoupling of receptor effector molecules.
- Receptor sequestration (internalization).
These need to be explained or linked to explanatory pages. Also it would be helpful to know how these relate to Receptor Regulation. Based on a quick google search, I'm guessing they may refer to two types of desensitization (I only saw these mentioned in an article about one type of receptor and the passage referring to the two mechanisms was unclear about weather or not this information was specific to the receptor discussed in the article.) Anyway, if someone has access to the book cited with these bullet points or knows of another source that generally explains what they mean and how they relate to receptor regulation, it would be great if they could elaborate here. — --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)