Talk:Receptor tyrosine kinase
|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
It would be helpful to have a picture of the RTK on the surface with the different parts labeled. Maybe even a diagram from receptor to phosphorylation and back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is this receptor not called a receptor?
"Receptor tyrosine kinase" and "receptor tyrosine kinase protein" are apparently names for certain receptors. Why are they not called "tyrosine kinase receptors"? Unfree (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They _are_ called receptors: they are called receptor tyrosine kinases. They aren't called "tyrosine kinase receptors" (in the fashion of glutamate receptors, GABA(A) receptors, serotonin receptors etc) because their ligands are not tyrosine kinases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the easiest to understand and clearest articles I have read on wiki. Thanks to the author for putting up a description that even a layperson can understand. -jorgekluney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I added information about how ligand binding is important for initiating or stabilizing receptor dimers, which is an important step allowing the signal to move through the plasma membrane. I wasn't sure if I should add additional information about how after the first tyrosine of the cytoplasmic side of the receptor is phosphorylated by its partner, additional phosphorylation steps(either cis or trans) can occur that will allow SH2 and PTB binding. Maximus155 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Reverted "structures" edit
I thought that the addition of a specific example of a ligand may have made it less clear because (a) this was a ligand that many readers may be unfamiliar with, (b) this ligand does not interact with the insulin receptor that is used as an example in the preceding sentence, and (c) it seemed like extraneous information IMHO.