User talk:Boghog/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For the incredible amount of work you've done on transcription factor articles and Template:Transcription factors! -- Forluvoft (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Forluvoft! I would also like to thank you for creating many of the pages that I linked together with the Template:Transcription factors navagation box! I also thank User:Arcadian for providing a strong foundation on which to build on. Boghog2 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

ERCC2 gene moved

As you wanted, I've moved ERCC2 gene to ERCC2. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! Boghog2 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfam boxes and human genes

Hi Boghog2,

I just edited RING finger domain. Please let me know if you need wikified files for any protein families. I can send them to you or include information myself. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with RING finger domain Biophys! The article is much improved as a result of your edits. I will take you up on your offer if I create new protein family articles in the future. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work in organizing and linking together hundreds of gene articles otherwise disconnected. Banus (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Banus! I am honored. And thank you for creating the much of the content as well as the redirects that I linked together.

Thanks

Thank you for not thinking of me as that vandal wrote! Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea of "Transcription factor glossary" template

I just wanted to say I thought that was a novel idea and I hope it catches on in the other scientific wikipages that can be a little über-technical. Rhetth (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rhetth. I should point out that I had a lot of help from User:Forluvoft on the template and accompanying article. Boghog2 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

REST

Hi! I noticed you added RE1-Silencing Transcription factor to REST, turning it into a disambiguation page. But Rest already seems to be an established disambiguation page for that word, including for acronyms and abbreviations, so I took the initiative of moving RE1-Silencing Transcription factor there (Representational State Transfer, which REST had previously redirected to, was already listed there), and changing REST to point to Rest rather than Representational State Transfer. I hope you don't mind! Best wishes, Duncan MacKenzie (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Opps! My bad. I didn't notice the alternative lower case disambiguation page. Thanks for taking the initiative and fixing it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GSOC ideas

Hi Boghog, care to chime in on ideas for Google Summer of Code 2008 (see also the talk page there for context)? Originally I thought I'd only list PBB improvements, but it might also make sense to broaden it to any bio-related computer-assisted projects. Perhaps something relating to the protein-boxes you've been working so hard on? Ideas on this or any other topic are welcome... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea Andrew! The interactive protein 3D graphics as you have already listed would also be at the top of my list. Navagation tools to quickly link to related protein pages would be second, although I am not quite sure how or even if one should try to implement that with some sort of bot. Navboxes are great with a few dozen entries, but with all the newly created PBB pages, we now have protein families with hundreds of individual WP articles and the Navboxes are becoming unwieldy (drill down Ajax anyone?). So tools for creation and maintenance of these links would be useful. I need to give this some more thought. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Estrogen

... excellent work on the references! Thanks for doing that - it's way better - Alison ^❤ 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. The citations in the estrogen article were very relevant but needed to be cleaned up a bit. However I should not take all the credit. The citation reformatting was very easy to do with the help of User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

3D

Hi.
Nice formulae! I would appreciate it, if someone could add essential 3D structures. Some time ago someone explained the whole procedure and it seems to be very easy. The gratis online service CORINA, developed by the german professor Gasteiger, stands out for user-friendliness, speed and an amazing conformational accuracy. One must admit that the provided conformation may have the appearance characteristic of crystal structures, and in a context of receptor-ligand binding this may be a weakpoint that has to be weighed in each single case. I could cross-check the drawings with an old hyperchem version.
My idea and my advice is to make SAR principles directly comprehensable, instead of huddling together an inflation of poor 3D drawings, from which the layman can't grasp any interrelationship. This requires a basic knowledge of the pharmacophore by the drawer or at least a reviewer, and is expressed by an accurate alignment of structures overlapping the entries. I am willing to assist here and to give further explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.95.239 (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for your great contributions to the dopamine receptor articles. I can certainly produce 3D images of ligands, but deciding on the most appropriate conformation to use (i.e., the bound conformation) is not so straight forward. Certainly pharmacophore modeling of the ligands and/or homology modeling of the receptor followed by docking could be used, but this is somewhat inappropriate as Wikipedia has a no original research policy. However if you know of any good published studies on dopamine receptor pharmacophores, please let me know. Finally, if you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Given a PubMedID, one can quickly produced a full citation that can be copy and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.
wp hates high-quality and loves trash structures. To thoroughly elucidate the provenience, the flow of genesis of structures would be the crucial point, and to sufficiently explain (in the text) minor deficiencies, that may possibly reside. Interestingly, I myself was doing research in that lab (at that time with those fellows!) where the D5 ligand was synthesized. But, seemingly, I can't help here. 87.183.104.5 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoodwinked!

Good catch... slightly embarrassed...  ;) AndrewGNF (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like April Fools day struck a few days late. The spoof was actually quite cleaver so I can easily see how one could miss it. Referring to Lund as an anatomical region of a certain organ was for me a dead give away. ;-) Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FPR

Hi Boghog2, Thanks for the corrections on the FPR receptor page. The page is still under development but I have a constant problem with it. After each editing there is a mess on it due to the table on the right. I have tried to fuse the three tables but I could not make it. Could you help me please? (I am working on 'Chemotaxis' related pages, but FPR-receptor page is the first where I have constant problems...) Thank for your help in advance. Best regrds from Kohlasz (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kohlasz. Great job on expanding the FPR article. Your figures are both beautiful and informative. Concerning the protein boxes, I don't believe there is a way of fusing the tables together without some major editing to the Template:Protein itself. Having both figures and schematic diagrams within the same article often cuases problems with overlap, text being squeezed into narrow columns, etc. Another problem is that the layout sometimes differs depending on which web browser is being used. I just moved the figures in the article in an attempt to minimize these problems. Does this look any better? The layout is still not perfect, but I hope it is an improvement. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ro15-4513

Hi Boghog2. I agree this page could do with a rewrite but there are other factors you have not considered. See talk page for details.Meodipt (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Protein/gene stubs

I appreciate they're often about both, to some degree or another, but my category analysis identified that they were primarily categorised by (and thus, implicitly, as) genes, so that's why I proposed splitting them on that basis. (To which there seemed to be fairly general agreement.) Looking at a number of the article texts seemed to bear that out, but I realize there's bound to be exceptions. Would it be sufficient to clarify the scope of the stub types so as to expressly include "proteins by chromosome number"? If that's not a useful split for the articles, then they'll have to be "unsorted" back into the proteins in the short term, and sooner or later re-sorted on some other basis, to deal with the stub category size issue. I'd need to know more about what articles are affected before I could comment sensibly on the feasibility of doing so. My bot's not currently sorting these (it was a one-off run), so any chances back should be "stable" for the foreseeable future. Alai (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There has been a lot of discussion concerning whether the topic of these articles is about the gene or the protein (see for example here and here). The general consensus is that the topic is about both. A further complication is that the number of these pages deal with families of gene/proteins (e.g., Retinoid_X_receptor) in which the respective genes reside on different chromosomes. In addition, the protein boxes on many of these pages list the mouse ortholog which resides on a mouse chromosome most often with a different number. Categorizing by "proteins by chromosome number" doesn't really solve the problem. One could split protein stubs by function (e.g., enzymes, structural, transcription factors, etc.) but this would probably cause other problems (e.g., many proteins have more than one function). So I am not sure what the best solution would be. Perhaps this question should be posted on the MCB discussion page. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi there Boghog, I noticed your recent reversion of vandalism on Immune system and thought you might like access to the rollback feature. You may not have to use it much, but it greatly simplifies the reverting process, and I'm confident you wouldn't use it inappropriately. Just follow the above link for information on how to use it, or let me know if you have any doubts. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fvasconcellos. I have occasionally run across a set of consecutive vandalism edits by a single editor that I wanted to revert and the roll back feature makes this much easier. I have read the rollback instructions and I promise to use this feature carefully. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tryptophan Biosynthesis

Your tryptophan biosynthesis image has a minor error -- the I-3-GP molecule looks like a phosphonate instead of a phosphate; needs one of those carbons to be an oxygen!Takometer (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. You have sharp eyes! The figure is now fixed. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work...

I like all the work you've done 'round here. Articles that you tackle are consistently much better after you wrestle with the content.

If you have any future interest in adminship, let me know. I'd be happy to suggest a few things and offer a nomination. — Scientizzle 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement Scientizzle. I am very flattered that you would consider nominating me for adminship, but I would prefer to hold off for now. Things have become a little hectic in real life so I am not sure I have the energy for going through the process of becoming an admin right now and more importantly, if the RfA were approved, have the time to be an active and effective admin. However, I may take you up on your offer some time in the future. Thanks again for your kind words. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You've earned a bit of flattery with your hard work, so I'm happy to provide any encouragement. RfA is a bit stressful, and it's a good idea to be in a comfortable time & place before starting, so I understand completely. If/when you do feel up for it, come on by--I'll offer a few suggestions to help the process run more smoothly down the road. — Scientizzle 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

gene wiki defender

Glad to see some science voices on slashdot, and had a chuckle when I saw your name. (Been watching there, but not really participating...) Keep up the evangelism! Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. There are a lot of misconceptions concerning both genes and Wikipeida and I was trying to use a low keyed approach to combat at least some of the later. I retrospect, I now kind of regret my other post however ;-) Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hsp90 schematic 2cg9.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Hsp90 schematic 2cg9.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tag {{PD-self}} now added to Image:Hsp90 schematic 2cg9.png. Boghog2 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures/Tyrosine

Hi Boghog2! I'm writing to ask you if I can move pictures you created for biochemistry (and for Tyrosine page above all) to Wikimedia Commons. I'd like to use them in Wikipedia sister projects (Italian Wikipedia). I'm not very experienced at Wikipedia rules, so I'm here asking. Thank you! --Damiano (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ciao Damiano! I am glad that you find the figures useful. I am not sure what the rules are either, but you are welcome to move the figures to the Wikimedia Commons. In the future, I will be sure to place new figures that I create in the Commons site. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GABAA

Hi, i read your edit summary on the GABAA_receptor article. As far as I know the alpha4 and alpha6 sites are still benzodiazepine containing subunits even if diazepam and the other benzodiazepine drugs don't bind to them. There are other benzodiazepine ligands which bind to the benzodiazepine alpha4 and alpha6 subunits, eg flumazenil I am almost certain binds to them as a benzodiazepine receptor antagonist. You are correct that the phrase "BZ-sensitive GABAA receptors" is used in the reference but it is used only one time and it is used in quotation marks. In the parts where they recommend adopting certain terms of description and casting aside others etc, this term is not used, therefore I feel to say that they recommend adopting this new term is a misrepresentation of what they said because they never recommended adopting it. Especially as they only put it in quotes would imply that they were only using it as a description and not intending it to become the new official description.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

When benzodiazepines were invented, the benzodiazepine receptor was unknown and I think even the GABA receptor was unknown as well. When I believe in the 1970's the benzo receptor was discovered the receptors got their name (from the drug class benzodiazepines). The drug came first, then the discovery of the receptors (a lot later) and the study of the various sub types of benzo receptors has only really been during the past decade or two, but like I say alpha4 and alpha6 are insensitive to the benzodiazepine drug, this doesn't mean they aren't benzo receptors. Anyway if I am incorrect in anything that I have said feel free to correct me. I am always willing to be proved wrong and learn from my mistakes. Sorry for taking up your time boghog.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and for your edits which I think have significantly improved the GABAA receptor article. I agree with what you have written above. I further edited the article to specify that α₄- and α₆-subunit containing GABA_A receptors are insensitive to the classical benzodiazepines and that the BZ binding site is located between the α- and γ-subunits. I hope these latest edits are OK. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems Boghog. I see you have improved on the article even further, good job. It is reading much better now with both of our edits. I hope that you have a good day.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the productive collaboration. I agree that this section of the article is much stronger now. Boghog2 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, you wouldn't have any knowledge on how alcohol affects the GABAa receptor complex? Like what subunits it binds to? I know that it modulates the chloride ion channel similar to the barbs and benzos but am rusty on knowledge about ethanol's pharmacology. It might be worth some time adding sections on how barbs, neurosteroids and ethanol modulates the GABAa receptor complex to the GABAA receptor wiki article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been a number of years since I have looked at the literature in this area. A quick pubmed search located a couple of papers which suggest that the GABA_A receptor δ-subunit is the target of ethanol but this has been disputed by others. As far as the precise location of the ethanol binding site on the GABA_A receptor complex, the simplest hypothesis is that it overlaps with the Ro15-4513 binding site. More specifically Hanchar et al. (Hanchar HJ, Chutsrinopkun P, Meera P, Supavilai P, Sieghart W, Wallner M, Olsen RW (2006). "Ethanol potently and competitively inhibits binding of the alcohol antagonist Ro15-4513 to alpha4/6beta3delta GABAA receptors". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (22): 8546–51. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509903103. PMC 1482528. PMID 16581914. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) have speculated that the ethanol binding site overlaps with the azido group of Ro15-4513 when Ro15-4513 is bound to the GABA_A receptor complex. I agree it would be useful to add more detail about the other allosteric binding sites on the GABA_A receptor complex. When I find some time, I will work on this. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That is interesting because benzos don't bind to that subunit. There must surely be more subunits orr receptor systems that ethanol binds to? It is such a powerful drug you would think that it would bind to a multitude of receptor complexes. I am thinking of trying to get full text of this paper which I think would answer a lot of my questions. [1] If or when I get the full text I will be able to help you write up the alcohol part of the GABAa receptor article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

HLA-DRA

Subpages for DRB3, -B4, and -B5 serotypes

Locus	Serotype
HLA-DRB3	HLA-DR52
HLA-DRB4	HLA-DR53
HLA-DRB5	HLA-DR51

I want to thank you for your help on the HLA-DRA page, I recovered the old converted protein box for HLA-DR, but since you have created all the gene pages it would be redundant, what I did was cut out all the outside links and created wiki-links to the pages you created. This is the best of all worlds now because it is remarkable shorter but conveys the essential information. Let me tell you what my goal was on the subpages (HLA-DQ2 as an example). The illustration on the HLA-{locus} page is fine, but if we have 3D images of the various HLA-DQ, if you could get a list of names of these structures I can tell you what pages they best go to, that way we can limit the number of links, and spread them around to the appropriate pages. For example, the image of the DRB1 page is DRB1*0101, that image goes on the DR1 page. Check the tables in the DR page, you will find that DRB3, 4, and 5 may be best combined with DR52, 53, 51 respectively. Since the gene named pages will hold future priority, I think it might be best that the DR5x pages be combined into the HLA-DRBx pages.PB666 ^yap 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. My principle motivation for editing the {{Surface antigens}} articles was to clear up the main concerns you had about {{PBB}} templates. The intention of the Gene Wiki project was to seed gene/protein specific articles such as HLA-DRA but not to include {{PBB}} templates on gene family articles like HLA-DR. I agree with your follow-up edits to the HLA-DR article. Including five separate {{Protein}} boxes in one article is excessive and your solution is certainly much more concise. Where appropriate PDB coordinates are available, I will update the 3D structure figures for individual members of this gene/protein family. However I am away from the computer on which I have PyMol installed, so it won't be until this weekend before I can do this. I am certainly not an expert in the HLA field, so I will leave it to your judgment on whether to merge the gene and serotype articles. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry on any of these task, an we might choose to not merge, but someone left a merge tag on one of the pages, so I thought I would bring it up. I am going to mill through the pdb images if I have time and see if any can be applied to the appropriate pages. If we can find a really good image for the DRA and DRB1 pages that would be nice, it would be nice to have it oriented with the membrane attachment site down, and peptide binding site up with the images on different pages roughly in the same orientation. I use CN3D for my imaging, cause I have never gotten the other images to work for me.PB666 ^yap 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have updated the structure figures in the HLA-DRB1, HLA-DRB3, and HLA-DRB5 articles. It turns out that the list of available structures for the HLA-DRB3 and HLA-DRB5 proteins as supplied by the Protein Data Bank and used by User:ProteinBoxBot is in error. I have corrected these errors in the respective Gene Wiki articles. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

HLA-DQB3

I am not sure what HLA-DQA2, HLA-DQB2 actually do, there is no serology associated with these and no alleles published currently. The literature on HLA-DQB3 gives a strong implication that it is a psuedogene.PB666 ^yap 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Again, this is way out side of my area of expertise, but after reading a few PubMed abstracts, I have modified the HLA-DQA2 and HLA-DQB3 articles to reflect that the function of these gene/proteins is uncertain. Please feel free to edit further to correct any errors in my interpretation. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure myself, I know there are 4 psuedogenes for DRB, I checked the nomenclature page just now and it revealed that

HLA-DQA2 DXa, DQ2A DQ a-chain-related sequence, not known to be expressed

HLA-DQB2 DXb, DQ2B DQ b-chain-related sequence, not known to be expressed

HLA-DQB3 DVb, DQB3 DQ b-chain-related sequence, not known to be expressed

PB666 ^yap 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MTHFR

Thanks for fixing my mess --- looks great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.222.224 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You added some good content and I just wanted to make sure it was presented in the best way. Concerning citation formatting, if you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Given a PubMedID, one can quickly produced a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I'm quite the Wikipedia novice....thanks for the tip! Shrutebuck (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are rapidly catching on and are making some great contributions. Keep up the good work! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditolylguanidine

Hi there. When you made this page about Di-p-tolylguanidine were you thinking of Di-o-tolylguanidine which is the sigma ligand the reference refers to? The para- analogue does exist as well but I'm unsure if they have the same activity. Meodipt (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error. Di-o-tolylguanidine is notable while Di-p-tolylguanidine is not. Since I was the only author who has added substantial content to the article on the para isomer, I have inserted a {{db-author}} template in the article to request it be speedily deleted. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FGF21

dear BogHog2, I have added external links appropriate and relevant to the Gene. This is not spamming, advertising or an inappropriate link. Those are governmental links about that specific gene and the reader will gain much more information through clicking on those Genes than reading from what the ProteinBoxBot has created. That Bot is getting all information from Entrez. Wouldn't that be considered as spamming also? Aminoacid91 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aminoacid91, Concerning the links you added to the FGF21 article:

• Genename Identical to the link already contained in the first link labeled "Symbols" in the ProteinBox and therefore is redundant.
• iHOP. The unique content of this site is essentially a fuzzy search over the scientific literature where the hits are hyperlinked to each other. This site is potentially useful, but personally I find it very confusing.
• Genecards. While the information contained in this link largely overlaps with information contained in the links provided in the ProteinBox, there is some unique useful information. Of the four links that you added, this is the only one that I think is worth while.
• Nextbio This link is to a commercial site. Furthermore some of the information on this site was also extracted from Entrez and therefore overlaps with the information provided in the ProteinBox.

Regards. Boghog2 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much BogHog2. The reason I added Nextbio, was that it correlates all data from different places. Which is not available other places. The Corrolations you get between Tissues, diseases and treatments, is additional information which no other website has. Although they do get their sources from governmental sites such as pubmed. I found these correlations very unique as a scientist myself. I believe the users who need information about the FGF21 gene, should have enough information of their gene needed to do research etc. Thank you once again. Aminoacid91 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GW1516

Hi Boghog2,

I apologize in advance if I am screwing up this page, have never tried to contact someone via wikipedia before!

I am working on a show for Spike TV, would like to license your GW1516 molecule illustration, and am willing to pay you $100 for the license.

Could you please contact me ASAP so that we may move forward.

Sincerely,

David Ballard MANSWERS Spike TV (323) 459-9857 ballardmedia@yahoo.com

64.60.86.106 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for your interest in the Image:GW501516.png figure. This figure was released with {{PD-self}} license, so you are free to use it for any purpose without obtaining a separate license nor is any license fee required. Thanks for asking though. If I can be of any additional assistance (different file format, etc.), let me know. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe David would donate to Wikipedia then? (0: Just a fleeting thought.. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Why didn't I think of that. I will suggest it to him directly. Boghog2 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reelin

Thanx for editing the reelin page! I'm plannning a major expansion, any help is appreciated. Maybe later 'll try to make it a "Good article".. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are doing a fantastic job on the reelin article. In my opinion, the article is already very close if not exceeds the requirements for good article status. I am no expert on this particular protein, but I will try to help out where I can. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanx! I'll probably contact the experts on reelin after I've done adding all the info that had been haphazardly accumulating on the Russian reelin page.. And then 'll push it for the "Good" status. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More thanks for the great pictures! (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of C9orf3

An article that you have been involved in editing, C9orf3, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C9orf3. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dpmuk (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Oh, sorry. I'm in #cvn-wp-en and Miszabot founded out a large removal, Be careful what you do with edits, or put a notice on the article to let everyone know of the merger. Thanks Techman224 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for C9orf3

I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement. Dpmuk (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Phe Tyr.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Phe Tyr.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Phe Tyr.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. JaGa^talk 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Request

Hello Mr Boghog2, I've written an article recently on the guanine nucleotide exchange factor SGEF, but not sure how to construct an accompanying protein box. I'd be most grateful if you could either make one or send me a quick guide of how to do it so that i can do it myself in the future. The Entrez gene ID for this protein is 26084. Many thanks. George Damoulakis (talk) 17:36(GMT), 9 October 2008

Hi George. BTW, great work on the DOCK series of articles. You obviously know a great deal about the subject and this clearly comes through in the articles that you have written. The articles contain a lot of detail but at the same time are very clear. Again, nice job!

Concerning the protein boxes, I use Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. You need the HGNC ID number which you normally can find by searching the HUGO database. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find the SGEF gene/protein in this database. Therefore the only way I know to create this template is manually. Using Entrez I was able to locate the RefSeq and UniProt accession numbers and I copy and pasted these into a blank template. Since I already went through the work of creating the template, I added to the article. I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lacritin Thanks

Thanks Dr/Mr (?) Boghog2, for significantly improving the Lacritin article. Is there a way to replace Image:PBB GE LACRT gnf1h01120 at tn.png with more representative display of lacritin expression? I list several in the article. The Unigene image is preferred. Glaurie (talk) 7:39 am, 14 October 2008

Likewise, thanks for your edits which have greatly improved this article. Per your request, I have commented out the "PBB_GE_LACRT_gnf1h01120_at_tn.png" image with this edit. If you have a better image, feel free to replace "<!--PBB_GE_LACRT_gnf1h01120_at_tn.png-->" in the "GeneAtlas_image1" field of the PBB/90070 template with the figure of your choice. This figure of course first needs to be uploaded (see the toolbox/Upload file link which is on the left hand side of the page of any Wikipedia article). I have also modified the tissue distribution section of the Lacritin article to reflect the fact that the "PBB_GE_LACRT_gnf1h01120_at_tn.png" is no longer displayed. I am certainly not an expert on this protein, so please feel free to further edit my changes. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

nACh subtypes

Hi Boghog2. Why is there no page for CHRNA8? I've been following the development of the subtype-selective nACh ligands with some interest and just noticed that there is no page for the α8 subunit. Not that its particularly notable at present, but I expect all of these subtypes will have selective ligands in the near future, and it seemed like an odd omission. Meodipt (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Seems to be expressed mainly on GABAergic neurons, and with a similar but not identical distribution to the better studied α7 subunit (see PMID 10678774, PMID 11593308, PMID 15972832) Meodipt (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. Interesting question. The short answer is that CHRNA8 subunit does not appear to be a mammalian subunit:

• Millar NS (2003). "Assembly and subunit diversity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors". Biochemical Society transactions. 31 (Pt 4): 869–74. PMID 12887324. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Le Novère N, Corringer PJ, Changeux JP (2002). "The diversity of subunit composition in nAChRs: evolutionary origins, physiologic and pharmacologic consequences". Journal of neurobiology. 53 (4): 447–56. doi:10.1002/neu.10153. PMID 12436412. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

After further digging, it appears that CHRNA8 is bird specific:

• Lovell PV, Clayton DF, Replogle KL, Mello CV (2008). "Birdsong "Transcriptomics": Neurochemical Specializations of the Oscine Song System". PLoS ONE. 3 (10): e3440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003440. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The Gene Wiki project has mainly focused on human genes/proteins and there does not appear to be any human CHRNA8 gene. I have also searched other databases such as Entrez, UniProt, etc. and I cannot find any entry for CHRNA8. Hence it would be difficult to write a notable article about this subunit. On the other hand, if you start the article, I will do what I can to expand it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah very interesting, I should have read those abstracts more carefully, now I look again I see they are all done in avian tissue...well I'd say that its notable for the fact that its only expressed in birds then, but I agree if its not a human gene then it is much lower priority and can wait for some distant time in the future. Thanks for the clarification :-) Meodipt (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL, {{PDB}} and {{PDB3}}

The PDB and PDB3 templates don't seem like they comply with Wikipedia's standard practice regarding external links. Per guidelines, external links shouldn't be used in the body of an article. The reason I bring this up is your recent reversion of one of my edits to restriction enzyme (see diff), in which you restored an external link via the PDB template. Such external linking is absent throughout all of the relevant featured articles in biology (e.g. DNA repair, exosome complex, RNA interference), the recently promoted FA Rosetta@home and all of the protein-related good articles I looked through (e.g. Arp2/3 complex, Protein). Given that, shouldn't the PDB and PDB3 templates be deprecated? The PDB2 template seems like a viable alternative.

Also, given the MOS:IMAGES recommendation against forced sizing when images display well enough with the 180px default, shouldn't the 260px forced sizing you also restored in the 1qps image be removed as well? Cheers, Emw2012 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure that I completely follow your argument. The same argument could be made against the use of {{protein}}, {{PBB}}, {{Chembox new}}, etc. templates which are inlcuded in tens of thousands of articles and each of these templates contain numerous external links. So the question is whether a figure caption or chem box, protein box, etc. is considered part of the body of the article or not.

Furthermore the {{PDB2}} template is a subset of the {{PDB}} template. Both link to the same external site while the {{PDB}} template in addition displays an internal link to PDB. So the objection that you raised to {{PDB}} would equally apply to {{PDB2}}. Alternatively the PDB link could be included as a <ref>footnote</ref> which would be displayed in the references section of the article. This would seem to completely address your objection since the guidelines do not apply to Inline citations.

In your edits, you left the PDB accession number. If the accession code is left in the article, why not also provide an internal link to the PDB to explain what the accession number is, and also a database link to the structure itself?

Concerning the figure width, this I think is a subjective judgement call. The reason I preferred the wider width had more to do with the width of the figure caption text than the figure itself. With the default 180 px width, the figure caption text height was greater than the corresponding height of the figure which made the entire figure look unbalanced to me. Increasing the width slightly took very little extra screen real estate but esthetically looked much better to me. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between {{PDB}} and the other templates you mention is that {{PDB}} is used often in the body of the article, while the others are all types of infoboxes. Along with 'External links' sections and navboxes, infoboxes are listed as one of the places where external links are appropriately displayed. These areas are not part of the article body to my understanding.

Since I didn't see the typical EL styling in {{PDB2}}, I assumed it was an internal link. Now that I realize it is in fact simply an external link styled with a special CSS class, however, I take back my statement that "The PDB2 template seems like a viable alternative". Your suggestion for including the external PDB ID links as a footnote seems like it would significantly improve MCB articles' compliance with WP standard practice. Of course, this would not apply to the many PDB EL's currently contained in infoboxes like {{protein}}, {{PBB}}, {{Chembox new}}, etc. Including external links there doesn't seem to pose any violation of WP guidelines.

Such a change would not only remove nagging issues across the board for articles being reviewed, but could also add convenient information in a footnote on proteins currently lacking external links to their PDB ID's in the bodies of articles at the GA or FA level. Emw2012 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your detailed explanation which I agree with. I have moved the external link to an in-line citation which should solve the problem. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GPR50

Thank you for helping out with that. I just was doing Random Article Improvement. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for getting the ball rolling. Your edits to the GPR50 article was an excellent start and clearly pointed out that there was a need to expand this stub. I didn't realize so much was known about this particular orphan receptor. There are large number of additional stubs that have been created as part of the Gene Wiki project any additional edits to these Gene Wiki pages would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

About your assertion that url is redundant

(about the article KCNC1 Dear friend. You have "removed redundant URL from citation that contains a DOI, both point to the same page therefore no reason to include both, also DOIs are preferable since they are guaranteed not to change". However, I think that you did not take into account the all aspects of the issue. For example, article #7 (Rudy et al) also has a DOI. But this article has no open access, so providing the link with a url is senseless. But the article #4 (Gutman et al) has the open access. So, it is quite reasonable to provide this link also with url to underline the possibility for each user of Wikipedia to get the full text of the article using the link.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. According to Template:Cite journal/doc:

• url: This should point to, in descending order of preference:

1. A free online version of the full text
2. An online version of the full text, for which subscription is required
3. An abstract or information page, if no DOI or PMID record is available

If a DOI or PMID is available, the URL should only be specified if it would point to a different page to that which a DOI or PMID would redirect to.

Providing a DOI or URL to an open access version is certainly preferable, but if an open access version of an article doesn't exist, a link to a version that requires a payment or subscription may still be useful to some people. First of all, the links often provide free access to at least an abstract and reading the abstract may be enough to verify the relevance of the citation to the reader. Please remember the primary purpose of these citations is to support statements made in the Wikipedia article, and second, to provide background information for readers looking for more detailed information. Finally, the link to a for fee site could be useful to students or company employees with institutional access to the journal or possibly even a private individual who is willing to pay the fee. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AFP

Good edits. Carry on. --Una Smith (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your previous edits that have considerably improved the article. I don't know too much about AFP, but there were a few obvious things (like function) that I thought needed to be added. I will do more when I find the time. Boghog2 (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that hemoglobin cite

Darned nice of you. SBHarris 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The citation formatting was made easier by using the Wikipedia template filling tool. And thank you for all the work you have put into the iron oxidation state section which has considerably strengthened it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for PDB model

Your picture of the A2A receptor looks just great, I therefore wanted to ask you if you could the same for the TRPV1 channel. The PDB model is here: http://cbsm.utalca.cl/cecs/files/pdb/trpv1_pip2.zip, the reference is here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1891241. Thanks Panoramix303 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Per your request, I have added a graphic depicting the homology model described in the citation above to the TRPV1 article. A simulated bilayer was included in the model, however I choose to leave it out since it would have obscured the view of the PIP₂ ligand. I hope this is OK. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks a lot! Looks excellent (as expected). -- Panoramix303 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Glutamate aspartate carrier

That article is unfortunately wrong. I know biocarta.com has the wrong transporter too. See Talk:Glutamate_aspartate_transporter. --Ayacop (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I am not an expert (obviously ;-) on this particular protein so I will need to do some background research before correcting it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LAG-3

Thanks for creating the LAG-3 article. You have put in a lot of references but none of them are in-line, which means I cannot tell what refers to what? --92.3.124.93 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The LAG3 article was created as part of the Gene Wiki project whose goal is to create a gene/protein page for every notable human gene. Most of these pages were created by the ProteinBoxBot. In order to establish notability and as a starting point for other editors, a further reading section was added by the bot. The intention is that overtime editors would move this citations in-line and the further reading section in most cases would disappear. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:L-tryptophan.png

A tag has been placed on Image:L-tryptophan.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:L-tryptophan.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. JaGa^talk 08:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

7-dehydrocholesterol reductase

Thanks for noticing my image----it is for a specific protein but does fit in the same species as 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase which is why I added the image in the first place. I put it back on the page because this is for a biochem test and I need something up on that partcular page until she grades it. I will also be adding other comments and will remark on the fact that the image is realted but not exact. Thanks for your help. Whitek94 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

GHB receptor

Hi Boghog2. Should these two pages be merged? GPR172A and GHB receptor or is there more than one GHB receptor? Also is GPR172A the same as GPR172? Meodipt (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. Again, an interesting question. I am not sure where I found GPR172 when I added it to {{G_protein-coupled_receptors}} navbox. In rechecking this, I cannot find any literature on GPR172, therefore I have removed it from the navbox. The GPR172A and GHB receptor articles appear to be about identical proteins, therefore I think these two articles should probably be merged. As described in the Gamma-Hydroxybutyric_acid#Pharmacology article section, GHB also binds to the GABA_B receptor, but only acts as a weak agonist. Hence it appears that GPR172A is the main receptor for GHB. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I merged the two pages under the title GHB receptor as it seems to be the accepted name, and have fleshed it out a little more, although I'm sure it could benefit from more work at some future date. Meodipt (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Epsilon opioid receptor

Hi Boghog2. Do you know anything about this receptor? I can't find much but maybe it is one of those unidentified orphan GPCRs...there is some reasonable evidence for its existence here and a few selective ligands have been identified (PMID 16719773 PMID 15246090) but then this paper (PMID 15178356) says the apparent epsilon opioid receptor effects seem to be mediated through the classic opioid receptors instead so its a bit of a puzzle.Meodipt (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. I am afraid that I don't know anything more than you do about this interesting receptor. In the first link that you provided, it was proposed that GPR7 might be the receptor protein, but this protein has since been characterized as the neuropeptides B/W receptor 1 which doesn't appear to be an opioid receptor. I cannot find any more recent published work beyond what you have already found. An authoritative up-to-date source states "the epsilon and lambda receptors have not been cloned or sequenced to date":

"Opioid receptors". IUPHAR Database. International Union of Pharmacology. 2008-08-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Based on the publications that you have found, we could probably create a stub, but it would be entirely pharmacology based since the corresponding protein for this receptor has not been identified. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, that IUPHAR review says that a gene for the zeta opioid receptor has been identified, and a quick search on PubMed reveals that this receptor is known as the "opioid growth factor" receptor (OGFr) as its function seems to be modulation of tissue growth, with met-enkephalin being the endogenous ligand (PMID 10024694 PMID 10677613 PMID 15135648). So I guess the zeta receptor is probably most deserving of a page as there seems to be quite a bit of information available. The epsilon opioid receptor seems most likely to be a splice variant of one of the standard opioid receptors (which would explain the lack of epsilon mediated effects in μ/δ/κ triple knockout mice) rather than a distinct receptor itself. Can't find anything much about the lambda receptor though. Hmm well maybe I will write something about these when my exams are over...Meodipt (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

CUGBP1

Hello Boghog and thanks for the editing and formating on the cugbp1 page. I have been wondering why the page is back to a minimal content page like the one originally created by the bot ?

This modification does not appear in the history.

OK, everything is back.yann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann.audic (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

yann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann.audic (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Scramblase

Thanks for reviewing the changes I made. The citation you put in (Phospholipid scramblases: An overview) is basically what I used. I could go back an insert individual references. But I thought just having it there would be ok. What do you think? Artephius (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

HI Artephius. Great job on re-writing the scramblase article. Concerning citations there are no hard and fast rules. However it is generally OK to use one or two source references to review articles when the Wikipedia article is relatively short and narrow in scope. However I don't think this article falls in this category. Furthermore, the scramblase article is currently rated B-Class. According to the B-class guidelines:

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

So I think at a minimum there should be at least one inline citation per section documenting the most important information contained in that section. This recommendation of course is only my own opinion.

Starting with a review article, one should be able to find the corresponding PubMed entry fairly quickly. Using the template filler tool, given a PMID, you can easily create a fully formatted {{cite journal}} template that can be directly copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Using this tool can save you a lot of work and insure that citations are displayed in a consistent way. If you have already been using this tool, be sure to check the "add ref tag" option. The resulting template can then be used "in-line" (e.g., pasted directly in the text). Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on that then. Artephius (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thymidine kinase

Hi Boghog, thank you for help. I am almost finished with the article, just remains som re-writing and citations about histology and determination in tissue extracts. Then I plan to continue with some other tumour marker.

By the way, on the discussion page, there is a remark about the article being an unimportnat stub. I do not know exactly the definition of a stub, but the article was not a stub when I started adding citations last week, and the enzyme is definitely not unimportant, as it is the deciding port of entry of several drugs and also importnat in clinical chemistry. Should this remark on the discussion page be modified? Lave (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lave. You have done a fantastic job in expanding the thymidine kinase article. As a result of all of your hard work, the article is obviously no longer a stub. I therefore have changed the rating to B class, which is the highest rating an article can achieve outside a formal review. Also I have changed the importance rating from low to mid, given the diverse applications that this enzyme has. If the application section is further expanded, increasing the importance rating to high might be justified.

One minor additional suggestion. When using the template filler tool, be sure to check the "Add ref tag" button. This will include a unique ref name for each citation. If ref names are included and a duplicate citation is inserted in an article, the Wikipedia renderer will automatically recognize it as a duplicate and only display the citation once in the "References" section of the article. If the duplicate was intentional, this saves space. If the duplicate was accidental, is make it easier to spot the duplicate (duplicate references will have a, b, c, etc. displayed next to the reference number in the reference section). Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, May I disturb you with a technical problem again: I have tried to improve the section about pharmaceutical applications. Unfortunately, the pictures don't line up as I want, what can I do to place two pictures nicely on the same line witn no text coming in between? What do I make wrong? Also, the references no linger arrange themselves in two nice columns like they were after you edited last time. I am almost done with the article now, just have to add some about thymidine kinase in histological sections and in tissue extracts, with proper references. Sorry to take your valuable time. Lave (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lave. You have done an incredible job with the thymidine kinase article. Concerning placing figures on the same line, the Template:Gallery is one way to do it. I took the liberty of moving the figures in the article to a gallery. I put all four figures in the same gallery since it makes more efficient use of space, but feel free to split this up into two galleries. Concerning the one versus two column reference list, have you switched browsers? I just checked with Firefox, and the references are still displayed in two columns. Internet Explorer displays these in one column and Safari used to display in two columns like Firefox, but for some reason no longer. Again, great job with the TK article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, thanks for your suggestions. Yes. I guess that I switched browser, that is why. Now to something more difficult: I drew a new structure for idoxuridine and completely new for stavuridine. In my photoshop they still look good, but on the Wikipedia page they look shaky. I guess that the reason is that I use jpg format. However, I have no graphic program that includes the svg format (I suppose that it is some kinad of vector graphics). Is there something to be done to this? The originals are in sk2 fromat in ChemSketch, but that program cannot save in svg either. Thanks for your input, Lave (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hej Lowe. I don't have much experience with ChemSketch, but according to the documentation you should be able to save in png or pdf format. PNG may display better than jpg so I would try that first. Alternatively if you save in pdf, you should be able to convert the graphic into SVG format with Inkscape. I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Märkliga redigeringar

Hejsan! Somebody is helping you to edit Tyrosine aminotransferase, but who is that person really and where do these images come from? I asked a question at commons:Commons:Village pump#Strange uploads. --LA2 (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tjena LA2! Tyvärr jag kan inte hjälpa dig eftersom jag har ingen aning om vem detta redaktör är. Jag skulle också föredra att se PNG eller SVG bilder. Ha det så bra! Boghog2 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Though we rarely talk directly, I wanted to make sure you know how much I appreciate the wonderful work you do, and and how much I enjoy our silent collaboration. --Arcadian (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Likewise, thank you for creating all those interesting stubs and for the fantastic job you have done with linking everything together with navboxes! Boghog2 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for the citation advice. I've got a lot to learn. Abe (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good one

I hope that you have a happy Christmas and have a Happy New Year Bog. Try not to modulate those alpha subunits too much on New Years eve night!:=) LOL--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ho, Ho, Ho, that a good one Literaturegeek ;-) Likewise, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a great new year! Boghog2 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene Update

Hello, Boghog I noticed that you edited a link on the CLCNKB article back in July; the Homologene link is retired and I was trying to replace it with a link to Gene (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1188&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Gene.Gene_ResultsPanel.Gene_RVDocSum) but I don't know the code. Can you help?doctorwolfie (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doctorwolfie. According to HomoloGene: 73873, this entry was split into three new entries and the CLCNKB gene was placed into the HomoloGene: 65 group. Therefore I have updated the corresponding link in the Template:PBB/1188 with this edit which should fix the problem. The link you provided above is already included as the Entrez link in the {{GNF_Protein_box}}. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Fvasconcellos, seasons greetings to you and yours and hoping that you have a great new year! Boghog2 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Boghog: Gott Nytt År!! Allt gott under 2009! Lave (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lave, God fortsättning på det nya året! Boghog2 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thanx and gene wiki query

Boghog2 thanx for welcoming me and the great advice too. i am part of a large group developing a grant application to the national inst of health to set up a web site to assist the community in learning about research on cleft lip and palate. we wanted to use the gene wikis as a common, easily accessible format to curate up to date information on genes especially relevant to cleft lip so a few of us will be trying to edit perhaps 20 or so gene entries. but we realize we are a specialized community so dont want to offend anyone. any advice or central resources we could access for this kind of work. thanx a lot we really love wikipedia and gene wikis especially. i will try to sign off the correct way i hope i get it right Jcmurray24 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jcmurray24. We certainly welcome your participation. I think there is very little risk of offending anyone by adding specialized content. The only problem that might occur is with undue weight where the size of a specialized section overwhelms the rest of the article. However I don't think this is likely to occur and if it does, it can easily be handled by splitting out the material into a new article and cross linking the parent and child. If you have any more questions or suggestions specifically about the Gene Wiki Project, please post them here here. That way others involved in the project can respond. We look forward to your group's Gene Wiki contributions and the best of luck with your NIH grant application! Boghog2 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)