User talk:Comcc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi! Welcome to my talk page.

If you have any complaints about my contributions, please post them below. For a list of my contributions, please check out my wikipedia homepage.

If something that I have added is incorrect or inaccurate, please change it and make a note of it on this page. I'd like to know what I got wrong!



Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, Comcc!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: Dr. Cash 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Best of luck, and have fun! – ClockworkSoul 05:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh - one more thing[edit]

Welcome to the MCB WikiProject. We can use all the help we can get! :) – ClockworkSoul 05:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Wow that was fast. Thanks for the advice! ComCC 06:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just that good. ;) My pleasure! – ClockworkSoul 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome![edit]

ClockworkSoul 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference![edit]

ClockworkSoul 14:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is Peripheral membrane protein![edit]

ComCC 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is Signal transduction![edit]

ComCC 07:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA polymerase![edit]

ComCC 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Genetic code[edit]

I reworded and shortened your edit to Genetic code, hopefully I understood it correctly -- I think you were talking about it in the context of wobble base pairs? So I reduced it to a sentence and put it in that paragraph. I also made it speculative rather than a statement of fact. Could you provide a reference for this hypothesis? I'd like to make sure this isn't original research. Thanks! -Madeleine 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! The new edit looks good, though the wording may be a little confusing. Also, my textbook states it as a fact rather than speculation. I will touch it up later tonight. As for the reference, can you help me do the citation? I don't know how to do citation linking...
Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 4th edition, David L. Nelson & Michael M. Cox
Its on pg. 1043. Thanks for the help! -ComCC 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this isn't a textbook I own, although I could take a half hour to look find a copy if needed. Can you see if there's an original paper referenced by the book for this particular claim? That'd be a much better reference than a textbook. Tell me if you can't find more -- I have someone I might ask about it, if you don't turn anything up.  :-)
Feel free to rewrite what I wrote for clarity purposes... Without any experimental evidence to back it up, I feel strongly that the statement should remain speculation (but interesting enough, perhaps, for wikipedia); even with some evidence, I think it'd take a lot to make it more than a plausible hypothesis. -Madeleine 05:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I checked my textbook and it doesn't seem they reference the original paper. It's explained as part of the Wobble hypothesis, which was proposed by Francis Crick in 1966 (see PMID: 5969078), but I'm not sure if the point that we're discussing was part of his original hypothesis, discovered later, or a hypothesis of another researcher. I'll check some papers to see if there's anything about it... but I think you should check with the person you know, just in case. :) Thanks! -ComCC 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, my friend (who worked on tRNAs for her phd) said this speculation wasn't true and the opposite was true -- that wobble base-pairing actually makes translation slower. I've dug around for a paper that says this, and it's really hard to find anything either way. I ended up with this review:
"Preferential codon usage in prokaryotic genes: the optimal codon-anticodon interaction energy and the selective codon usage in efficiently expressed genes", Henri Grosjean and Walter Fiers. Gene, 18 (1982) 199-209.
It's an old paper, but it compiles enough information that I'm satisfied that the speculation you added is not true (although I'm not sure I accept their hypothesis either). The paper is looking at codon usage bias in highly expressed E Coli genes -- codon usage bias seems to occur when there are selection pressures driving rapid and accurate translation. Several cases exist where there are tRNAs with "G" at the wobble position, which can pair with "A" or "C", and in a lot of these the watson-crick paired "C" is favored rather than the wobble-paired "A". However, it looks like the wobble codon possibility is favored in codons that are otherwise strong in interaction energy, "CG-rich" at the first two positions. The authors conclude that codon usage is optimized to keep the codon-anticodon hybridization energies roughly equal.
But the whole thing looks pretty complicated. The current model for translation involves an error-checking process on top of the codon association. The free energy differences between a perfect match codon and mismatch are small enough that errors in translation would theoretically be fairly high -- 1 in 1000 -- but it's actually much lower than that. There's a step in the process which seems to check the structure for a good match. Since the free energy of codon-anticodon pairing isn't trivially related to translation accuracy, it also might not be trivially related to translation speed.
So, I've removed statement from the Genetic code page. -- Madeleine 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Helicobacter pylori[edit]

Hi,

According to the spirillum article, spirillum refers to a genus of bacteria. Helicobacter pylori belongs to the Helicobacter genus. As to whether Helicobacter pylori is spiral or helical shaped, I made the edit based on the information in the article in spiral:

In mathematics, a spiral is a curve which emanates from a central point, getting progressively farther away as it revolves around the point.

...

A "spiral" and a "helix" are two terms that are easily confused, but represent different objects.

This month's winner is RNA![edit]

ComCC 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is Cell (biology)![edit]

ComCC 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is DNA Replication![edit]

ComCC 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is Cell cycle![edit]

ComCC 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This month's winner is Extracellular matrix![edit]

ComCC 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

  • Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

Dr. Cash 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I interest you in ACTH stimulation test?[edit]

Based on your work on Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis I hope I can. ACTH stimulation test is a lonely page I stumbled across and tried to help, to little avail. But it looks like it may have enough value to make it worth saving – and maybe you can help. Consider having a look? 9Nak (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology task force[edit]

Cardiology task force[edit]

-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force[edit]

Heart normal.svg
Thank you for joining Cardiology task force, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive and allot of improvment needed for many articles. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Cardiovascular system stubs. Personal message (optional) MaenK.A.Talk 07:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


--MaenK.A.Talk 07:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ELs and related issues[edit]

Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving Immunology Articles[edit]

Hi Comcc, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization[edit]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)