Talk:Laminin

I agree it would be helpful to include a picture of the structure. I looked up several other protein-based molecules in Wikpedia and all of them include a picture of the molecule. Under "Merosin", which redirects to a variation of Laminin, it is described as "composed of three subunits, alpha, beta, and gamma, which are bound to each other by disulfide bonds into a cross-shaped molecule." So it sounds like the structure has at least been observed in the lab. Perhaps a photo exists somewhere - or a scientists rendition of it. Rhema1992 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[[Link--216.211.124.141 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) title]]Template:Wikiproject MCB

It would be helpful to have a picture of the molecular structure included on the page. If there was one, it did not load when I pulled up the article. The article wa--216.211.124.141 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)s good and covered a broad subject briefly.

---

---

---

Merosin

It may be useful to somehow link to this page: Merosin. I know nothing about this topic, so I will entrust it to more knowledgeable people. --Eptin 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC) I found a picture of laminin on a Google serch that I did but for some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste it here. It is easily explained as a cross shape with many circle that twist and turn. Look it up on Google and you will se what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.19.114 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion-cruft Warning

The fact that a laminin molecule's diagram resembles a cross is now being spread somewhat widely through email and Christian publications and, I imagine, being used as a point of interest in many sermons. I predict there will shortly be a wave of edits attempting to expound this connection into the article ((1) Jesus is supposed to have died on a cross. (2) Laminin looks like a cross (3) Therefore, God exists).

Two of the three above talkpage contribs look like attempts by religious wiki-newbies trying to do just that. Be vigilant in making sure this article maintains neutrality and isn't used as a soapbox for religious self-congratulators or anti-religious ranters like myself. --Asriel (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: There's already been 3 of these. The last one was pretty funny. --Asriel (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not add a bit on this idea? Now more and more commonly believed. You could mention the fact that when sideways, it looks more like a sword, and in reality, it's floppy and doesn't really look like anything at all? Keeps neutrality, but still gives the information about this rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How many thousands of things do, or potentially could, look like a cross? Or a sword? Would you like to be responsible for updating every article on wikipedia with a list of things each item resembles? Laminin resembling a cross is hardly notable, and unless there becomes an entire cult of people worshiping this molecule, the article doesn't need anything but citable facts.--Asriel (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes? And it's a citable fact that there are lots of people out there who believe that the depiction of this thing as a cross is evidence for the existence of God. If you're going to not allow any beliefs to be added to a page, then why not scrap the entirity of wikipedia's article on Christianity itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that someone would need to post a Religious Cruft Warning. I think intelligent folks can decide for themselves what to believe. Why the need to "warn?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.147.12 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Google laminin again. note the youtube linky. Some sort of mention is indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.58.67 (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a youtube video of a pastor saying that laminin's diagram looks like a cross. I could get a 2 year old or a moderately average gorilla to tell me that. Doesn't make it any more notable. --Asriel (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And just to be totally clear, the molecule itself doesn't resemble a cross, the most common diagram (created by humans!) does. 68.161.25.228 (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like add my two cents... it is a "point of interest" to Christians to see this "cross shaped" molecule (as depicted by scientists)... Because Jesus did indeed die on the cross and He arose from the dead three days later! (hence, we celebrate Easter) He died for your sins and for mine and He did so simply because He loves everyone of us... He died for "all mankind" all who will ever be born before He returns to bring home those who have been born again and have a true relationship with Him. Yeah, it is a strange story but it is true! It is a true and wondeful story... the true story of God's love for you! Sadly many will never believe in God... only when they stand before Him at the final judgement will they understand... but it will be too late! Please friends... try to understand that there is a God and He loves this world so much that He became one of us as the man Christ Jesus and He required that this Man, Jesus, be crucified in order to "redeem" the world (which He created and loves) to Himself that we many all be with Him in Heaven! Please think about this and do a courageous thing... dare to pray and ask God to make Himself rela to you! Thanks for reading this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.50.70 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have opened my eyes, anonymous poster. So long have I been looking for answers to the unanswerable and to call upon a higher power. I have chosen to convert to Pastafarianism and worship the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. As such, I would like to edit all articles relating to noodles,pasta, and Italian food because it reminds me of our benevolent deity , FSM, and I would like others to know about his abundant splendor. However, because of the greater insight I have into the world thanks to the many spiritual and mental gifts bestowed upon all Pastafarians, I understand that there are many people who do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and to them my thoughts about their favorite noodle-based dishes reminding me of my religion would seem wildly out of place for an encyclopedia. There they are trying to learn about things and they're being bombarded with pointless trivia about something reminding people of something else. This is not the Pastafarian way. I hope that your god, one of the many pagan copies of FSM, would feel the same way. Have a noodly day! --Asriel (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How disappointing it is to come across yet another example of the bias, no outright hostility, against Christianity that has become so prevalent as evidenced by this "Religion-cruft Warning." Interesting that the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Francis S. Collins, a man who is undoubtedly far more intimate with the research on DNA than the negative posters above saw fit to write a book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Yet still, Wikipedia & others refuse to even consider the possiblility that He exists & created this world & all things in it. And Christians are accused of being narrow-minded? -Marvel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.109.1.11 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the validity of any religion or anything. The point is that we don't want a bunch of Christian (for lack of a better word) propaganda on articles that have nothing to do with religion. This is a place for facts, and despite Christians being the supposedly-persecuted majority in the US, there are lots of other religions out there and people shouldn't be forced to deal with religious speculation on an article about a protein molecule purely because of the shape of its diagram. If you want to make yourself feel better about your religion, there are hundreds of articles here for your enjoyment. --Aaron (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Christians should not use this as a "propiganda" but maybe it should be put under a separate section labled as "Christain Theorys Related to Laminin" or something like that. The theorys may not be true, or maybe they just aren't true, but they should still be put on to the page to give readers a wider range of the topic. I mean if there was something that supposibly proved Buddhism on a non-religious topic, you should still give them some credibility of that, just keep it confined to a certain section. I mean who cares if its true or not... who knows... just give people some credibility for their creativity! :) Tckpdah (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. 207.255.62.9 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

wouldn't it be appropriate to have a picture of this molecule?Mkgphoto (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate one that isn't copyrighted. If anyone can come up with one, of course it should be included. --Aaron (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the laminin-crucifix connection from Louie Giglio DVDs -- he does a similar point on the X-formation in the Whirlpool Galaxy -- and frankly, the point is not that this somehow proves that God exists. (I seem to recall that Giglio says, or at least suggests that in the case of the Whirlpool Galaxy.) Christians and non-Christians will see what they want to see in this; non-Christians will see mere coincidence, while Christians (who believe that God created these things and knew we'd develop the telescopic and microscopic technology to one day view them) will see them as a sign. In the same way that a scientist derives satisfaction and encouragement from a result consistent with (but not itself any kind of proof of) his or her hypothesis, a Christian can legitimately see this as an encouraging message from God -- but logic simply doesn't permit anything more. So to my fellow Christians coming here I say, please don't go off half-cocked saying this is definitive proof that God exists; it's not. And to the non-Christians I say, at least give some thought to the possibility of this viewpoint (meme might be the right word) being notable enough to mention in the article. -- Perey (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a Christian and I do believe that God created the earth, universe and all things in it. Although I've never seenGod, I know he exists. I've never seen the wind either. I've seen what it can do and how it makes me feel, but I've never really actually seen it. So, unbelievers, just because you can't see God, doesn't mean he doesn't actually exist. We Christians have something called Faith. We believe in what we can't see. Just like the wind.71.100.210.131 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)cmlj30

Look, religious debate aside, Mr. Giglio has made laminin culturally significant. A lot of songs and concepts will appear under a "references in popular culture" section - why would that be so bad here? People heard people talk about laminin, and they want confirmation that this is what they were talking about. Something as simple as "Laminin is referenced by Christian speaker Louie Giglio due to its cross shape." Something as simple as that. No endorsement of the religion but an acknowledgment of its cultural relevance.--70.17.185.115 (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most readers will probably visit this page for its cultural, not its scientific, significance. Even one sentence to confirm its popularization would be helpful to readers. 75.38.76.119 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a protein that looks like Santa Claus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.203.110 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a Christian, and I believe that this topic should be linked to "Quarks". Up until recently a quark could be accurately described as nothing more than a scientists way of saying "I have faith"! Something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or even measured (without proper containment) and yet it is the equation scientists use to explain how everything in the universe works and is formed! Athiests onced used the knowledge of quarks to say God doesn't exist; Such irony! I only hope that Louis Giglio gets ahold of this information and can use quarks to point people towards faith! John McQuillan (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)John McQuillan

The Quark page is not relevant just because you think so. And laminin has nothing to do with Christianity. Now, if a reliable mainstream source like CNN or a daily newspaper finds the phenomenon culturally significant enough to cover, then we can reference it. Otherwise it's just not notable enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

When eight of the top ten google results return the Christian interpretation, almost all the image results, all video results, almost all blog posts in the last year, and so on, then I think it is probably safe to say it is currently *more* noted for its Christian interpretation than for its scientific importance. Pleading that such an interpretation shouldn't even be mentioned seems a bit untenable. Pleading that only things reported on CNN should be here is bizarre, surely. Why not just work out a form of wording that notes the issue in a NPV and cites sources? Mentioning Christianity in an article on a scientific topic isn't about giving it credibility: it seems to me in this case quite the opposite. Idmillington (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Trinitrit (talk)The article this discussion is linked to is supposed to be a scientific text as part of the "WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles". As such, I personally don't see ANY reason to discuss a connection to any religion here. If some people experience a need and find relevance in linking the prospective shape of a group of heterotrimeric proteins (that SLIGHTLY resemble a cross-like-shape if one neglects the globular domains LG1-5 at the C-terminal end of the alpha-chain and the 45°angle [my guess from the published shape drafts of Colognato & Yurchenco 2000] of the short-arms from the beta- and gamma-chains) with their chosen deity, then why do they not do that in a separate forum in which they can discuss their religious believes and theories to their full extend? I am sure it would be possible to link such a discussion with this section that should -in my opinion- be purely scientific and informative and as much based on published peer-reviewed data as possible.

As far as I understand the intention for "WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles" is to give non-biased information to people who do not know this field of cell biology and -in this case- the laminin protein family. It is NOT supposed to be a forum for personal believes of any form. Especially since the quality of the religious discussion clearly shows that the theories who link the laminin protein family with the cross of Jesus Christ lack substance for none of the Theorists seems to be familiar with the proposed shape, flexible nature or the proteolytic processing events that have a huge impact on the shape of certain laminin variants.

I would strongly suggest to these Theorists to first inform themselves through the published peer-reviewed scientific body as to be found at PubMed or another scientific search engine about the shape and consistency of laminins (as seen through electron microscopy), which not only has been referred to as "cross-shaped" (Sasaki et al. JBC 2004 64(7):959–963) but also as "a three-pronged fork" (LeBleu et.al. Exp Biol Med 232:1121–1129, 2007) and can only be understood in the broader sense of the words. To make it simple for those of you who demand a "picture of laminins", please look at:

Paulsson M, Aumailley M, Deutzmann R, Timpl R, Beck K, Engel J. Laminin-nidogen complex. Extraction with chelating agents and structural characterization. Eur J Biochem. 1987 Jul 1;166(1):11-9. Page 15. Figure 4. freely available through Wiley Interscience http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121380300/PDFSTART. Please notice that these molecules have been isolated and are taken out of their usual network-formation, which can and does influence their shape.

If people feel a need to connect the shape of these molecules with a common execution method used effectively for centuries and thousands of people, they may of course be welcome to do it, but should -in my opinion- refrain to discuss this within the "WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles" project and choose more appropriate forums.

Trinitrit (talk) Following articles are worth a look:

-the special issue "Biology of the Laminins" in 2000 of "Microscopy Research and Technique" 51(3) from November with seven articles specific to laminins;

-Teller & Beaulieu Expert Rev Mol Med. 2001. 3(24):1-18; and

-Colognato & Yurchenow (2000) Dev Dyn 218(2):213-243, which has already been cited.

I have several suggestions to complete the data of this article. I hope the author(s) do not take offense:

They may want to consider updating the laminin nomenclature to LM-111 instead of laminin-1 or laminin A-B-B1 (Aumailley M et al. 2005 Matrix Biol 24(5):326-332) and subsequently all other laminin variants.

[Introduction]

Authors refer to involvement of laminins in the disease "progeria". A citation is needed here. What other diseases are laminin variants related to? Here (Introduction) as in the "Pathology" section, authors may want to introduce and discuss the severe and lethal skin blistering disease (epidermolysis bullosa) caused by mutations of any of the three LM-332 (Laminin-5)-genes or their integrin receptors (Colognato & Yurchenco 2000)

-Laminins are a family of proteins, not a single molecule

-I find the statement "It has four arms that can bind to four other molecules" misleading. Four molecules of the same laminin variant? Four different laminin variants? or Four molecules of various families? Citation needed. The globular domain of the alpha-chain is important for (integrin)receptor interaction and thus links the BM to the cell. This way the composition of LMs in the BM and receptors on the cell surface influence cell behavior -migration, apoptosis, differentiation etc. (Teller & Beaulieu 2000).

[Types of laminins]

-Here are the laminin GENES listed that encode the laminin CHAINS and the chains are called alpha-1, alpha-2 etc. each encoded by one specific gene. (I know it is very confusing to separate the gene from the chain from the variant which were previously called very similarly, but because of these circumstances it becomes even more confusing when one is not specific.)

[Merosin]

-Merosin = LM-211 = laminin-M = Laminin-2; The alpha2-chain is also part of LM-221 (Laminin-4) and LM-213 (Laminin-12). LM-211 and LM-221 are involved in several forms of muscle dystrophy (for citations try authors "Engvall E" or "Durbeej M" or "Gullberg" or "Talts" or "Takeda"

Trinitrit (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Trinitrit and others - the "cloning" article references Michael Crichton, and the "wormhole" section has a section dedicated to fictional references. If people watch Jurassic Park and want to know about cloning, there's something to tie in the reason why they went to that page with more information about that subject. If people want references to wormholes in fiction, they have that in an article on a subject within general relativity, because sci-fi is the reason that people would be going to that article.

Mr. Giglio also references the Whirlpool Galaxy in another DVD talk. Though there is no reference to this talk, the image that he uses is in the Wiki article on the Galaxy, which should be enough for someone to connect the speech to the galaxy. While a bit lean, it serves its purpose well.

I am a Christian, but if laminin was shaped like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I would be okay with that reference if 90% of anyone visiting this page was doing so because of a speech on him. As I said before, "People heard people talk about laminin, and they want confirmation that this is what they were talking about...No endorsement of the religion but an acknowledgment of its cultural relevance."

This isn't about evangelizing my faith - I can do that in a lot of other ways. It just seems like people want it kept out for intellectually dishonest reasons, and that's why I care enough to post twice here. 141.151.177.116 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable, period. If it becomes notable enough that the phenomenon is mentioned in a reliable secondary source, and not just "I saw it in a DVD" then it can go in. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please get a cite for laminin mutations causing progeria? Otherwise, I'd like to remove that line because I'm pretty sure lamin mutations cause Progeria not laminin.