Talk:Eastern blot

Although this term is used much less frequently than far-western blotting its appearance in the literature probably warrants this article. That said, the original attribution of Eastern blotting being developed in 2009 is absurd. The method has been around in various forms since at least the late '70s. If anyone can find earlier references, please add them. --Glycoform (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pasted from a User:Talk page

Do not try to modify Eastern Blotting. The Japanese papers mentioning Eastern blotting are Far Eastern Blotting. Do not insert lectin blotting or any other fancy names as it is confusing to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.118.175 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• No - lectin blotting is eastern blotting; and it was not invented in the '90s, but in the late '70s. The terms used in the updated version of that article are correct, and I've restored them. If you would care to update the article to clarify differences between these two terms, feel free - but do not just delete properly referenced text. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, and not on this user page. Please direct any comments there. --Glycoform (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant passage is on Eastern Blotting and not Lectin blotting. This is not about lectin blotting, if you need your own page create it. Do not try to vandalise other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please learn to distinguish the difference between editing and vandalism. My edits added critical references, made the text more accurate and more readable. If you disagree with particular edits, you should add to or improve them in some way. For example, if you care to argue that lectin blotting is different from eastern blotting, feel free to add some references that support this claim.--Glycoform (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise the section of Eastern Blotting. I suggest you create new pages if you are interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again - this discussion belongs on the talk page of the article [ed: now pasted to the talk page]. But I have yet to hear an actual argument for the difference between an eastern blot and a lectin blot. Perhaps your issue is that not all eastern blots are lectin blots, my point would be that all lectin blots are eastern blots. The lectin blot does not require a separate page, considering that the key examples given in this article use lectins (Taki,Walker, Tanner and Freeze), and that these two experiments are conceptually identical. If you care to find other references that argue differently, please add them. Eastern blots are used to detect PTM; and glycosylation is detected with lectins. While they can also be detected with antibodies or other agents, both an antibody-blot or a lectin-blot for glycosylation would be an Eastern blot. --Glycoform (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon. reversions

I am unsure why there is a need to remove cited material without explanation. It may be related to the discussion above regarding lectin binding, but it isn't clear since no reason has been given. I recommend centralized discussion here. Any further reversions that removes sourced information will result in a posting to WP:ANI. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Eastern Blotting and not lectin blotting. Never did the earlier papers mentioned in your article use the term Eastern Blotting or detection of post translational protein modifications. Eastern blotting is the detection of protein modifications (not just one modification as mentioned in your statement) of a known protein. The authors of the 70's paper never mentioned the term Eastern Blotting (if yes, correct me). Thus Eastern blotting is detection of protein modifications and not just one modification. The paper on Ehrlichia mentions antigenic protein modfications in two species- I believe this is the first paper comparing protein modifications in two species and using multiple substrates (not just lectins). Thus I justify that the paper by Thomas et al., should be given the credit of first mentioning the term Eastern Blotting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.90.85 (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is true that the term was not used in these earlier papers, however just because the term was not used does not negate that the experiment fits the definition of an Eastern blot. The use of multiple labels is not a useful criteria in the definition of the blot (and no other blotting is defined this way, e.g. that more than one or a specific regimen of probes are needed). If it is, how many would constitute a mere 'lectin blot', and how many would constitute an 'Eastern blot'? I would also argue that the Ehrlica experiments use lectins for the two out of three probes (concanavalin A and Cholera toxin bind specifically to carbohydrate groups, thus they are lectins). Regardless, the definition used (probing for PTM) is a good one, but you cannot pretend that lectin blotting is not doing just this; and to ignore the earlier work is revisionist. The references to Far-Western blotting are important to contrast with the definition used here; and all the lectin blotting examples should be replaced. I would concede that we should identify the earliest reference for the terminology, but also include references to the vast numbers of earlier examples that did not coin a new term for their experiment. The article should, once again, be restored to last revision that includes this text and references.--Glycoform (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and with respect to Rootology, I do not believe this article should have been fully protected. One Texas-based anonymous editor using numerous IP addresses has been deleting sourced content, and has been reverted by seven different editors (including two administrators). That is not a valid content dispute, it is one editor tendentiously editing against consensus. The single disruptive editor should be blocked, and the article should be unprotected. — Satori Son 13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rootology protected based on my request at WP:RPP and of course his own assessment. I have been watching this for a few days and feel that there is in fact a content dispute. Repeated attempts to steer discussion to the talk page has resulted in more reverts even from, as you point out, seven established editors. This article is a candidate for a week-long full protection, not because one side is more right than the other but because reverting has become a regular trend. The suggestion by Glycoform is the one I am currently endorsing, and he even offers a concession to the ip contributor(s). ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Though Kornberg described the DNA polymerase, he did not find any practical applications for it. The name PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) (the practical technique of amplifying DNA) was described by Kary Mullis. Hence Kary Mullis is considered the inventor of PCR, not Kornberg who described the DNA polymerase the key ingredient of PCR. Similarly, lectins, Cholera Toxin B etc., were described by various scientists. None of them coined or used the term "Eastern Blotting" until S. Thomas described a practical way of detecting post translational protein modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding PCR, Kornberg discovered DNA pol, but Mullis used a different procedure (heating/cooling cycles) to amplify the DNA, thus changing the experiment (he also used a different pol enzyme for this purpose). Mullis did not receive the Nobel for 'naming' the reaction, he received it for inventing a new application. This is a totally different situation, where an identical experimental procedure has been rechristened as something novel without attribution to the people that did the experiment first. I think this article should identify the first people to perform Eastern blotting, and 'also' identify the first to name it. Though, I would argue the former contributors are more important to the discussion. I'm going to guess from your IP that your concern for the inclusion of the work from U Texas is not entirely impartial. --Glycoform (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Mullis was not the first to propose the ideas behind PCR. The main principles were described in 1971 by 1968 Nobel Prize laureate H. Gobind Khorana and Kjell Kleppe, a Norwegian scientist. Kleppe and Khorana released a 20-page research paper on PCR in the 1971 Journal of Molecular Biology. As early as June 18, 1969, Kleppe had presented his work at the Gordon Conference in New Hampshire. Using repair replication (the principle of PCR), he duplicated and then quadrupled a small synthetic molecule with the help of two primers and DNA-polymerase. However, "the full potential of PCR was not realized" until Mullis' work in 1983.

Eastern Blotting was not named until the paper of S. Thomas describing detection of post translational protein modifications. It is just not lectin blotting alone. There are 25 post-translational protein modifications and over the years various substrates have been used to detect different moities (including phosphorylation, lipoylation etc) with different substrates. None of them coined the term "Eastern Blotting". Techniques detecting post translational modifications is Eastern Blotting. The article is written for "Eastern Blotting", not any other blotting techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tired. Mullis improved the protocol, and used it for new applications. What was new in the Thomas paper 'other than the name'? While there may be other PTMs that could have been done with a blot, a lectin blot is still detecting a PTM. If you can't provide a difference between the lectin blots done in that paper and a lectin blot as described in the references I included, then this entire discussion is pointless. The fact is you are trying to give credit to someone for merely naming the technique, and blatantly ignoring all the preceding critical work on which it was based. On top of that, you continue to remove relevant references to related techniques that would be important for the reader to be aware of, and which put this article in any meaningful context. I beleive that this is one editor trying to highlight their own work, with the aim of ignoring the work of their predecssors in the field. This is shoddy science, bad writing, and unethical behavior by any definition. I recommend an admin or an established editor restore the version of the article that maintains this perspective, as discussed above.--Glycoform (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Eastern Blotting. Only references mentioning the technique of "Eastern Blotting" (detection of post translational protein modification) are to be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.107 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The lectin blotting reference mentioned by Glycoform: Tanner and Anstee (1976) is not a blot study. The paper never mentions blot. The assay used by Tanner and Anstee is "gel radiolabelled lectin assay". The authors never even showed the radiolabelled gel (which I believe could be shown on an X-ray film) on that paper, but marked the distance calculated as a "graph" (which no scientific paper now consider as legitimate). The first blotting technique Southern Blotting was described in 1975 and Western blotting in 1979!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of restoring the version that gives ample and even credit to both the naming convention, as well as the pivotal back-work for the application. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Blotting was published in Nov. 1975 (the first blotting technique). Tanner and Anstee send their paper on lectin to Biochemical Journal in 1975 (before the Southern Blotting was published)!!!! Tanner and Anstee never used a blot!!!!! It makes no sense why their name and paper is included as a reference in Eastern Blotting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.98.97 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the work provided the specific foundation for the technique since Lectin probing is a form of EB. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Far-Eastern blot and In gel lectin assay doing in Eastern Blotting Section? Not good Editors!!!!!

Page version

{{editprotected}} Administrators: this version of the page appears to be the version generally accepted by established editors at this time. Recognizing that this may change as the discussion progresses, please revert this article to the preferred version. Editors: if I picked the wrong revision, please correct me. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the consensus version (I would make the edit, but I am slightly involved in this issue having restored the info one time). I still strongly assert this article should not be fully protected. We are dealing with one disruptive IP editor who has removed this information almost a dozen times, and that editor should have been blocked. — Satori Son 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. After carefully reviewing several ip addresses I do agree that the reverts are most likely one person pushing pov. The number of established editor reverts is still bothersome, and unprotecting the page will inevitably lead to more. Considering this, I am willing to endorse a reduction to semi-protection but I do not think this page should be completely unprotected at this time. I'll mention this to rootology (talk · contribs). ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concerns, and your willingness to reconsider your stance on protection, I would not characterize the reversions by the seven other editors and admins as “bothersome”. In fact, I would consider those reversions a clear demonstration of consensus. We’ll see what Rootology or another uninvolved admin has to say. — Satori Son 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I must maintain here that my problem is with the number of reverts over a few days as well as the likelihood of them continuing, not the nature of them as I felt you just implied. You know as well as I do that reverting is not how to build consensus. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I don't "know" any such thing. In fact, what I do know is that reverting the inappropriate edits of a disruptive, sock-abusing, consensus-ignoring, tendentious POV-pusher is exactly what we should all be doing. And the more often we do that the better! The only thing I regret here is that I did not notice earlier the same editor was making all of the inappropriate edits: I would have blocked them myself while I still held "uninvolved" status. — Satori Son 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that the consensus version is this version, however the current version of the article is not this one. The references and improvements to the intro text have been lost. I expect I should not make these reverts myself, but I think that we've currently got a much weaker version of the article. For example, the references include repeats and have lost several important inclusions. Hopefully we can actually move forward on this, rather than constantly having to deal with deletions. --Glycoform (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As Rootology has announced a wikibreak, and per the discussion above, I have reduced the protection to semi. To the unregistered user: please discuss your changes on this page first and then add {{editsemiprotected}} if a consensus develops. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)