Jump to content

Talk:Glutamate receptor/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Looie496 (talk | contribs)
starting review
 
Line 13: Line 13:


'''Reviewer:''' [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 18:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
'''Reviewer:''' [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 18:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

: thank you for your feedback! we will go over these comments and do research on the issues raised. [[User:Justindchien|Justindchien]] ([[User talk:Justindchien|talk]]) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:09, 29 November 2009

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm pleased to review such an important article. My initial impression is that the article contains a lot of useful information but needs work in some important respects. Details will follow, but here are some initial points:

  • The article needs to explain briefly, perhaps even in the lead, that glutamate is one of the 20 essential amino acids used to build protein, and therefore is found in large quantities in every part of the body.
  • I don't think the Function section is accurate. As I understand it, most neuroscientists consider AMPA receptors to be the "primary" glutamate receptors. This may be disputable, but in any case I don't think they should be portrayed as secondary to NMDA receptors.
  • It's very important to have an explanation of the features of the NMDA receptor that make it play a key role in neural plasticity -- i.e., the fact that the receptor depends on simultaneous pre- and postsynaptic activity. Details can be left to the subarticle, but the importance of this requires that an overview be given here.
  • Current ideas about the role of glutamate receptors in schizophrenia need some coverage. (Glutamate antagonists as possible antipsychotic drugs have been getting a lot of attention recently.)

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your feedback! we will go over these comments and do research on the issues raised. Justindchien (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]