Talk:Tissue-type plasminogen activator: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Alteplase? |
Liam Skoda (talk | contribs) Lyme disease? |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:: I also think that a recombinant drug shouldn't overtake the physiological protein in significance. We have a precedent in Epogen, that is, recombinant Erythropoietin, which is redirected to the physiological chemical from that search. In most cases this seems reasonable as physiological chemicals administered exogenously have similar effects to their endogenous counterparts (although not the same: e.g. exogenous insulin). A second page just for the drug would be double handling, but I do also agree that the Drug usage needs to be addressed formally. Maybe a second Major Heading further down the page "Alteplase: recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator" and a wikiproject drugs format be followed there. I suggest that this will become of increasing importance as more recombiinant drugs appear, and new drugs like alteplase may carry a different moniker than the endogenous protein. This may even be important enough to bring up in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology]] if it is not already being hotly debated there.[[User:Markjohndaley|Markjohndaley]] 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
:: I also think that a recombinant drug shouldn't overtake the physiological protein in significance. We have a precedent in Epogen, that is, recombinant Erythropoietin, which is redirected to the physiological chemical from that search. In most cases this seems reasonable as physiological chemicals administered exogenously have similar effects to their endogenous counterparts (although not the same: e.g. exogenous insulin). A second page just for the drug would be double handling, but I do also agree that the Drug usage needs to be addressed formally. Maybe a second Major Heading further down the page "Alteplase: recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator" and a wikiproject drugs format be followed there. I suggest that this will become of increasing importance as more recombiinant drugs appear, and new drugs like alteplase may carry a different moniker than the endogenous protein. This may even be important enough to bring up in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology]] if it is not already being hotly debated there.[[User:Markjohndaley|Markjohndaley]] 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Alteplase redirects here, and yet the article makes no mention of it, at least I didn't see any... [[User:Mauvila|Mauvila]] ([[User talk:Mauvila|talk]]) 05:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::Alteplase redirects here, and yet the article makes no mention of it, at least I didn't see any... [[User:Mauvila|Mauvila]] ([[User talk:Mauvila|talk]]) 05:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Lyme disease== |
|||
Why is this in the "see also" section? [[User:Liam Skoda|cyclosarin]] ([[User talk:Liam Skoda|talk]]) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:46, 19 June 2012
 | Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs naming policy, I propose we move this page to the INN alteplase. If you have any concern with this proposal, please discuss it on this page. Matt 23:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Since tPA is primarily a human protein, and only secondarily a drug, I don't think that would be a good thing to do. AttishOculus 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also think that a recombinant drug shouldn't overtake the physiological protein in significance. We have a precedent in Epogen, that is, recombinant Erythropoietin, which is redirected to the physiological chemical from that search. In most cases this seems reasonable as physiological chemicals administered exogenously have similar effects to their endogenous counterparts (although not the same: e.g. exogenous insulin). A second page just for the drug would be double handling, but I do also agree that the Drug usage needs to be addressed formally. Maybe a second Major Heading further down the page "Alteplase: recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator" and a wikiproject drugs format be followed there. I suggest that this will become of increasing importance as more recombiinant drugs appear, and new drugs like alteplase may carry a different moniker than the endogenous protein. This may even be important enough to bring up in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology if it is not already being hotly debated there.Markjohndaley 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alteplase redirects here, and yet the article makes no mention of it, at least I didn't see any... Mauvila (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also think that a recombinant drug shouldn't overtake the physiological protein in significance. We have a precedent in Epogen, that is, recombinant Erythropoietin, which is redirected to the physiological chemical from that search. In most cases this seems reasonable as physiological chemicals administered exogenously have similar effects to their endogenous counterparts (although not the same: e.g. exogenous insulin). A second page just for the drug would be double handling, but I do also agree that the Drug usage needs to be addressed formally. Maybe a second Major Heading further down the page "Alteplase: recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator" and a wikiproject drugs format be followed there. I suggest that this will become of increasing importance as more recombiinant drugs appear, and new drugs like alteplase may carry a different moniker than the endogenous protein. This may even be important enough to bring up in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology if it is not already being hotly debated there.Markjohndaley 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Lyme disease
Why is this in the "see also" section? cyclosarin (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)