Talk:Acetylcholinesterase

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled
[edit]

Acetylcholinesterase (Yt blood group), also known as ACHE, is a human gene.

Enzyme vs gene

It is an enzyme surely, not a gene.

But the gene encodes the enzyme. The ACHE page refers to both the gene and the gene product (until someone feels there is sufficient information and has sufficient motivation to change it). AndrewGNF (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, AChE is not a gene; it is a protein. Many articles (e.g. RAPSN) that were created using automated methods have this problem - they incorrectly refer to proteins as genes, and give no explanation for the fact that they talk about both the protein and the gene responsible for coding it. (Also, AChE is not found solely in humans.) It's probably best to write the articles individually to avoid conflating genes and proteins. Fuzzform (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also... all enzymes/proteins are encoded for by genes! So, the following statement is pretty much useless: "...is a enzyme coded for by a gene." It's like saying "The Toyota Prius is a car that was built in a factory." Both statements have almost no informational value. Fuzzform (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are (1) about both the protein and the gene encoding that protein and (2) not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

<recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. In addition, the approved HUGO gene symbol often but not necessarily corresponds to the recommended UniProt name (see for example SLC22A6). Finally there are many gene/proteins that exist in other species which do not exist in humans. The simple statement that the gene/protein exists in humans increases the notability of the article. Therefore the lead sentence is non-trivial since it (1) specifies the recommended protein name and gene symbol and (2) states that this particular gene/protein exists in humans (with a citation that supports that claim). Boghog (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the exact same thing as I read this article. What about some particulars about the protein AChE? Maybe how many amino acids are in the human form, some properties of the structure of the enzyme, etc.

There are already some details about the three isoforms of the AChE enzyme. Concerning details of the amino acid sequence, these may be found in the links in the enzyme and protein infoboxes. However I would agree that the article could be expanded to include some of these details. Boghog (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Species distribution section

Should this section refer to acetylcholine (as it does currently) or acetylcholinesterase? Shanata (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disease relevance section

The affirmation " Inhibition of AChE leads to accumulation of ACh in the synaptic cleft and results in impeded neurotransmission.[20]" is not clear, and is not correct, in my opinion. Accumulation of ACh in the synaptic cleft leads nerve impulses to be continually transmitted, as shown by nerve agents like sarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum.presence (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Role in Nerve agent (organo-phosphate) poisoning.

The BBC article "Russian spy poisoning: How the Skripals were saved" says:

"Once the Skripals were stable and able to speak, the key concern for medical staff was how their production of the key enzyme acetylcholinesterase - needed to re-establish their normal body functions - could be stimulated.

The body will do this naturally after nerve agent poisoning, but the process can take many months.

It would be good if some subject expert could give an overview of this. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal CWA

Highly illegal against Geneva protocol article 3 to use any CWA agents in any measurement. G-series or V-series including VX and Novichok. 170.62.21.182 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]