Talk:Cotransporter

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fphys.2013.00053/full. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

JHU Molecular Biology Project

As a project for a Molecular Biology course within JHU's Master of Biotechnology program, a group of us students will be taking on improving this article. We plan to address specific mechanisms of cotransporters along with defects associated with the basic mechanism. Any feedback is appreciated.Sridenour (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! You're with Jamia Hamdard U, Sri? - RedKnight7 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No sorry probably should have been clearer, it's Johns Hopkins University.Sridenour (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed New Structure for Article

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Structures & Composition

4. Mechanism

Antiporters vs Symporters

5. Malfunction

Examples of conditions results from mutations

6. Summary Conclusions

7. Reference

LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I also think it would be good to delete the text down to See Also in order to help create a smoother flow with detailed sections. Is anyone against this?Sridenour (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I added some content under the background section, work in progress.Igenes (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added some content under the mechanism section covering conformational changes, and turnover rate. I added subsections for Antiporters and symporters and will be adding additional info about each LutyeusMaximus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Keilana

Hi guys, great work so far! If you have any questions about my review, please do ask on my talk page or ask here and link my username so I'm notified. I'm happy to walk you through fixing anything!

• The article really needs a lead. Our guidelines for lead sections are here, but basically it is just an introduction that summarizes what is to come in the article. It doesn't need citations as long as everything you are summarizing is cited. The section you have as "introduction" would be an okay lead but it should begin with defining what cotransporters are.

I've edited this section to remove the introduction header and just make the first paragraph the lead. I will try to look at the wording a bit more to help make it a more suitable lead.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your first citation is really malformed, try editing the code directly to fix it. If you need help, ask me.

Just wanted to let Seth and Harshil know that I will work on this tonight.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have tried editing the first citation and cannot seem to get the formatting correct. Also, if I remove it I get an error since it is a named reference that is used further in the article. If anyone has any suggestions or if any members of my group want to give this a look I would greatly appreciate it.Sridenour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your first image needs a caption. It doesn't have to be long, just explain the basic characteristics of the three types of transporters.

Once again, will do this as well.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a caption to describe the basic point of the picture.Sridenour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• All of your web citations need to be more than just a link; you can use the {{cite web}} template to fill them in. (It's in the dropdown menu under "Cite").
• You don't need to define Robert Crane as either a doctor or a biochemist, just say that he made significant contributions to the understanding of transporters and launch into your explanation.
• The second paragraph and third paragraph of the Background section are way too closely paraphrased from the source. Please rewrite.

The background section has been rewritten.Igenes (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Several grammar mistakes are in the third paragraph of Background - mostly just subject/verb agreement problems.
• When you say cycles/s, you need to spell out "cycles per second" for the lay reader.

this has been fixed LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

All the best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Mtee87

• Just to add onto what what Keilana has stated, Good job so far on the article. It seems as though you are taking time to carefully develop the content for each section. This will definitely help you focus on each section so that enough information is provided. I will add that sections 2.1 and 2.2 may need to be placed under a different heading. Maybe consider Types of Co-transporters. If the mechanisms for the two different types are different, then you can restructure the mechanism section after you have talked about the two types. I am not sure how much content will be added to the antiporters and symporters section, but it will be great to see examples of where these systems work as well as supporting images. The image that you have there already is good as it quickly tells us what is going on. I just hope it is not too simplified.
• Based on the material that has been put thus far, there is adequate wiki-linking. What about linking the transporter to the page for membrane transport protein?

Good idea with linking the transporter in the lead. Sridenour (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the references, 3 of them have been properly cited, with adequate in-line citations to text in the sections. One of the other references from plantcell.org has been repeated twice in the reference list but also has inline citations for the texts. Since this particular reference is an article that is available through that site, I wanted to suggest citing it as an article and then providing the website as well (when you use the cite article tool). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtee87 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Birdy0124

1. Lead Section
a) Would it be better to start the lead section with something like “The cotransporter is a protein …”?

I re-worded the intro to have cotransporter in the first sentence.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

b) The current definition covers one aspect of cotransporter function (moving molecules against concentration gradients). Is it possible to incorporate another aspect of the function (i.e. moving two or more molecules in a coupled fashion)?

I have also added some more info to cover the dual movement of cotransporters as opposed to the singular movement of molecules that occurs with uniporters. Let me know if you think this is a better explanation.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Background
a) The beginning part of the Background is a bit out of place. Some of the wiki pages have history section. May be add a “History of Discovery” as a section? Also since you mentioned Dr. Jardetzky’s work, it might be helpful to describe his work after Dr. Crane’s work in the “History of Discovery” section? Most wiki pages have the history section to appear last so that it doesn’t disrupt the flow (most users are interested in what it is about, not how it is discovered).

Changed the background section, created a History section and moved it to the bottom of the article. Igenes (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

b) “… he first proposed his discovery …” either he presented/reported his discovery or he proposed the mechanism.

I made some edits and added more content, made a sub head 'Discovery of Cotransporters'.Igenes (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

c) You mentioned that cotransporters are a subcategory of transporters. It may be useful to briefly describe other transporters.

I linked transporters to their corresponding wiki page in hopes to allow the reader to look further into them if they wish.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

d) “They may act as channels or transporters, depending on conditions under which they are assayed.” Can their functions be determined by the physiological roles they play rather than artificial assays?
e) May be shuffle some of the materials in the Background and Mechanism Sections. In the current version, there are some overlapping descriptions. Maybe use the Background Section to introduce the context (i.e. other transporters, etc) and functions and focus the Mechanism Section on the mechanical principles of the cotransporters by subtypes.

3. Mechanism section
a) Some antiporters and symporters can transport more than two types of molecules.

I will clarify this LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

b) “An energetically unfavored movement of one molecule is combined with an energetically favorable movement of either Na+ or H+ ions to provide the power needed for transport.” Not all symporters or antiporters use Na+ or H+ ion gradients to drive the transport.

I thought of this after writing, I will go back and clarify LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

c) May need to explain what “downhill” and “uphill” mean.

Good idea, will do LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

d) “Upon binding of both the molecule which is to be transporter against its concentration gradient and the binding of an Na+ or H+ (depends on the protein) a conformational change will occur.” delete “the binding of”.
e) “where the substrates will unbind” Is “dissociate” better than “unbind”?
f) “when compared to other transport molecules.” how about “other transport proteins”? What mechanisms do the other transporters use? Why are they more efficient?

4. This is probably just a matter of personal taste. I found Dr. Crane’s picture distracting. It is the first thing a reader notices when opening the page. I am not sure if the picture is necessary. If you have to include his picture, can you find a smaller one or a picture of Dr. Crane while he was doing transporter-related research or presenting to a scientific audience (or something like that)? Just by reading your article, Dr. Jardetzky’s work seems to be equally important. I think Wiki discouraged favoritism of one scientific contributor over another. Birdy0124 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Updates after first reviews

hey guys, so I fixed some of the comments that were made about my sections. I added photo if antiporters and symporters, which are just cropped images of the image we already have. I think maybe we could find another "main picture" for the article since one of the reviewers said that is might be too simple? I also added a photo of Dr. Jardetzky, just to add some more images. LutyeusMaximus (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm think that for this week I am going to add a little to the antiporter and symporter section by discussing specific types. I was going to discuss the Na-K-2Cl cotransporter in detail. The See Also link for this one has a good bit of information so was also planning on discussing the Na-1 glucose symporter as well. What do you guys plan on covering moving on. There are more specific ones to discuss and I know we had previously mentioned discussing mutations or diseases associated with malfunction with the cotransporters so perhaps someone can start this section. But we have a good start so far I think.Sridenour (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I added a caption to the first image but am having major problems trying to fix the first citation as requested by Keilana. If I remove it I get an error and it keeps formatting it the same way so perhaps one of you guys can let me know what I'm doing wrong here.Sridenour (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the first citation, I hope this is the right one.Igenes (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'll go and fix some content in the background section and will get started in writing the malfunctions of cotransporters.Igenes (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I created a new section 'Disease associated with Cotransporter', I decided to choose this heading instead of 'Malfunction'. I hope it is fine with you all, if not we can change it to something else. Under that I created a huge table and going to add some content as we move along. Feel free to change or add to this section.Igenes (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seth and Sonya, I made some big changes in our outline. I made these changes referring to the review given to our article. What are your views on these changes?Igenes (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Harshil, I really like the table you made. That is great. I also like the history section, just wondering if we should move it up higher in the article? what do you guys think? Not sure if we should put anything under that large table, I feel like it gets forgotten about.

Also what about that table at the very bottom about membrane transport proteins and ion pumps, I think we could just get rid of that now that we have a good table on the diseases, thoughts? LutyeusMaximus (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Klortho

You guys have done a good job. Here are a few comments/suggestions.

• I think the opening sentence is a little too technical. Could you think of a more gentle definition for the lay reader (non-biologist)?
• I find this confusing: "transporters are one of three main classes of integral membrane proteins that move molecules and ions across biomembranes". To me, it sounds like you are saying that there are three classes of integral membrane proteins, and that transporters are one such class. I had to read it several times before I realized that you are instead saying that any given transporter molecule falls into one of these three classes. Maybe it is just me.

I worked on the wording in this section so let me know if this seems clearer. Sridenour (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• If you could edit the image to show which of the two are cotransporters, either by including them in a dotted rectangle, or using a curly bracket to denote them, that would help immensely. Then the reader could grasp, at a glance, what the lead is trying to say. There are a lot of image editors you could use, like photoshop. But it's just a suggestion -- not really necessary.

Image edited and re-uploaded LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Seth that looks really good, thanks for taking care of that.Sridenour (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have a problem with this phrase, "They may act as channels or transporters," and the rest of the text in that paragraph. Again, think about the plight of the lay reader, who doesn't know the difference between a "channel" and a "transporter". I probably learned it somewhere, but I've forgotten. Please explain what you mean in simple language, and provide a wikilink to "ion channel". Also, if you mean "ion channel", you should say "ion channel" first, and then use the shorter form, "channel", later -- what you have now is the other way around.
• "but much slowly", missing "more".
• What is an "apoplast"? Please gloss terms like these, and/or provide wikilinks.

Added wikilink Sridenour (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I found that in the article before you guys started editing it, this, "It works by binding to two molecules or ions at a time and using the gradient of one solute's concentration to force the other molecule or ion against its gradient." That seems like a clear and concise description of the function -- could you put it back in?

I added this in the first paragraph under about so check if it seems placed correctly. Sridenour (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keilana mentioned last time, for your web citations (#12 and #13, as I write this) you need more than just a link. You can use {{citeweb}}. Actually, #13 should use {{cite journal}}.
• I like your list of diseases, but:
  • I'm not 100% sure it doesn't constitute plagiarism, as it seems to be lifted verbatim from the website. Did you get some guidance on this?
  • On the website, these are listed as Membrane Transporter-Related Diseases. So, how many of these proteins are actually cotransporters, as opposed to uniporters?
  • It would be a challenging undertaking, but the table really should be wikilinked wherever possible.

I added wikilinks where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Under "History", I don't think you need the subheading, unless you plan on adding more subsections.

Removed subheading Sridenour (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• This history section is very closely paraphrased from the source, but, you do not have to rewrite it, since the article is licensed CC-BY. You do, however, have to attribute it. To do that, you can use the {{Citation-attribution}} template. I see that Keilana already mentioned the close paraphrasing of the background section in her last review. I didn't do a detailed comparison to see how much you've rewritten it, but it is still, very much, too closely paraphrased to just use a normal citation -- it is still basically copying. But, as I mentioned, you don't have to rewrite it, just attribute it.

Klortho (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Jfitz1974.

You have done a great job of adding some additional information to the page; it definitely looks a step up from the previous version. Here are my suggestions for improvement and/or questions I have regarding the page.

• In the Lead Section:
  • As it is written, the lead section seems a bit difficult to comprehend- particularly the first sentence. Something simple such as “Cotransporters are a subcategory of transporters that move two different types….” may be easier for the average person to follow. You wikilinked the second use of the word transporter, but I think it may be more appropriate to wikilink the first use of it. Since uniporters are not considered cotransporters, is it necessary to even mention them in the article?

Fixed the wikilinking of transporter and reworded the first sentence some. I would like to leave in the distinction for uniporters since they are a main class of transporters.Sridenour (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to wikilink the terms multiple times? For example, antiporter is wikilinked at least 4 times in the article.

I will go through and remove some of the redundant wikilinks.Sridenour (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• “About” section:
  • There are some minor typographical and grammatical errors in this section.
  • In the first paragraph, you mention that cotransporters move solutes up or down gradients but in the lead section you say that it is against their concentration gradient. I understand that cotransporters move things down an electrochemical gradient and against their concentration gradient, but that may not be apparent to the average reader, making it a bit confusing.
  • Again, is it necessary to discuss uniporters since they are not cotransporters?

I did remove the discussion here about uniporters. Sridenour (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Perhaps wikilink electric potential, chemical gradient, apoplast and vacuole in the second paragraph.

Added wikilinks to the above where possible Sridenour (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• • If you could find a graphic for the sodium / glucose transporter, that would be excellent.
• “Mechanism” section:
  • With regard to the Lodish citation, the energy utilized for secondary active transport is supplied by the electrochemical gradient, which is indeed derived from a concentration gradient. However, the concentration gradient is that of the ions/molecules of transport and not the membrane.
    • Thanks, will clarify LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikilink “conformational change”.
    • fixed LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You mention the example of cation transport but can anions be transported this way as well? What about situations where 2 (or more) ions are transported with no molecule?
• “Types of Cotransporters” section:
  • Antiporters: Wikilink cytoplasmic space, exoplasmic space, cation, anion.
    • fixed LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Symporters: Be consistent in using Na-K-2Cl; in two uses, you just call it Na-K-Cl.
    • fixed LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• “Disease Associated with Cotransporters” section:
  • I love the idea of a table listing diseases caused by faulty cotransport proteins, but as it is the table doesn’t mean much to me since I do not know what many of these diseases are, and there are no wikilinks embedded. Perhaps just select a few of the diseases that most people can comprehend and create a new table with wikilinks.

Added wikilinks where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• “History” section:
  • I would lose the “History” heading and just keep “Discovery of the Cotransporter” since that is what the section is all about.

Decided to just remove the subheading but leave 'History' Sridenour (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Re-phrase “CO2 fixation” to just read carbon fixation- that is the page to which the link takes the reader, and that is the term that I have always heard used.

Edited to Carbon fixation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igenes (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I really like that you have included this section though. I think that it conveys the importance of scientific research to the average reader.
• “External Links”
  • I realize that this section was present in the prior version of the page, but after clicking on several of the links presented, there were quite a few that were not dealing with cotransporters, at least not in the sense that the page explains. Is it something necessary?

I believe the article is on the right track though, keep up the good work! Jfitz1974 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you all have done a great job with your article! The page looks really good! Jfitz1974 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by chandler.c.ho

This is a great page!

Main: The wording seems succinct and straight forward to me.

About: I think there's a typo: Cotransporters can "we" classified as uniporters, antiporters and symporters. Is there a nomenclature on how a transporter is named?

This sentence was removed Sridenour (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism:

Types of cotransporters: The images really help on explaining the concept of transport. For AE1 protein, do you guys plan on expanding how the pump can prevent acidosis and alkalosis? The samples are able to illustrate how transporter functions in a cellular context. Good job!

Disease associated with cotrans: links would be great! Would it be better to embed those see also links to the samples you used in mechanism?Chandler.c.ho (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Added links where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Updates after second reviews

I'm going to fix things from the sections I initially edited. Then I will go back and look at the lead paragraph since it seems to be getting some criticism. Also, Harshil, I really like the table you made. That is great. I also like the history section, just wondering if we should move it up higher in the article? what do you guys think? Not sure if we should put anything under that large table, I feel like it gets forgotten about. Also what about that table at the very bottom about membrane transport proteins and ion pumps, I think we could just get rid of that now that we have a good table on the diseases, thoughts? I will updated on changes again after I make them! LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seth, you have a valid point on the History section. I initially had the History section on the top and then moved it down after one of the reviewers (Birdy0124) suggested. However, I am happy to have it higher than where it is right now. Also, do you think we should add more content in the 'Disease associated with Cotransporter' or just have the table there. I'll go and change some minor stuff that has been suggested by the reviewers.Igenes (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I missed where someone suggested to move it down. I guess it is ultimately up to us. I personally think it gets lost way down there. As far as adding to the diseases section we can. I was thinking we should definitely wiki-link the table as much as possible, but I was thinking we could add a section on cystic fibrosis since that is the most known disease associated with a cotransporter, but I was sure if this would just be redundant since there is such a good wikipedia article about cystic fibrosis already? Not sure, let me know what you guys think?LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes in the intro paragraph and am planning on removing some of the redundant wikilinks. I also added a sentence that was suggested by Klortho into the about section in the first paragraph. I think the history should be above the tables and perhaps we can just add a sentence in the disease section stressing cystic fibrosis as being a well studied disease associated with cotransporter malfunction and add the link to the See Also section. What do you think. Sridenour (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea, and I like the first sentence clarification. I am going to try and edit the image we have to add a bracket below the image labeling the antiporter and sympoter as costransporters LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys! I just wanted to add that there has been a major improvement since the first time i reviewed the article. I really like the table that links the diseases to different transporter names. It adds more content to a subject that is already so particular. It is also great that you have the separated images into the sections where you are describing each cotransporter. The only question/thought I had was with the history/Discovery section, and its position in the article. I wondered if you could move it to a place between the about section and the mechanism section. I thought something telling about discovery should be one of the earlier sections. Sincerely Mtee87 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from donbinincom

You guys have written a nice article! The organization and flow are very clear. I can offer some very minor suggestions:

1. Rather than linking to the general "transporters" topic in the lead, which takes the user to a page from which he or she must navigate to the appropriate topic, how about linking directly to "membrane transport proteins"?

Thanks for the suggestion Don, I edited the wikilink as suggested.Sridenour (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. In the lead, I believe the contraction "it's" should be "its".

Correct and thanks for the good catch. Sridenour (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. In the last sentence of the "About" paragraph, I believe "glucose transport" should be "glucose transporter".
2. In the last sentence of the "Symporters" paragraph, "bodies" should be "body's".
3. The table of associated diseases is very nice but could use more links to the mentioned disorders.

I tried wikilinking as much as possible and also did not wikilink anything that had already been linked. I will try to see if I can find pages related to some of the diseases that do not have their own wikipedia page.Sridenour (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall, the article is well-written, has appropriate references, and gives the reader a good sense of the subject. Don Brown (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Don for your valuable feedback, you listed valuable errors that can easily be missed. I edited all the points you listed except the last one. I will work on that.Igenes (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind, but rather than list them, I fixed a few minor grammatical errors for you (missing "of" in the lead, etc.). Don Brown (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with fixing headings

hey guys, I am sure you have noticed I am trying to fix the alignment of the headings under "Types of Cotransporters" so that the images line up correctly with each section. I thought I had solved this using page breaks but bots keep coming through and removing them. When I look at other articles they don't seem to have any problems but when I look at their wiki code I can't seem to see a difference. If anyone could offer an idea that would be appreciated, maybe Klortho or Keilana can help? LutyeusMaximus (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I was able to fix the alignment problem, I hope this is how you intended to look like. All I edited was I moved the codes for the pictures under 'Types of Cotransporter' , it was initially under each of the sub-heading 'Antipoters' and 'Symporters' respectively. Igenes (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Oalnafo1

The page as a whole looks good. Here are some things that I can suggest.

Intro paragraph:

• "... move two different types of molecules against their concentration gradients ..." correct me if I am wrong but don't cotransporters couple one highly favorable down-gradient transport with an unfavorable up-gradient transport? Mentioning that this is the source of energy for unfavorable transport also seems pertinent.

Hi and thanks for the review. I think we would like to leave this general statement in the intro since we go into detail later about the mechansim for both antiporter and symporter. Sridenour (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree that the first part that both molecules don't move against their concentration gradient. I clarified this LutyeusMaximus (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• "... cotransporters are one of three main classes of integral membrane proteins known as transporters ..." this wording makes it seem like there are three classes of integral membrane proteins known as transporters rather than three classes of transporters which are integral membrane proteins.

I worked on the wording for this so let me know if you think it makes more sense now. Sridenour (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

About:

• perhaps Background would be a better name for the section?

I agree and edited this, we can change back if anyone else disagreesLutyeusMaximus (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• perhaps it would be helpful to explain or intralink thermodynamics to how one molecular favorable transport can be used to "force" another up an unfavorable gradient as I do not think this is easily understood by the general public and pointing to a learning resource would be helpful.

Mechanism:

• a figure demonstrating cotransport in with the concepts of conformational change and dis/favorable concentration gradients would be very helpful in understanding this concept.

Looked in wikimedia commons and didn't find anything, will search other sources to see what I can findLutyeusMaximus (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Diseases associated with cotranporters

• Like this

Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oalnafo1 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

More comments from Keilana

Hi guys, great job on this article over the semester! I have a few more comments for you as you work on this the last bit of the semester. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

• You don't need to say that something is discussed later in the article. Just link the term and continue on.
• There is a lot of close paraphrasing throughout that needs to be rewritten. One way to avoid close paraphrasing is to rewrite without looking at the original source. Ping me if you want a full list of everything that needs to be rewritten. (either use {{ping}} or just post on my talk page.)
• You don't need to refer to Crane with his full name more than once.

Removed the second full name. Sridenour (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• The citation to Hamilton is broken, check your template. If you can't figure out what's up I'll take a look.
• In "Examples of Cotransporters", there's a bunch of italicized text and I'm not sure why it's there. I suggest removing it as it doesn't do anything for the reader's comprehension.

Removed italics. Sridenour (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• The pharmtao blog source doesn't meet our reliable source guidelines - I suggest you look through Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man for those genes and cite there instead.

I hope these comments help you. Best of luck with the rest of the semester! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's a list of parts I think need to be rewritten to be paraphrased appropriately. I definitely suggest you don't look at the original source while you work on this. As I have gone through with a more fine-toothed comb, I've noticed that some of these are directly copied - this is a serious issue on Wikipedia and could lead to you being blocked if you introduce copyrighted content again. I have blanked the history section since all of it is effectively directly copied from the article you cite. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Harshil, I believe this is a section you worked on so could you please rephrase as suggested with guidance from your souce? Sridenour (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keilana for your valuable feedback, I worked on rephrasing the history section. I hope it is fine this time.Igenes (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Cotransporters are membrane-transport proteins...shows two modes of transport by the same protein."

Where exactly is this and I'm guessing this needs rephrased as well.Sridenour (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to that statement. I hope it is corrected now.Igenes (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Antiporters and symporters move a substance against its own concentration gradient. This movement is powered by electric potential and/or chemical gradient of secondary substance."

I worked on this rewording so please let me know if this seems acceptable. Sridenour (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)