Talk:Envelope glycoprotein GP120
|WikiProject Viruses||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject AIDS||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Merge with HIV structure and genome?
THERE ARE A LOT OF FUNCTIONS OF GP120 WHEN IT REACHES IN SIDE VARIOUS KIND OF THE CELLS IN HUMAN BODY EITHER IN GENE OR PROTEIN FORM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvashist (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled with the new Competition section. I've adjusted it to a position which does not encourage HIV+ people to take that research as medical advice. I'd be in favor of killing it entirely, or of expanding it to include other examples of this idea.
For the supporters, I think you should carefully consider the known immunosuppressive effects of priliximab before pushing an untested CD4-based treatment. There's no reason at this time to think that anti-CD4 abs are destructive when bound to CD4, but that anti-ECGC abs, bound to ECGC, bound to CD4, are somehow going to be perfectly safe (or non-existent). WhatamIdoing 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. The ECGC stuff is one very early experimental finding of hundred similar early stage investigative projects on HIV entry inhibitors. It is mentioned under "Investigation / experimental agents" on Entry inhibitors which is linked in this sectioned. That is where it belongs. This article has more examples like this were random early experimental findings that really do not belong on a wikipedia page are elaborated on at length (e.g. half of the "vaccine target" section rambles on some hydrolyzing IgA). I hope I will find time to clean this up soonish and ad some relevant information i.e. established research findings that have been reproduced and entered the text books. Xtothel (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Added a ref for the length measurement that was labeled citation needed... I think I probably got it from the site where it was found, although the verifiability of that site might be questioned as well (this helps somewhat). A lot of the rest of the article, which is also unreferenced, could easily have come from the same place. The author there notes (and I concur from about half an hour of searching), that it is difficult to find this information in the scientific literature, especially for someone unfamiliar with biology; however, I think a paper would be a better source than somebody else's synthesis, so if anybody knows of more specific sources, have at it. -- Lone Skeptic (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just noticed that that reference was already there, just not inline... either way, what I said above stands. -- Lone Skeptic (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Molecular weight of 120... what?
The article says that the name "comes from its molecular weight of 120". This number need a unit of measurement. Anyway the protein has a molecular weight of 53 kDa , where this 120 come from? Maybe is 120 kDa including amino acid and oligosaccharide chain? That statement need a clarification. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)