Talk:HSP60
Fair use rationale for Image:HSP60Antibodies.jpg
[edit]
Image:HSP60Antibodies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Confusing wording of the last paragraph
[edit]The last paragraph is worded as if the role that HSP60 plays in ovarian cancer is different from the role it plays in bladder cancer, but actually the text says that loss (or low expression) is associated with poor prognosis in both.Helenuh (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
BetacommandBot 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:HSP60ProteinFunction.jpg
[edit]Image:HSP60ProteinFunction.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Blurry image: crystallographic structure
[edit]
I've noticed that the structure image is quite blurry, so I have created my own version based on the PDB file (1SRV) and uploaded it to Commons. I have differentially coloured helices and sheets red and blue, and in different shades to help differentiate those in the foreground and background in the 3D image; anyone have any thoughts on how this might be included into the article; if there's no objection, I'm thinking it will be suitable to replace the existing image. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the image to the article now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your graphic is definitely much clearer. However I would prefer the original "rainbow" coloring that makes it easier to follow the threading of the primary sequence through the tertiary structure. How does the second figure to the right look as a compromise? Boghog (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, the background β-strands are a bit difficult to distinguish; I tried to get around this in my one by shading them differently while maintaining the colour scheme of blue for sheets and red for helices; granted my graphic's yellow portions tangle up and make it difficult to follow the actual primary sequence. I think it's going to be difficult to adequately display the complete 3D structure of this protein; maybe an accompanying 2D schematic of the sheet/helix components would help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, my mistake. By fuzzy, I thought you referring to the resolution. I have updated the graphic to include depth queuing. Does this look any better? Boghog (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was, but I was also referring to the previous image; your current one is good, though the structures in the background fade a little too much, can you make them more opaque? What program did you use to make the image by the way? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- A previous version of the graphic has less depth queuing so that the rear layer is brighter, but the difference between the front and middle layer is less pronounced. PyMOL was used to created the graphic. It is an open source program, however to use the free version, you have to compile it yourself. Ready to run binaries are only available through paid subscriptions to Schrödinger, LLC. Boghog (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I may have to consider using that one, I currently use RasMOL and it doesn't have features such as depth queuing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- A previous version of the graphic has less depth queuing so that the rear layer is brighter, but the difference between the front and middle layer is less pronounced. PyMOL was used to created the graphic. It is an open source program, however to use the free version, you have to compile it yourself. Ready to run binaries are only available through paid subscriptions to Schrödinger, LLC. Boghog (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was, but I was also referring to the previous image; your current one is good, though the structures in the background fade a little too much, can you make them more opaque? What program did you use to make the image by the way? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, my mistake. By fuzzy, I thought you referring to the resolution. I have updated the graphic to include depth queuing. Does this look any better? Boghog (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, the background β-strands are a bit difficult to distinguish; I tried to get around this in my one by shading them differently while maintaining the colour scheme of blue for sheets and red for helices; granted my graphic's yellow portions tangle up and make it difficult to follow the actual primary sequence. I think it's going to be difficult to adequately display the complete 3D structure of this protein; maybe an accompanying 2D schematic of the sheet/helix components would help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your graphic is definitely much clearer. However I would prefer the original "rainbow" coloring that makes it easier to follow the threading of the primary sequence through the tertiary structure. How does the second figure to the right look as a compromise? Boghog (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Ref's
[edit]I'm finding the ref names in this article a little difficult to follow. There seems to be a standard across scientific articles to use the pubmed id as the ref name. If no one complains, I'd like to apply that style here. Abergabe (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The change is essentially invisible in the article and would help to keep the ref names consistent, so I certainly have no objection. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)