Talk:Hemopexin

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Molecular Biology: MCB Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	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 Low-importance).

The name

I was just wondering why "haemopexin" is the title of this article when it is referred to as hemopexin throughout the rest of the article. I came upon this protein after finding it in a sample I was running in the lab and it was spelled hemopexin in the MASCOT database... so I recommend that the article be retitled "Hemopexin" as opposed to "Haemopexin" Kehrbykid (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the article ran:

"Therefore, high hemopexin levels indicates that there has been significant degradation of heme containing compounds and hemopexin is made to scavenge any heme it can. High hemopexin levels are therefore one of the diagnostic features of a hemolytic anemia." As every doctor knows, just the opposite is true, so I changed it. Hemopexin is being used to monitor hemolytic anemias when the maximum absorption capacity of haptoglobin has already been reached and there´s free heme in the blood. In this case, hemopexin levels also start to go down. --141.39.176.46 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for split

Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are 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 name> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human.

Pfam PF00045 is not only about hemopexin but a whole family of proteins containing the "hemopexin-like repeats". Hence I think this article should be restricted to hemopexin (human + orthologs in other species) while an article entitled "hemopexin-like repeats" should be about the protein family, one member of which is hemopexin. Boghog (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created an article entitled hemopexin family and split out material about the protein family into this newly created article. To have material about the protein and the protein family in the same article is confusing. There should be a separate article on each topic. Boghog (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Feel free to correct such things anywhere. Both articles should refer to each other in such cases.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this is not about the lead sentence. Consider Cytochrome c as an example in light of this. The article is about all cytochromes c. The ProteinBox article might be called Human cytochrome c or Mammalian cytochrome c. I would not insist on anything like this, however, for practical reasons.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]