I'm not convinced we need a full context on this page. The only way I can see to expand this is by explaining what receptors do in the body, and we're getting into the realms of putting a potted history of biochemistry / molecular chemistry at the front of every related article in Wikipedia if we do...are the links to G-protein receptors and Biochemistry in the categories at the foot of the page not enough? Nmg20 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. This is a well written article totally objective and strait to the point... the way it should be. I think you are right on the money with your with saying we're getting into the realms of putting a potted history of biochemistry / molecular chemistry at the front of every related article in Wikipedia if we do . There is great content-filled pages on all topics address in this article. Without wrapping the whole article in square brackets... :-) A vote for keeping the article as-is without additional ‘fluff’ add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
I also definitely agree. Let someone learn biochemistry by clicking and surfing 10 different pages, rather than having to explain it on every page. I dont think a non-scientific person would readily understand it now the way it is, but maybe it is time people should. If people just learned about reactions and causes and effects, maybe we would have a society that was more proactive when it comes to health. May we please remove the contxt-warning at the top of the page, who is the moderator? 18.104.22.168 00:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand this page is seriously lacking when it comes to a major source of histamine: mast cells. To imply that neurons are the chief stimulators/mediators of inflammation is not correct.22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence is heavily redundant, using the word "important" three times. Fuzzform 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)