|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proline article.|
|WikiProject Chemicals / Core||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Why isn't proline an imino acid?
It is... Technichally proteins in the human body are made from 19 typical amino acids and one typical imino acid along with some other infrequently used amino acids. 18.104.22.168
We should probably correct the article to show that then. According to "Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition" by Alberts et al., page 133, proline is indeed an imino acid.Canadian popcan 04:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
According to the IUPAC, Proline IS NOT an Imino Acid or an Amino Acid. It's an azaalkanoic acid. I've modified the article to reflect that.
Proline is an amino aicd. I.e. it is an amine and it is an acid. It is a secondary amine and it is cyclic, but it is stil an amine - NOT and imine. IUPAC accepts the use of the term "amino acid" and thus it is not necessary to use the (quite uncommon) word "azaalkanoic aicd." 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article currently includes a rather non-encyclopedic blurb about how for some unknown reason, Proline is included as an ingredient in some energy drinks. I am curious about this (as I chug down my Sobe fruit punch)... can anyone add any information to that, to make it more informative? --Norville 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Whats really weird about the energy drink citation is that last I checked, you ought not need to look any further than the ingredient label to prove such a thing. Perhaps the person who included the blurb was confused by why proline is in an energy drink in the first place? My feeling, and it is only a feeling, is that a likely explanation is located right above the blurb in question: proline has a flavor! Zaphraud 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In bacteria, proline can enter the Krebb's cycle and provide a secondary energy source by first being converted to glutamate. In animals, the availability of proline to the Krebb's cycle is restricted by slow transport across the mitochondrial membrane. So, although Sobe thinks they are providing an energy source, it would only be so if you were a bacteria. Kevin.stafford 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)kevin.stafford April 2007
I am a graduate student of biochemistry, and even I had trouble understanding some of the statements regarding proline - particularly the last section before the energy drink blurb. I imagine that an average Wikipedia reader would not be able to understand much beyond the intro and the trivia at the end. While I am glad to see a wealth of information here, it should be at least somewhat accessible to a reader who has only cursory knowledge of biochemistry and proteins. I reworded a few sentences, added links, and added an explanation for the "X" that comes out of nowhere in the cis-trans section, but someone with more knowledge/skills could improve it further. I think this is one of the better amino acid articles, and I'd like to see it become even better. GngstrMNKY (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please specify exactly what is not clear, so I can help.
Dear Dirk Beetstra, I would be very grateful if you could explain why you removed external link http://www.peptideguide.com/amino-acids/proline.html ? Is the following page http://www.compchemwiki.org/index.php?title=Proline more relevant than my link?
The statement "such as sarcosine; symbol is X, as is true for all non-standard amino acids" is incorrect. X is used in peptide/protein chemistry in two instances (1) Unknown amino acid: as in could not be determined from sequencing and (2) Variable amino acid: as in X can be any amino acid, equivalent to a wildcard character. The acceptable symbol for Sarcosine is Sar although some also consider MeGly acceptable. The X convention is properly applied later in the section. If there are no objections I'll update the section. Atomjockey (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
References and Conformations
There are several places were more detailed referencing is needed (IMO). Unfortunately, our access to ACS journals is rather limited. If anyone out there can get these articles, I think they could make a nice addition.
Conformational Analysis of L-Prolines in Water Aliev, A. E.; Courtier-Murias, D. J. Phys. Chem. B.; 2007; 111(50); 14034-14042. DOI: jp076729c
Conformational Studies of Polyprolines Zhong, H.; Carlson, H. A. J. Chem. Theory and Comput.; 2006; 2(2); 342-353. DOI: ct050182t
Keep journal references to a minimum, please!~
Although journal references are kinda impressive, they threaten to overwhelm Wikipedia. Also we dont want Wikipedia to become a forum for researchers to broadcast their (specialized) achievements, because that trend would be difficult to stop. Rather than highly specialized references (JPhysChem published 47148 pages last year), editors should search for the key material (e.g., on Φ, ψ angles, β-turns for proline) in textbooks and conventional reference sources where the perspective is broader and the sources are more accessible. IMHO. Journal refs might be reserved for seminal discoveries (e.g. of the amino acid).--Smokefoot (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Proline's role in plants
I think it would be nice to mention proline's role in plants, and stress tolerance (salt stress and draught especially)(it has quite a significant role there, so it shouldn't really be left just like this, without a word.).
Have a look at the following articles for example:
What's the molecular formula?
Eg: Phenylalanine has a chemical formula of C9H11NO2 but a molecular forumla of C6H5CH2CHCOOH
~ender 2014-10-06 5:52:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- for the condensed formula see here Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- OP posted this on several amino acid pages; please see discussion here: Talk:Tryptophan#Molecular_Formula Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I was told that L-Proline can be synthesized using Knowles Asymmetric Hydrogenation. I was wondering if someone with more experience on this could please elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a scientific manual - that is very technical information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. You can read about that here, though: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/organic/studsemin/rosen/Rosen-abs.pdf Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)