Currently we only mention one engineered protein by name, Top7. Some more would be great. There is a Category:Engineered proteins, are any of those suitable to be mentioned here? Lfh (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning other specific engineered proteins would be an improvement, and the proteins in that list seem suitable. Quickly scanning through that category, it seems like Rilonacept is the only FDA-approved engineered protein. Emw (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll add that. Can it also be classified as a designed protein? Lfh (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. I haven't read into the literature to see how Rilonacept was engineered, so I don't know. If the protein was engineered using site-directed mutagenesis, then I think it would be appropriate to categorize it as a designed protein. However, if it was produced by directed evolution, then I don't think that a 'Designed proteins' category would apply. Perhaps the folks at WT:MCB could give a good second opinion. Emw (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was: do not merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose to merge protein design into protein engineering as both articles deal with the same subject from the same perspective (molecular biology), and present the same examples. The term used in molecular biology is "protein engineering". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi BatteryIncluded, Although Protein Design is one more tool available to protein engineers, it is a vast field of study. I have been working on significant changes to this page. For now, I have the expanded article in my sandbox. I still have a lot of writing/rewriting to do, but I plan to have it in the next two or three weeks. I will add a section contrasting it with other tools in protein engineering to clarify the differences. Pablo.gainza (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Take your time. When you do the changes, we can take a look at the differences, and if they merit separate articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that protein design is one subfield of protein engineering, with directed evolution of proteins being the other one. I think the current article setup is fine, with this article being a summary of the other two, especially if the protein design article is being expanded. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I will close the discussion then, with the consensus being "no merge". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Have merged in the 'enzyme engineering' stub. Still needs cleaning up when someone pays more attention to the article. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The generalization of the generism of generally in general
Generally, in science articles in general, I generally don't pay attention to general generalities of generalist language. I will not generalize, but if someone had a generic preference on the generality of generic generisms, as it seems to be the case now between two editors, I would generally recommend them to discuss the general generic merits of the idea in general before continuing a generic generalized edit war on the merits of "generally vs. general" as it relates to indefinite vs. unspecific. This is not to imply I incur in generalizability, but merely, this is a general invitation generally extended generously in order to look forward to a generalizable compromise. :-) GeneralissimoBatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I usually avoid the word; it's just so general. I sought opinion from Noetica, who endorsed the change made by the other editor. Tony(talk) 08:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)