# Talk:Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 8

Hello.  My name is Neal Shah.  Dinesh Vannan, Eric Mlodzinski and I will be updating this page to include more detailed information and recent research for Dr. Burdo's Introductory to Neuroscience class.  Please feel free to comment and suggest improvements.Neal.shah.bc (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I enjoyed the information you have included in your article, and believe it is effectively supplemented with the pictures that you have included. I think all the sections included were well written well, specifically the function and clinical significance sections. I also think the additional readins you included were a good touch and very informative. For improvement, I would like to see expansion of the interacting protein section. If you could find papers or articles regarding the misinteractions between these proteins and LRP8, I think it would contribute a lot to your page. Also, papers that include a greater explanation of the pathways these proteins are involved in would be helpful. Finally, more information on Reelin/Dab1 signalling pathway should be added, as you describe the other function of the protein in detail, but not this function. Jsavarino (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! The material out there on most of these interactions is pretty minimal, but if we come across some more we will definitely add it in.  Most of the focus in the literature is on the Reelin/dab1 pathway. I am a little confused about your comment on our description of the reelin/dab1 pathway. I do not know what function you are discussing. If you could clarify that, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mlodzins (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 
Hey guys, here are a few suggestions/things I liked.
•	In the section about other interacting proteins, you mention selenoprotein P as a transporter of selenium.  I am not familiar with the role of selenium within the body though, so perhaps you could expand that section by mentioning the significance of selenium instead of just linking it.
•	I am very impressed with your section of clinical significance as quite a few articles on low-density lipoproteins mention their role in neurodegenerative diseases.  However, in the Qiu, Korwek, and Weeber article, a couple other LRP8 associated diseases such as schizophrenia and autism are mentioned.  Even if not much is known about LRP8’s role in these diseases, they still might be worth mentioning.
•	Just a small suggestion is when you say “tau” or “gamma” you might want to replace those with the actual symbols.
•	 You have great links within your article, but you might consider adding a few more on some more basic things like thrombosis in your antiphospholipid syndrome section or lymphocytes in your major depressive disorder section.  Nevertheless, I am impressed that pretty much every more complicated term that a reader might need additional background information on is linked somewhere within the article.
Overall, you have a great article here that is very well written whose scientific discussion is thoroughly supported by a number of sources.  Great job. Lollila110 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I updated the selenoprotein P section to make the significance of this interaction and the role that selenium plays in the body more clear. We chose to leave out those additional diseases because all of them related to low levels of Reelin and not to problems with our receptor specifically, but it may be worth mentioning at the end of our reelin/dab1 pathway section. We are just trying to avoid going into too much detail about topics that do not specifically involve LRP8. Thanks Mlodzins (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)   

I thought this was an article that had a huge amount of scientific information, which is of course of utmost importance when it comes to an article of this nature. One way that you could improve this is by making sure the importance/significance of this information is conveyed along with the factual information. Having the information is crucial, and most of it is there in this article. However I think it would help if there was some further explanation of some of the points. Additionally, I think your article could use some more cross citing within Wikipedia, specifically in the “Function” section. (that could help the previous point as well). The writing conveys the points clearly, but I think it could still be tightened up a bit to avoid confusion. I think the Cooper (1999) piece could be used a little more- if apolipoproteins are important in signaling (as you clearly show), I think that it could be used a bit more in conjunction with the bevy of other signaling-related sources.. Overall, I think this is an excellent article with a lot of thought and well-researched points. Well done. Bonnerry (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response!  I added more cross citing across Wikipedia in the functions section and throughout the article which should help with being able to find further explanations of some points.  I have been making edits to try and make the information be more readable and will continue to keep editing in order to keep the confusion at a minimum.  The Cooper (1999) paper is a great paper with a lot of information but it's content was pretty broad compared to the more specific review articles we have found, especially for the signaling pathways.  Also the Cooper article is much older than the other articles cited.  The cooper article was a great beginning point, but the information was too broad and much older than other articles found.  Thanks for the comments!  It is much appreciated Neal.shah.bc (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys- your article is very well written.  I think you could definitely have expanded a bit on the "other interacting proteins" section, at the very least on the section on apoE;  it's a little sparse for an article about a protein that gets its name from it-"ApoER2".   Additionally at some points in the article, I felt like you guys could have given more big picture information/relevance to go along with the dense specific info.  Besides that your article is excellent.  I thought the section on clinical significance was great- the info on major depressive disorder was really interesting.  Also your intro seems very readable for someone who doesn't know much about the topic.  You guys clearly did a lot of research and organized all the info very effectively.  Amlayton (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I understand your concerns with some of the gaps in the information for the interacting proteins. The main problem with the information on the interacting proteins is that it is incompletely understood. We believe the information in our article properly reflects the current understanding of the interacting proteins of APOER2. On the point of the big picture, we have gone ahead and made some edits for clarity, and a larger scope of understanding. It is great that you believe that this article is easy to understand, as that is the greatest feat of a wiki article. Again, your feedback is greatly appreciated. DineshVannan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 

Hey everyone, great article so far.  Very complete and thorough, you use good citations and have good organization throughout the article.  Plus you follow the correct citation methods and hyperlinking which is important.  Make sure that everything makes sense, sometimes you jump around without connecting sentences in a paragraph.  I understand that the page is just facts upon facts, but having a rhythm and a story like feel is also important for reading purposes.  AdamMJenks (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I have gone over the grammar of the article and I agree with you, at some points it was a bit unclear. We have made a few corrections to help with the clarity of the article. Much of the information here is very technical, so it is our hope that the article is fairly easy to understand. Thanks for the suggestions, I hope we have bettered the situation. DineshVannan (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927092306/http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=1229 to http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=1229
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)