Talk:Cyclin-dependent kinase 2

message: Regulation of the initiation of DNA replication in human cells[1]
Low-Molecular-Weight Cyclin E in Human Cancer: Cellular Consequences and Opportunities for Targeted Therapies[2]
An integrated view of cyclin E function and regulation[3]
Mammalian cell-cycle regulation: several Cdks, numerous cyclins and diverse compensatory mechanisms[4]
Cyclin-dependent kinase[5]
Recent developments in cyclin-dependent kinase biochemical and structural studies[6]
^ Moiseeva, Tatiana N.; Bakkenist, Christopher J. (2018-09-12). "Regulation of the initiation of DNA replication in human cells". DNA repair. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.09.003. ISSN 1568-7856. PMID 30266203. 
^ Caruso, Joseph A.; Duong, Mylinh T.; Carey, Jason P. W.; Hunt, Kelly K.; Keyomarsi, Khandan (2018-10-01). "Low-Molecular-Weight Cyclin E in Human Cancer: Cellular Consequences and Opportunities for Targeted Therapies". Cancer Research. 78 (19): 5481–5491. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-1235. ISSN 0008-5472. PMC 6168358. PMID 30194068. 
^ Siu, Ka Tat; Rosner, Marsha Rich; Minella, Alex C. (2012-01). "An integrated view of cyclin E function and regulation". Cell Cycle. 11 (1): 57–64. doi:10.4161/cc.11.1.18775. ISSN 1538-4101. PMC 3272232. PMID 22186781. Check date values in: |date= (help) 
^ Satyanarayana, A.; Kaldis, P. (2009-08-20). "Mammalian cell-cycle regulation: several Cdks, numerous cyclins and diverse compensatory mechanisms". Oncogene. 28 (33): 2925–2939. doi:10.1038/onc.2009.170. ISSN 1476-5594. PMID 19561645. 
^ Malumbres, Marcos (2014). "Cyclin-dependent kinases". Genome Biology. 15 (6): 122. doi:10.1186/gb4184. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 4097832. PMID 25180339. 
^ "Recent developments in cyclin-dependent kinase biochemical and structural studies". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Proteins and Proteomics. 1804 (3): 511–519. 2010-03-01. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2009.10.002. ISSN 1570-9639. 
bchem20 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential New Sources

message: well, congratulations for creating this page.  It looks like the article was prepared by someone who works on X-Ray Crystallography.The article looks very cluttered. Well, I agree with crystallography picture. But, I guess the information from PDB,  expression pattern, homologues do not fit in here. Do we really need so much detailed information about Cdk2. Afterall, it is an encyclopedia article. If I dont get an answer in a week, I will go ahead and delete the unnecessary contents. vcpk (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there...  This stub was mostly populated using content harvested from public databases as part of our ProteinBoxBot effort, the goal of which is to systematically create gene pages with a common base level of annotation.  Usually there isn't quite such an extensive list of PDB entries -- CDK2 is pretty unique in that regard.  (One could only hope that this would be a problem for every gene...)  In any case, I'd be open to trimming that list down, maybe removing one of those expression images (since they're pretty similar).  But I don't think we should be afraid of having too much detail, especially for CDK2...  AndrewGNF (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I have no problems with having lot of details. I just happen to think that all these details are extremely academic in nature  as most of the common people who would probably want to know about Cdk2 from Wikipedia may not even understand all these fancy stuffs. Besides, all these informations are already available in other well established scientific websites. Wouldnt an academic who pursues Cdk2 related work as a profession already know where and how to get these informations? Well, removing one of expression profile is definitely acceptable. I just wanted to give you a different outlook and let you know my opinion. If you decide to keep the rest of the stuffs, I wouldnt go against it. Good luck for your effort. If there is something I can do, pls let me know. vcpk (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely appreciate the feedback and perspective.  Two answers to your queries above.  First, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have topics geared more toward experts.  Because there no real constraint on growth, WP can host topics at all levels of the spectrum.  A complete lay-person may go to Cell growth, a high school student may go to cell cycle, an undergrad may go to mitosis or Cell cycle checkpoint, and a graduate student may go to Cdk2.  Second, the goal of this project is not only to provide scientists a place to come and find content, but also a repository to contribute content.  Specifically, we're hoping that experts will come to contribute free-text content, the sort of valuable knowledge which no other database can really store and display.  Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the perfect tool for handling free-text content.  Hope that provides more context for you...  For more info, see User:ProteinBoxBot and the discussion page.  AndrewGNF (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many details