Talk:Huntington's disease/Archive 1

message: ..you should include the namegiver. Actually it was the observation of three geneartion of family physician (necessary because of the usual late onset). The etiology in my opinion is much to early to be stated that firmly (and to much insider deetails) (I am a pharmacologist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.109.130 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: =Initial text

message: "..this is the first time a specific gene is linked to a medical condition."  In 1983?  I don't think so.  The HPRT/Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome was confirmed in 1975.  I have an old medical genetics text from 1977 that states albinism "is absence of tyrosinase, or if present its failure to function."  I happen to have a 1983 edition of McKusick's Mendelian Inheritance in Man.  It lists several specific genes for genetic disease, admittedly mostly on the X chromosome or dominant.
I've taken out the statement. Ted 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First gene

message: I am just about to chamge the order of the article to fit the medical template
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template_for_medical_conditions
no content changes just the sectionsLeevanjackson 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rejigging headings and order 

message: The intro reads "Ohio physician George Huntington..." but later on in the article it says "George Huntington was one of three generations of medical practitioners in Long Island." Can we clear this up? Akno21 21:03, 05 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Huntington 

message: Can someone fix this?  If you look at the reference, there are only 9   studies involving HD which are still recruiting and 19 total.  The other studies have nothing to do with HD.  There have been very few Phase III clinical trials in HD.  The only two in the last decade were CoQ10 and remacemide (CARE-HD) and ethyl-EPA (Miraxion).
The search in the text was picking up the location huntington too, will fix Leevanjackson 11:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical trials - no there aren't 100 current and 300 total! 

message: I don't think the image is really appropriate. A much better choice would be a photo of George Huntington or something related to huntingtin protein (an IHC pic could be nice, for example). Peter Z.Talk 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I will post my proposed rewrite tomorrow. Meanwhile note that Haydon et al (in Cell, 2006) could prevent the development of HD in experimental transgenic mice by further mutating the HD gene so that it was resistant to caspase-6, and this mutated-mutated huntingtin, which does not exist in humans at all, did not cause HD in the mice. They deduce that it is the non-breakdown of mutated-mutated huntingtin by this enzyme that prevented HD-like disease in the mice. The inference is that an inhibitor of caspase-6 may prevent HD in humans, but that is far from reality at this stage. The only thing one can say is that inhibition of caspase-6 may prevent the development of HD in humans with "ordinary" mutated huntingtin. What the other effects would be, e.g. since now no cells would be able to utilise caspase-6, is much too early to say. Yet it is good work, and as some-one said, "ground breaking". --Seejyb 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Management of HD 

message: This should be more consistent.  I'm not working on this, so I won't make a decision as to which one should be used, but it should be more consistent.  I can help convert it once that has been decided. TedTalk/Contributions 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why people believe that everything has to be one or the other. Give credit to the people who wrote it by retaining their spelling. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems less professional to me, although I suppose I shouldn't be worried about professionalism in Wikipedia, anyway.  I fail to see how it gives credit to the original writers ("See the 's'?  That's mine!), but OK.  It really isn't a big deal.  I'll withdraw my suggestion. TedTalk/Contributions 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British ''vs'' American English 

message: Should it be a GA or an FA candidate? NCurse  work 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it is ready for FA.  In my experience, GA is useless as a way to improve the article.  I'd suggest review first.  Those are quite variable, but if we are lucky, the comments will lead to an improved article. TedTalk/Contributions 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: The article states the test for determining if a person carries the extra GAC pattern is "tens of thousands" of dollars.  Actually, this test is now a few hundred dollars, at most.  This is in 2007 dollars.  I think the article should be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.70.65 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing Price 

message: I was just here reading and learning. I am writing up a meeting on HD and needed some background. But the bit about the N terminal end was confusing me, so I edited slightly to say that the N-terminal end of the protein and the CAG repeat end of the gene are the same. I assume that's correct. If not, say what it is! Because it was unclear. Also, there was an entry about mice knockins that only had the first exon, but the sentence didn't say it was in mice, so I edited that. 
Lastly, I think the last paragraph about the Cell paper results needs to be rewritten in the style of the rest of the article, as it reads now like a Merck press release. I'm sure it was very exciting when it first came out, but it's taking up too much space at this point. 
I'd do it myself, but I have to get back to this proceedings, which, by the way, involves more advances on HD. If I don't get back here, please look at the work of Robert Schwarcz, of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. 
This article is so long and more info is coming. Have you considered splitting it up, so there's a general article, on history and disovery of gene, symptoms, etc, and then a more technical one focused on  the mechanism and current research to find a treatment for HD? So much information is being generated by the work of the various HD foundations. Together, they are pumping about $80 milllion a year into research on this one disease. Maybe more.  All that information isn't going to fit here....  Eperotao 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: D666D 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have moved reworked into line with rest of section Leevanjackson 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanism

message: It would be interesting to expand on the age-of-onset phenomenon, which I think is a matter of interest in popular descriptions of the disease. IIRC [If I Remember Correctly ? Leevanjackson] it has been suggested that the "sharp cutoff" in number of repeats needed to create disease is an effect of human lifespan - ie 30 repeats don't cause disease because the aggregation is slow enough that the person dies before it has a neurodegenerative effect. Unfortunately I can't find the paper I'm thinking of, but here is a related paper that expands on the biophysical origins of the effect.
#what is this "sharp cut off" point that is mentioned?  This is definitly NOT the case.  There are two overlapping populations.  The normal group with a peak at 16 CAG repeats and the HD group with a peak at 40 CAG repeats, with some overlap around 36 repeats.  There is also a mater of instability.  Those in the "normal" range show very little instability in repeat length from generation to generation, while those in the HD range and those in the intermediate range, show instability, particularly in paternal transmission (anticipation). (see Harper and Jones, 2003, in Bates et al, 2003: Huntington's disease, 3rd Ed, Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics).D666D 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement on Sharp cut off taken from todo ( prev from peer review) 

message: Found this unsigned comment hidden in wring section LeeVJ (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have checked it, links to correct article, there must have been a bug with the citation generator - well spotted though! LeeVJ (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Epidemiology incongruity

message: I have removed the <BR> tags that were present in some places and not others as it makes the article untidily laid out. Hope no one minds. 
—CyclonenimT@lk? 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a litte note 

message: top tip: for comlicated articles use wikied , it highlights syntax grays out comments and refs, leaving article text clear to see...
brief installation - works in firefox at least... goto to your wikipedia preferences / gadgets - wikied is listed, just activate it and that's it, hope it helps LeeVJ (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean WikEd. Personally I recommend 'Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article' which can be found under 'User interface gadgets' in your preferences. Really saves some time! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I did - your tip will also help - it's great, despite it's catchy name ! :) LeeVJ (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing tip 

message: I moved the last sentence before " Cognitive" to "Genetics".Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it really fits in this section, which is about the basic genetics. Maybe the mechanism/function section would be more appropriate?LeeVJ (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree;while not perfectly, it fits better where it is. We can delete it, but only as a last resort, when all other places we try fail.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, happy to go with your decision....any other opiniios? LeeVJ (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence before " Cognitive" moved 

message: Hi my name is Cheri Agnew and my husband was tested for this disease and came out positive. I have a question about how the cag scores. I understand kind of how it works. Say you your score is a 46 and that is a low number (to me) does this prolong the disease or is it just the same as if it were like 66. Thanks, Cheri Agnew (63.3.4.129 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear about your husband, but Wikipedia does not give medical advice. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Cheri, I find it hard to believe that your husband underwent a test without a proper explanation by a healthcare professional before and after the procedure. The Huntington's article gives a bit of background on the meaning of the test and the importance of proper counseling. Could I strongly suggest you discuss this with your own doctor, and if possible with a clinic geneticist? As Steven rightly points out, Wikipedia does not give medical advice, as any medical advice given by total strangers is not going to be useful and might actually cause you more trouble than it's worth. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need answers 

message: As some would have already seen I have decided to pop in the article due to it being a MCOTW; I hope I am not the only one... :-)
Is my experience that these sections tend to atract and infinite number of primary studies; getting bulkier as time passes (as it is occurring in this article. It has been of use in several articles which have finally become FA to create a subarticle were any publication in the disease research could be added while leaving in the main article only some examples that gave an overview of the research directions See for example Multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer's Disease. 
I post here a summary proposal of the section. I think that it would be a good idea to move the full section as it exists right now to a secondary article (Therapies under investigation for Huntington's disease), leaving in the main article a summary similar to the one I propose; and leaving a "Main article..." Redirect. Opinions?
Here is my proposal
::, several trials of various compounds were in development or ongoing, a few at the point of testing on larger numbers of people, known as phase III of clinical trials. Substances that have shown promise in initial experiments include dopamine receptor blockers, select dopamine antagonists, such as tetrabenazine, creatine, CoQ10, the antibiotic Minocycline, antioxidant-containing foods and nutrients, and antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors  such as sertraline, fluoxetine, and paroxetine.
::Most research is conducted in animals. Appropriate animal models are critical for understanding the fundamental mechanisms causing the disease and for supporting the early stages of drug development. Neurochemically induced mice or monkeys were first available, but they did not mimic the progressive features of the disease. After the HD gene was discovered, transgenic animals exhibiting HD were generated by inserting a CAG repeat expansion into their genome, these were of mice,), Drosophila fruit flies, and more recently monkeys.
 Expression without insertion of a DNA repeat in nematode worms also produced a valuable model. Genetically engineered intracellular antibody fragments called intrabodies have shown therapeutic results preventing larval and pupal mortality in drosophila models. Their mechanism of action was an inhibition of mHtt aggregation, As HD has been conclusively linked to a single gene, gene silencing is potentially possible. Researchers have investigated using gene knockdown of mHTT in mice as a potential treatment; however there are important practical difficulties for the use of such techniques in humans. Stem cell therapy is the replacement of damaged neurons by transplantation of stem cells into affected regions of the brain. Experiments have yielded some positive results in animal models,  but remains highly speculative and has not been tested in clinical trials.''
Bests regards to everybody.--Garrondo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping to get some time this weekend to join in - I was busy looking for images whilst you were applying numerous edits! A previous editor suggested this too, and the research is more extensive than a section can hold, not to mention a volatile research section would be better served seperately, leaving the main article to stabalise - in short support. LeeVJ (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also wandering how much of this research is common to other repeat expansions for a shared reasearch article, and if it was apt to include expression of a triplet repeat expansion in a plant  which could aid in reasearch? although this is very recent. LeeVJ (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a main contributor has agreed I'll go for it. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Garrondo has completed this mission, the section can now develop into something more readable without having to cover every aspect - any industrial spam will more likely end up on the subpage and it can also go into greater detail, many thanks Garrondo! L∴V 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Research directions proposal

message: The society and culture section is quite disorganized. My proposal would be to create 3 diferent subsections:
*1-Social impact (Same as now)
*2-Support organizations: It would integrate awareness days and organizations (See proposal below)
*3-Media depictions (two lines on depictions)
My proposal for the support organizations section is as follows: 
::In 1968, after experiencing HD in his wife's family, Dr. Milton Wexler was inspired to start the Hereditary Disease Foundation. His daughter, Nancy S. Wexler, was a key part of the research team in Venezuela and is the current president of the Foundation. A year before Woody Guthrie's wife, Marjorie, had helped to found the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease, after his death from HD complications. This eventually became the Huntington's Disease Society of America. Since then, lay organizations have been formed in many countries around the world and have helped to increase the awareness on HD. Many support organizations hold an annual HD awareness event, and some have been endorsed by their respective governments, for example, June 6 is designated "National Huntington's Disease Awareness Day" by the US senate, and the UK HDA holds an awareness campaign in the third week of June. International biennial meetings are also held by these organizations.
Comments?--Garrondo (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - You beat me to it :) Comments: I was hoping to put better context to this but it is hard to find information about them - I have started a draught lay organisation, as it seems to be missing. If the HDF was started by 'Hereditary Disease Foundation to gather young                  scientists from different disciplines and institutions'  I am wandering if it is not infact a professional organisation, also many professionals attend/spponsor the biannual meetings. L∴V 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not looked for refs on these organizations; simply rewritten the section, so I am not completely sure if it is factually correct. However as I have written it we do not say if it is a proffesional support organization or a lay one.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposal

message: The last two days I feel I have entered a bit of a wikirage; and I want to explain my last editions. I have been reading the lancet seminar since it is probably the best general secondary source we have; with a double aim. I plan to factually check every sentence of the WP article and add a ref to the lancet seminar if it is backed up by it; so we are sure that every sentence is factually correct. I also plan to add any info I find in the lancet article that is not present at the moment in the WP article if it seems important enough. This factual checking will help to eliminate some of the primary sources used and would probably be enough to get the article to GA status. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a bit of a reference overload before, wasn't there! L∴V 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lancet seminar

message: I saw the recent move of some of the ethical considerations (Social Impact) to the Society and Culture subheading.  While I understand that this is a standard category for MEDMOS, the thrust of that section has nothing to do with the pop-culture aspects and is completely out of context in that section.  It's actually quite a non-sequiter to have it in the same section as Arlo Guthrie and "Alice's Restaurant".  I'm sure that the change was well-meaning, but IMHO misguided.  I would suggest instead that this section go under a different subheading titled "Ethical Considerations". Medical geneticist (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me who moved it per MEDMOS. Precisely the intention of the last revision of MEDMOS was to reduce the Pop culture sections and really create a section which had important society things to tell, and if you think about it and just look into the titles a title like social impact should clearly be inside a section called society and culture. It does not have sense to have a separate section. As an example take a look at the Alzheimer's disease society and culture section. I talks about the caregiver burden, economic aspects and also a minor "pop culture" subsection. The alzheimer disease will quite surely become a FA and in its revision everybody has agreed in such section. Similarly AIDS which formerly was a FA and it is still a very good article has in its section of society stigma, economic impact and denialism of AIDS, and no pop culture section in the whole article. Finally I only one to say that if you revert it I won't fight (at least until I get heavily involved with this article) even if I believe it is the correct place for the section. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree with moving the Social Impact section to "Society and Culture" 

message: I do think this is generally a very good article, but the presentation of the research in HD is not great. The 'Degradation' section is downright wrong -- it suggests 'a little knowledge' or just reading a couple of articles and misinterpreting them, rather than reading about the area. Uncleaved fragments of mHTT aren't called aggregates. The coalescence of mHTT fragments is thought to form 'protofilmanets' which further coalesce (aggregate) to form inclusions. Inclusions can be nuclear OR cytoplasmic (where they are sometimes called aggregates) and toxicity has been demonstrated with BOTH! This section contains outright contradictions -- "...unprocessed pieces are called aggregates..."; "aggregates consist mainly of the amino terminal end of mHtt" (the second statement is correct). There is plenty of data suggesting a direct correlation between the presence of inclusions and toxicity, however, whether the inclusions themselves are toxic is a different matter and there is also plenty of evidence suggesting that inclusions are cytoprotective.
The 'Mechanism' section in general seems rather weak. Which 'mechanism' is being referred to?
"Like all proteins, Htt and mHtt are translated, perform or affect biological functioning, and are finally dissolved in a process called biodegradation." No. The intracellular removal of functionally redundant proteins is not biodegradation. Proteins are removed via the ubiquitin-proteasome system, a vital system whose dysregulation as a consequence of aggregated mHTT is thought to be a possible source of cellular toxicity in HD. Also I've never seen anywhere the suggestion that HTT is involved in DNA replication.
I realise that a line has to be drawn as to how much detail is gone in to. HD pathology is vastly complex and poorly understood, but the different theories on its mechanisms and the arguments for and against them could be better presented. For good recent reviews, see Imarisio et al, Biochem. J., 2008;412:191-209 (This group is primarily interested in 'autophagy' and HD, so in the interests of a balanced opinion...) and Orr & Zoghbi, Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:575-621.
(Should I be putting this in a bulleted list instead?!) Matstuff (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for the analysisand pointers to refs...your previous post wasn't overlooked - just got waylayed in improving the current refs and other GA stuff - in which I included a note pointing it out... The current sections are an artifact of past good faith edits citing primary sources alone and transclusions of huntingtin protein and gen articles, so does need a good work out - please feel free to edit anything! I have recently got hold of the Lancet seminar, and am trying for the Imariso et al ref and will add the neuroscience one to my list ... LeeVJ (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several copyedits and checks on references, most of the information ties in with a Lancet review so I think this issue has been addressed, but if anyone has any further corrections... L∴V 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and presentation of data 

message: I recopy these 3 comments from archive 2; since they will probably be useful in the future as recurrent questions. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions, we use ICD-10 in most cases, and the World Health Organization uses the possessive. --Arcadian (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless otherwise will probably be fixed in ICD-11, but that isn't due out for a few more years yet. L∴V (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Thankyou :) When I looked into it a year ago, there didn't seem to be a concensus in journals etc, but what I did get the gist of was that genes where capitalised, and proteins they produced weren't i.e. HTT the gene, Htt the protein, seemed right so I stopped looking into it. As for mhtt makes sense to me that since it is actually a form of Htt it is just a lower case 'm' denoting 'essentiall htt but altered' also seems right - but I have been known to be wrong! L∴V (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Great! Your copyedits and additions have already been magnificient! As for GA there are a couple of trickies - full details for the citations and some of the short sections. I've reduced the technical jargon over time to something readable and understandable (hopefully) but some of them now need expanding on! An essential piece mentioned yonks ago in peer review that would add help start rounding off the article is about DNA replication! Someone asked about how dna had problems replicating long sequences, ie.e cleavage points and such, but I got lost in translation ;( (sorry) I think they meant for the protein generation - initially I was looking at how the repeat expansion can change as it is passed on, but I think both would be an excellent addition...if there are two functions, like I said I got a bit lost which is why the other wiki articles still need some work! L∴V (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I know it seems if it's the gene its uppercase -'Huntingtin', if it's a product of the gene ( i.e. the protein) its lower-case -'huntingtin', I think I looked at before but could find no definate answer. L∴V 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've applied the following rule for now 'for consistency - Capitalisaztion of Huntingtin gene, lower case for protein whilst avoiding 'huntingtin protein' which could be either'. On a cursory search got scared -  as when you say huntingtin protein you could mean 'protein product of Huntingtin' or simply 'the huntingtin protein', seems there are conventions vary for species too, then I briefly thought about the capitalisaztion of article titles, that's when I ran away. L∴V 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an explanation for the inconsistent spelling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.53.194 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible useful comments from archives

message: I was very surprised to see this page titled "Huntington's Disease", rather than "Huntington Disease". This is a significant error that should be addressed - the disease was named after George Huntington, but it does not 'belong' to him - therefore, the use of "'s" is incorrect. This is a fundamental principle of disease and syndrome nomenclature, not just my opinion (see  if you need convincing) - although this mistake is frequently made, even in scientific and medical publications (and not just on Wikipedia!). 
I strongly recommend that the article is re-named "Huntington Disease" and that "Huntington's Disease", "Huntington's Chorea" and "Huntington Chorea" are all disambiguated to the new name. 
Cjones586 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions, we use ICD-10 in most cases, and the World Health Organization uses the possessive. --Arcadian (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless otherwise will probably be fixed in ICD-11, but that isn't due out for a few more years yet. L∴V (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title - Huntington's Disease vs Huntington Disease

message: Hi Lee- really nice work on the HD article by the way.  I stopped by today to make some scattered revisions particularly on the genetics parts.  One thing I noticed is the gene symbol/protein symbol issue (discussed here).  I switched the gene name to all-caps italics wherever I saw it and the protein name to all-caps non-italics.  To my best knowledge, this is the "proper" way to distinguish gene names and protein names.  What I don't know is how the mutant protein is designated (mHtt or mHTT).  My guess is you can find examples of both usages, but probably mHTT is more consistent with the typical protein designations in humans (as opposed to mouse, where the gene is Htt and the protein is Htt). 
:Thankyou :) When I looked into it a year ago, there didn't seem to be a concensus in journals etc, but what I did get the gist of was that genes where capitalised, and proteins they produced weren't i.e. HTT the gene, Htt the protein, seemed right so I stopped looking into it. As for mhtt makes sense to me that since it is actually a form of Htt it is just a lower case 'm' denoting 'essentiall htt but altered' also seems right - but I have been known to be wrong! L∴V (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Your copyedits and additions have already been magnificient! As for GA there are a couple of trickies - full details for the citations and some of the short sections. I've reduced the technical jargon over time to something readable and understandable (hopefully) but some of them now need expanding on! An essential piece mentioned yonks ago in peer review that would add help start rounding off the article is about DNA replication! Someone asked about how dna had problems replicating long sequences, ie.e cleavage points and such, but I got lost in translation ;( (sorry) I think they meant for the protein generation - initially I was looking at how the repeat expansion can change as it is passed on, but I think both would be an excellent addition...if there are two functions, like I said I got a bit lost which is why the other wiki articles still need some work! L∴V (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of ''HTT'' for gene, HTT for protein and mHTT for mutant form of protein 

message: Huntingtin is inconsistently capitalized; I suspect it's appropriate to capitalize it, but wasn't sure, and there are a few instances where it is uncapitalized ( Maralia (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it seems if it's the gene its uppercase -'Huntingtin', if it's a product of the gene ( i.e. the protein) its lower-case -'huntingtin', I think I looked at before but could find no definate answer. L∴V 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've applied the following rule for now 'for consistency - Capitalisaztion of Huntingtin gene, lower case for protein whilst avoiding 'huntingtin protein' which could be either'. On a cursory search got scared -  as when you say huntingtin protein you could mean 'protein product of Huntingtin' or simply 'the huntingtin protein', seems there are conventions vary for species too, then I briefly thought about the capitalisaztion of article titles, that's when I ran away. L∴V 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an explanation for the inconsistent spelling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.53.194 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of huntingtin

message: This was re-discussed in 2016 and the consensus was to keep the article as Huntington's disease. Dubbinu | t | c 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Huntington disease 

message: 'Huntington's chorea' was noted to be defunct. Dubbinu | t | c 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Per widely-agreed convention, human gene symbols are written in italic caps (HTT) and human proteins non-italic caps (HTT). Mutant huntingtin should be mHTT. Mouse huntingtin should be Htt for the gene and HTT for the protein. This article is pretty good on the gene symbol but the protein is written Htt throughout. I see that this was done after a talk page discussion in 2010 but that discussion seems to have missed the consensus recommendations of the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. My memory is vague but I think the current system may have been adopted since then. In any event the one on the Gene_nomenclature page is the one that's universally accepted. Is there a reason not to change the HD article to match the convention? Dubbinu | t | c 18:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Dubbinu | t | c 08:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protein naming convention 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :HDBuzz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Braydonowen (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:HDBuzz]] for deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Huntington's disease. 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/20150810153514/http://hdfoundation.org/the-venezuela-huntingtons-disease-project/ to http://hdfoundation.org/the-venezuela-huntingtons-disease-project/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Huntington's disease. 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/20151119025644/http://hdfoundation.org/history-of-the-hdf/ to http://hdfoundation.org/history-of-the-hdf/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Carlson, Neil R., and Melissa A. Birkett. Physiology of behavior. 11th ed., Pearson, 2013.
Ross, C., & Tabrizi, S. (2010, December 14). Huntingtons disease: from molecular pathogenesis to Clinical Treatment Retrieved November 27, 2017, from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=F7C15F08B1A34F4E8D52D72F6B203705&CID=0E443F76AE0C673307453431AF0A668C&rd=1&h=Ph1NuvLfnac1O5X3qbBRHeolVhoXJtWu3p_zTA8zgaM&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.thelancet.com%2fjournals%2flaneur%2farticle%2fPIIS1474-4422(10)70245-3%2fabstract&p=DevEx,5069.1
Roos, Raymund AC. “Huntington's disease: a clinical review.” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, BioMed Central, 20 Dec. 2010, ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-1172-5-40.
Labbadia, J., & Morimoto, R. I. (2013). Huntington’s disease: underlying molecular mechanisms and emerging concepts. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 38(8), 378–385. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2013.05.003
Kobal, Jan, et al. “Cognitive and autonomic dysfunction in presymptomatic and early Huntington's disease.” SpringerLink, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2 Apr. 2014, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-014-7319-6.
“Chorea & Huntington's Disease.” Chorea & Huntington's Disease, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, www.movementdisorders.org/MDS/About/Movement-Disorder-Overviews/Chorea--Huntingtons-Disease.htm.
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: principles, issues, and cases. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2013.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure why this list?

message: User:MWS
The ref says "The gene for Huntington's disease (HD) is located on the short arm of chromosome four and is associated with an expanded trinucleotide repeat. Normal alleles at this site contain CAG repeats, but when these repeats reach 41 or more the disease is fully penetrant. Incomplete penetrance happens with 36–40 repeats, and 35 or less are not associated with the disorder. "
Which appears to support "However, a sequence of 36 or more glutamines results in the production of a protein which has different characteristics."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Doc James reasoning is in agreement with the text/source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 26 versus 36

message: Many attached docs are copyrighted. This needs fixing.SchaPhD (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "attached docs" in this context? Ttwaring (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: I can't seem to eradicate the gap (blank whitespace) ahead of the beginning text of the article. I've attempted a couple of things but they have not removed the gap in edit preview. I'm hesitant to save incremental attempts since this is a featured article. Ponydepression (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of it. It was a result of blank lines at the beginning. Looie496 (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap at top of article 

message: In a genetic test, given to healthy volunteers at the University of Iowa (itself a HD center of excellence by the HDSA), the average CAG repeat was 17.The Economist, Science and Technology section, 2015 PhDMarkWilliamSchae1960 (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average CAG repeat 

message: To avoid WP:3REVERT, please discuss why you do not think the Saint Vitus's dance name should be in the article. It was based on a consensus.  . --MaoGo (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of this discussion on the talk page concerning St-Vitus dance. Just happened to notice this inconsistency in the article and was bold by constructively removing it. After a quick search, I notice that most reliable sources used the term historically to describe Sydenham's chorea, including the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. Some other sources I have found used St Vitus dance to refer to chorea in general or even to refer to epileptic generalized seizures. As for the 3RR, I will add its definition here: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." From my understanding, I have performed one edit and suddenly I am threatened to be blocked as per 3RR (I assume a threat as I believe anyone respectfully sending an editor to discuss on the talk page would not start their sentence by "To avoid 3RR", especially when one edit was performed). I think the goal underlying Wikipedia is to have editors contribute to an article respectfully, but I notice this might not be the goal behind everyone's contribution. Spyder212 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , thanks for the feedback. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was the one in danger with the WP:3R not you, Meanmicio deleted the information, I reverted it calling to take a look at the talk , and then you reverted it back, so I had to go for a second revert. Before all this, I asked the Wikipedia: Wikiproject Medicine for help on this issue. The solution was to use Saint Vitus's dance (SVD) article as a disambiguation for the choreas (Syndenham and Hungtington). Feel free to provide sources so we can discuss. What I could find is that SVD is usually an ancient term for chorea (that includes both SC and HD) . I started the discussion because I know that in French and Spanish, HD is associated still with SVD, in Venezuela where there is the highest density of HD cases this disease is still referred informally as 'Saint Vitus illness' . And lastly, there are a few books I could find on Google that show the link . --MaoGo (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminating Saint Vitus's tag

message: This is a nice Featured Article, yet I feel that there is missing a mention or two on the historical relationship between Sydenham's chorea and HD (see also Saint Vitus' dance and other archived comments about it).--MaoGo (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: This is a 2009 promotion, with most of the principle authors and WP:FAC nominator long gone.  Most of the article is cited to 2007 sources, and there is considerable updating needed.  There are almost no new sources used in the article, and several issues raised on this talk page that haven't been addressed.  Some new reviews are:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Unless someone is willing/able to take over this article, and do a rewrite/update, it should be submitted to Featured article review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR needed 

message: https://hdsa.org/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.222.194 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at the Curlie links under the External links section of the article; advocacy groups should be linked there, per WP:MEDMOS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add HDSA link 

message: I thought this article had a lot of information, most of which that is helpful and is related to the topic, but most of it is not really needed there. The level of language and medical terminology used in this article is good, but not everyone can understand that level of medical terminology. I think it should be a little simplified so it is for like anyone that has no knowledge of this disease. Tavkaur25 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huntington's Disease