Talk:Glucokinase

message: This article is well written and is somewhat easy to understand. The pictures and diagrams help understand the material much better. One thing you should consider when editing this page is trying to dumb down the material. If someone needs information on Glucokinase, and they are not in Biochemistry or a science class, they would not be able to understand this material. 
Kendall AdcockKadcock12 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: General Knowledge about Glucokinase

message: For expl see User talk:Jag123  alteripse 02:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: equation correction

message: Firstly may I compliment Alteripse on his phenomenal work on this page! My only complaint is the length of the section titles. I would not try to condense all information in a paragraph in the section title. Section 9.3 is called Function and regulation of GK in the brain: glucose sensing in the hypothalamus. This is a subsection of 9, Function and regulation of GK in the pancreas and other neuroendocrine tissue. I would propose to name section 9 "Function and regulation", and 9.3 to "Brain". No information is lost this way. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is much better. I do like Jag123's suggestion, as long as the section titles remain within the 35-30 character range. Any longer is actually more confusing (see any general encyclopedia). JFW | T@lk 11:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section titles

message: The following was added recently. It is probably useful and needs to be in the article but I wanted to clarify some things and discuss the appropriate insertion points.
Glucokinase -unlike the other three hexokinase forms- cannot associate physically to the outer surface of the external membrane of mitochondria of almost all cell types. Consequently, glucokinase plays no role in driving high-aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) typical of rapidly-growing malignant tumor cells. 
In pancreatic beta cells, glucokinase does bind to mitochondria. This is because beta cells express an alternatively spliced version of the glucokinase gene that has an additional N-terminal sequence that permits glucokinase binding to both mitochondria and secretory granules. Glucokinase is an integral component of the insulin granules in glucose-responsive insulin secretory cells. Hepatic glucokinase lacks this N-terminal membrane binding domain.
Since GK has only been found in 4 mammalian cell types, "almost all cell types" isn't the clearest phrase. The two GK types that have been best studied have been liver and beta cell. In the liver, GK is associated with GKRP and moves from cytoplasm to nucleus. We can mention a lack of mitochondrial association in that context if you can confirm that liver is the tissue you meant by "almost all cell types". What others did you have in mind?
A second problem in the first paragraph is the phrase "consequently...". There are a lot of reasons GK does not play a role in "high-aerobic glycolysis" but they are related more to other kinetic properties explained here and to functional aspects of the relevant cell types rather than because GK doesn't associate to mitochondria. You seem to be suggesting that if GK associated with mitochondria it would have a central role in this type of metabolism. This is a distraction to the reader, who at that point in the article is no more likely to be thinking to himself, "why doesnt GK play a role in the Warburg effect" than "why doesnt GK play a role in muscle contraction." 
We don't have to explain why something that isnt suggested by the context doesnt happern. The statement either needs a lot more context and explanation or it doesnt need to be here. Do other hexokinases play an important role in tumor metabolism? If so, then we can simply mention it as one of many differences between GK and other HKs. If not, then let's just leave it out.
The second paragraph is potentially interesting but again the causal conjunction "this is because" makes it unclear. Can you cite a reference that GK in beta cells is associated with both mitochondria and secretory granules? I was unaware that secretory granules were associated with mitochondria but you may be able to teach me something. Why not include this with a discussion of the association of GK with secretory granules in that section of the article?
While the neuroendocrine promoter produces a different GK molecule than the liver promoter, it is not a direct causal relationship (except for the trivial causation that proteins follow the sequence of the DNA). The more interesting aspect is whether the N-terminal chain that is different between liver GK and neuroendocrine GK is the key difference in the association capabilities. Is this trrue? If so we can say so more clearly. 
I await your answers alteripse 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: on mitochondrial association

message: link to kilodalton, i think it would be better to use amu or g/mol..as a chemist
What is amu? As a measure of mass, g/mol is ok with me but I would like to leave kD also because it is the mass measure many of us who are not current on new terminology are familiar with. Can both coexist? alteripse 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: happyapple, please explain your edit comment

message: Why are the names of the sections so looooooong? And why does almost every section's name have GK mentioned in it? Why is GK sometimes refered to as GK and sometimes as glucokinase, and this is throughout the whole article - there should be some consistency? What is the project that maintains this article? -- Boris 13:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that they are interchangable, what i meant was that you should choose one of them and use it all the way, the other one should be just mentioned in the begining. As for article that i have written, here. Also, we need the sections to have some sort of standart names, i started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology (see section 3.1 Article's structure) but noone has replayed yet. -- Boris 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: do you want a contribution to the clinical implications section?. Absolutely. You should not even ask, i wrote that article but i don't own it, as long as people add more, ummmm "healthy" (backed with reliable references) stuff, to it and don't try to delete the good that has already been added, i'll be cool. What project(s) are you working on? -- Boris 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections