Talk:Nuclear receptor

message: this page needs some figures...  Roadnottaken 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I work on nuclear receptors, and I could probably contribute some figures. What would you say is missing? I could already make a better looking phylogeny. Marcrr (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your offer.  I think Roadnottaken was referring to this version of the article which contained no figures.  The current phylogeny diagram I quickly threw together and I agree that it is probably not the best (the biggest problem is that it doesn't match exactly the NRNC classification).  So if you could redo that diagram, I would be grateful.  In addition, any other suggestions or contributions you might have to this article would be most welcome.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures? 

message: OK Roadnottaken and 172.142.77.165, the mechanism section and accompanying graphic was not as clear as it should be.  I tried to find the right compromise between clarity and accuracy.  But even the existing mechanism discussion is over simplified since there are other mechanisms (e.g., transrepression, receptor cross talk, squelching, etc.) which are not yet mentioned.   When I find time, I will try to expand and add better graphics.  Anyone else want to lend a hand?
Boghog2 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism 

message: Boghog2, I am sorry for deleting "Gene" links, so you had to restore them. Do you suggest always to keep such links rather than replace them with internal WP links?Biophys (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Biophys.  Ordinarily the changes you made would be OK, except for this particular protein family where many of the pages already existed before the start of the PBB project and were named after the protein instead of the gene.  (/begin rant/ Who on earth calls the estrogen receptor alpha, ESR1?? /end rant/ ;-)  opps, I guess that I also have been guilty of this from time to time ;-). For consistency with the pre-existing articles, I renamed some of the pages that PBB automatically created for this family from the gene acronym to the protein name.  As a consequence, after I finished renaming the pages, the links that you added that were initially OK became double redirects.  Hence that is why I needed to add new links that pointed directly to the protein pages and restore the original gene links.  My own preference is to use protein names in preference to gene acronyms for gene/protein pages that deal with well characterized proteins where most of the published literature discusses the properties of the protein.  On the other hand, there are many genes where the function/properties of expressed protein is not known.  For these genes, name WP pages after the gene acronym is appropriate.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was not clear. Should I replace HUGO links (e.g. ) by internal WP links (e.g. KCNA1) assuming that articles like KCNA1 will be eventually generated by ProteinBoxBot? Such changes are easier to make in the whole article (e.g. Voltage-gated potassium channel) using "substitute" function of text editor. It seems that  links for human genes are no longer needed?Biophys (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, sorry for not explaining myself better. My preference would be to wait until the target page is actually created before making the change.  The reason is two-fold.  First, the final target page may not be the gene name (e.g., someone could come along and do this: Kv1.1).  Of course this could be fixed later by using for example replacing  with  to remove the double redirect link.  But then someone would have to come back to edit the link.  Second why replace a functional (blue) link with a non-functional (red) link?  Granted, this will eventually be rectified, but there will be a period of time when the non-functional link is in place.  Finally I agree with you that PBB should first enumerate major gene/protein families so that we can integrate the PBB contributions with related pages and NavBoxes in a more systematic fashion. So I suggest that we first forward the Entrez ID for the ion channel family to AndrewGNF and start making changes to related pages after the target pages have been created.  Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this more cautious approach is reasonable. But then we should forward Entrez IDs to the Bot for all major human protein families.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: According to the ref, these are in molluscs etc.  No evidence found for presence in humans.  Remove?
Dennismk (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that there are two DNA binding domain (DBD) NRs in humans.  However this article is not only about human NR, but also NRs that exist in other species including mollusks.  Hence I see no reason to delete the mention of two DBD NRs. Boghog (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRs with two domains 

message: As only a lay person who has a vested life interest in this subject - I find its content, presentation,notations and graphics very well presented.
More-so, The information reads easily which is a huge feat and undertaking - Most Medical Impact information is not at all easy to read..Good Luck - Scott C :-)Big text
Zczc2311 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreal Presentation - Ease of Reading of Medical Facts 

message: Substituted at 01:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Absence of an explanation of the name is rather odd. Why "nuclear"?  Why not a name relevant to function such as "steroid thyroid hormone receptor" or "steroid molecule receptor"? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuclear refers to their subcellular distribution (mainly in the nucleus) which also implies that they have a gene regulation function. It turns out that many of these receptors shuttle between the cytosol and nucleus, so perhaps intracellular receptors would a more accurate name name, but then the function would get lost. In addition to steroids, nuclear receptors also bind to and are activated by a structurally diverse set of ligands (sterols, lipids, amino acid metabolites, and even heme). Perhaps a better name would be ligand activated transcription factors. But no one calls them that. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology