Talk:Light-independent reactions

message: This page needs serious expansion. It's been 16+ years since I taught this material, so I would appreciate the job being done by someone current in the area. David Shear 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who is Andy Benson?  I haven't been able to find any information on him anywhere on the internet.  On the Calvin cycle page his name is given as Andy Benson and on the Melvin Calvin page his name is given as Adam Benson.  The funny thing is that both names are used equally as often in the articles I was able to locate on the internet.  Someone needs to resolve this because I am clueless . . . 20:39, October 21, 2005 (UTC)
Added Reference to Benson ARP 17:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Benson or Adam Benson 

message: Hey I just made/added an overview of the calvin cycle for this page and the rubisco page, I was wondering what everybody thinks. I'm worried it's to complicated/busy, I am wondering if i should dumb it down (ie get rid of the molecule diagrams). Anything else to change, I really want it to be great. Adenosine | Talk 08:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
-----
But I think the figure is excellent; outstanding — especially in its doubly-enlarged form. Good artwork, layout & color! Nice touch with the splash stars. Please keep the molecule diagrams. In my opinion, they're more important than enzyme names since they show what goes in and what comes out. I used to hand plastic models around the class when I taught biochemistry. David Shear 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin Cycle diagram

message: I am an undergraduate student in the life sciences and my Biochemistry textbook (Pratt & Cornely, 2004) gives the name as Andrew Benson.  I don't know if that helps clear any confusion...
Thank you, too, for the diagrammatic overview of the Calvin cycle.  It is less complicated than the diagrams in my text and the molecular structures make the visual overview easier than deciphering the chemical/technical names.
69.154.111.168 04:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Andy Benson 

message: six carbon sugars are not oxidized in the mitochondria... pyruvate is.
someone should change that statement because it gives the wrong impression —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acid.runner (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed. -- Gogo Dodo 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading.... 

message: How are the Calvin Cycle and Krebs Cycle related? The Krebs Cycle was placed in "Calvin Cycle"'s See Also. Calvin cycle deals with photosynthesis in the stroma of the [chloroplast]]. However, the Krebs Cycle deals with celluar respiration in the matrix of the mitochondria. The only relation is the word "cycle", but the processes deal with two separate things. The name (and similarity) confuses students. Bdodo1992 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvin Cycle and Krebs Cycle 

message: The second carbon balance listed in the overview doesn't conserve carbons as far as I can tell.
 
:3 CO2 + 6 C21H29N7O17P3 + 5 H2O + 9 C10H16N5O13P3 → C3H5O3-PO32- + 2 H+ + 6 NADP+ + 9 C10H15N5O10P2 + 8 Pi
Also it's a very weird equation to have in there... as it really provides no context for why you would write it that way. --72.85.232.202 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now commented out this equation; as noted above unless NADP+ is expanded it doesn't make sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  carbon balance in overview 

message: Hi all,
Prof. Francis K. Fong tried to insert this edit and it was reverted for obvious reasons; he's engaged in discussion at User talk:DVdm and there is an ANI thread about it.  
Could someone familiar with the subject matter please look at the diff and put any appropriate material from it into the article?  Some Google searching does show that Prof. Fong did significant work in this area in the 1980's before getting into a dispute with Purdue at about that time, but I don't know anything more about it.  
Thanks,
67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Under a heading "Diversions and dead-ends", Portis and Parry, Discoveries in Rubisco (Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase): a historical perspective say that "A non-cyclic pathway for carbon fixation is proposed by Fong and Butcher (1988)". Not a ringing endorsement of Fong's argument. Fences&Windows 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I guess it's ok to mention it as an alternate view but not devote a lot of space to it.  What about the other Calvin et al papers that Fong's diff cited?  Are they mentioned? I don't have easy access to the Portis and Perry survey and I wouldn't understand it anyway.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be mentioned, it was barely cited. Fong's insistence on this matter is something he should resolve off Wikipedia. We are not here to right great wrongs. If you can find someone other than Fong who supports his work, I'd like to see it as I didn't find any sources. Fences&Windows 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you did find a source, the historical survey mentioned, which itself is apparently fairly widely cited.  I would have thought that if a historical survey of the topic cited Fong and Butcher's paper, that established enough notability to warrant a cite in Wikipedia (maybe along with other papers that it mentions, to not create undue weight).  It occurs to me though, I'm clueless about the topic to the point of not knowing whether the cite (if we add one) should go into some other article rather than this one.  Do you have access to Science Citations Index?  Does it mention the Fong paper?  67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *I linked to the Portis and Perry survey.  Adding the Fong/Butcher paper without undue weight would require a big expansion of the article which is way outside my capabilities.  Nice job to Fences & Windows finding the pdf; I only saw that there was a paywall version.  People looking at the pdf can find their way to the references that it points to, so this seems good enough for now. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fong papers 

message: I've added some new "simple" diagrams to try to give a better intuitive understanding of the complex steps of the Calvin cycle, and also expanded the text a bit. Comments and reactions welcome. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New diagrams 

message: I removed the following passage from the article. It does have merits, but also some obvious shortcomings. Maybe it can serve as inspiration to improvements to the article. --Ettrig (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative description 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Light-independent reactions which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress