Talk:Motor protein

message: I think this article should be merged with molecular motors and/or deleted. "Moving proteins" doesn't appear to be a scientifically valid term. The Science paper cited in the article talks about kinesin, a motor protein. I can't find any Pubmed citations for the term "moving proteins" in the sense this article is using it. Movement proteins on the other hand is a scientific term, but those proteins have different functions from the ones described here. - tameeria 06:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've placed a request for moving this page to motor protein for the following reasons:
Moving proteins is not a scientific term. Motor protein appears to be the most accurate scientific term for the content of this article. Currently, Motor protein redirects to Molecular motors, however it is only a subsection of that article covered only by a list of links, but no real content on the topic. Also, there is a Category for "motor proteins" and it would be helpful to have a page of the same name dedicated for collecting information on topics placed in that category.
If you have comments or concerns on this move, please discuss them here. - tameeria 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page, per the request at WP:RM and explanation here.  There was a non-trivial history already at Motor protein, which I swapped with the article history at Moving proteins, so the old edits can be found there, under the redirect.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: The section on molecular motors includes a protein whose in vitro and in vivo activities are poorly understood. To my knowledge, the papers which propose that SMC proteins are motors each make this argument by modeling/structural homology. Isn't this just conjecture at this point? The thirteen-year-old reference supplied also does not argue that SMC proteins are motors — even the title is a question. This is an outstanding question in biophysics, which is why I ask if its inclusion is appropriate in the section. --chodges 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the Cell reference from Moriya et al., 1998,  A Bacillus subtilis gene-encoding protein homologous to eukaryotic SMC motor protein is necessary for chromosome partition. I have to admit that I haven't read the Cell paper as I don't have access to it online, but I thought it would be a better reference for SMC proteins than the paper about a Bacillus homolog. It doesn't look like there's much else on "SMC motor protein" on PubMed though, maybe with the exception of a 1995 review on yeast motor proteins that might be speculative as well. I would expect to find more recent reviews on SMCs being motor proteins if it was proven, I just hadn't checked for it in greater detail. I agree that if it's controversial, then it should either be stated as such or removed. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out! - tameeria 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMC Proteins are proven molecular motors? 

message: Motor protein
▪Most of the facts in this article are cited well. But some statements do not have references to support the facts. For example, the fact that kinesin can move towards the plus-end or minus-end are wrong. Kinesin can only move along microbubules toward plus-end.
▪ Each section in this article is relevant to the topic. One minor problem is that the order of each section is not proportionate. From my view of point, the section “Diseases associated with motor protein defects” should move the end of article after introduce the different type of motor protein.
▪ The article is neutral and only discusses the different type of motor protein by analysis chemical structure and how they work.
▪The information is come from the scientific journal such as Cell, Trends in Biochemical Sciences and Current Biology. These are all neutral sources.
▪The links work well for the nine citations. After look over these references, I do not found any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article.
▪ The latest reference in this paper was published in 2006. So a lot of newest information can be added in this article. For example, only myosin II is responsible for generating muscle contraction and myosin II move along actin need involvement of ATP and Ca+. Moreover, for Dynein, the chemical structure of dynein and how it move along microtubule toward minus end should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caoyanyang (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion and expanding information--Motor protein

message: — Assignment last updated by Wertex1031990 (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: General Biology I Honors