Talk:Retinoid X receptor alpha

message: This article is about the gene, yet most of the discussion in the article is about the protein encoded by this gene. Furthermore the protein is already covered by the retinoid X receptor article.  Unless this article is rewritten to focus on the gene and not the protein, I don't see the point of having separate protein and gene articles.  Also it should be noted that the picture (again of the protein and not the gene) is only of the DNA Binding Domain (DBD) and does not include the Ligand Binding Domain (LBD).  Boghog2 21:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinguishing characteristic of this page (relative to retinoid X receptor) is that it deals with one specific family member.  I'm assuming that there are distinct functions between the alpha gene versus the other family members.  While personally I'm okay with deleting this page until someone comes along and contributes some distinguishing characteristics, I'd rather leave it here so that there is already a ready receptacle for that future RXRA expert. AndrewGNF 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I don't have any problem with separate pages for the three RXR isoforms.  They do indeed have somewhat different tissue distributions, preferred heterodimeric partners, response elements, and ligand binding preferences. But I would suggest putting the emphasis back on the protein and renaming this page "Retinoid X receptor - alpha" with a redirect of "RXRA" to the renamed article.  Cheers.  Boghog2 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done...  (Though I used "Retinoid X receptor, alpha", the official gene/protein name).  Two asides...  First, check out this discussion on the challenges of getting the PBB page at the "right" location (and the tentative consensus).  Second, do you feel that there is (or should be) a big distinction between gene pages and protein pages?  Personally, I think with few exceptions at this point, the genes and their corresponding proteins should be discussed at a common page.  (That's right, I just remembered that there was a brief discussion on this here...)  Further thoughts on either topic welcome...  AndrewGNF 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your thoughtful reply and for changing the page name.  I agree that in most cases, information about the protein and corresponding gene should be kept together on the same page.  What confused me about the initial version of this article was that the first sentence (correctly) defined RXRA as a gene, whereas the the discussion in the remainder of the article was focused on the protein.  Hence I would prefer if the article started out by stating something along the lines "The Retinoid X receptor, alpha protein is a transcription factor encoded by the  gene."  This makes clear from the outset that the scope of the article covers both the protein and the gene, but the focus is on the protein.  Boghog2 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, we're open to changing that opening line as long as it's something we can formulate systematically.  For example, our current opening line can be represented like this:  "{Gene Name}, also known as {Gene Symbol} is a human gene."  If you want to propose something similar that we can use generally, please do.  Otherwise, I think we should leave the fine-tuning of that line to the hoards of subsequent editors to the gene page. ;) AndrewGNF 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene or Protein?