Talk:Protein C

message: The comment about activated protein c being effective in septic patients with an APACHEII score < 25 is inaccurate.  The ADDRESS trial was stopped early because 28day mortality in such patients was worse (not statistically significant) in those receiving activated protein c compared to placebo.  Furthermore, subgroup analyses of PROWESS and ENHANCE both support this finding.  PROWESS concluded that activated protein c was effective only in those with APACHEII scores > 25, though these results are debatable.  A meta-analysis of PROWESS and ADDRESS data by J. Friedrich (NEJM 2006;354(1):94-96.) suggests that activated protein c is ineffective even in those with severe sepsis (i.e. APACHEII score > 25 or multiple organ system failure). As such, many would debate that activated protein c has yet to demonstrate conclusively its worth in sepsis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daleyc78 (talk • contribs) .
--Daleyc78 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness of APC in treating sepsis

message: Isn't protein c activated by thrombomodulin, not thrombin?128.253.178.201 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thrombomodulin is a cofactor of thrombin in the activation of protein c. --Franklinjefferson (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thrombomodulin?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Rmrfstar, thank you for all your hard work in rewriting this article.  It is a major improvement!
Below is my reasoning for the citation format that I tried to introduce in this article. Using List-defined references:
 
Many of the references are cited multiple times within the text so that the text and the corresponding citations are already often separated from each other. Moving all the citation templates to the  template makes the document less cluttered and better organized.  Also this syntax is compatible with vertical formatting of the templates as I introduced in this edit. So, I don't understand what about this syntax is difficult to read.  If anything IMHO, this syntax makes underlying text easier to read and to maintain.
Finally, if you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions).  Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article.  In addition, this tool will add PMID, DOI, and PMC parameters that assist users in quickly finding the full article as well as helping bots such as Citation bot maintain these citations.  These citation parameters were included in a previous version of this article but now have been removed.  Boghog (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I know about list-defined references. The problem wasn't that my way was objectively any easier to read. Rather, I was in the middle of working heavily on the article, so every little change seriously confused my thinking. I have no objection to switching conventions; it was just very disconcerting right then. For instance, even the (very reasonable) changes you made to the names of each reference messed me up, as I had not memorised the year of each publication, and I thus couldn't write in-line citations as easily as when the year wasn't included. Also there were little things such as when I would intentionally keep the references inconsistently formatted for a few hours so that I would know which I had already perused. When you came in and standardised them, I had lost track of my progress. What do you say I take a little bit more time filling out the article, and then, when all of the major expansion is done, we make the wikisyntax pretty? Also, I do all of my citations with Zotero, and I have a whole system worked out. When I'm done, we can use that tool to add all of those great blue links... Also, sorry if I sounded snappy on your talk page: I was just very frustrated by having to deal with all of that material and edits I didn't understand. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, no problem.  I will hold off further edits until you are finished with your revisions.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Phew*. I'm done with the major additions, for now. You're welcome to change the syntax, etc. as you wish. I think I'll put the article up for peer review soon, too... What do you think of that?  Let's say I want to get this article to FA status. Where do you think it stands? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have done an incredible job of improving and expanding this article.  Excellent work!  I think it may be close to FA status, but I think it would be better to start with a GA review (edit conflict: as I see that you have already initiated).  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I'm glad you think so. Thanks for your contributions also. I can be pretty sloppy with wikilinking. And thanks for dealing with my quirks of personality; I'm very much used to working alone. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: There is currently some inconsistency in the residue numbering in the "synthesis, structure and activation" section.  The numbering in the first paragraph is based on the full length protein that includes the N-terminal signal peptide.  The numbering in the second paragraph is reset so that the new N-terminus produced after cleavage of the signal peptide is now designated residue #1.  I think is would be less confusing if a consistent numbering scheme based on the full length protein is used throughout (see the "sequence annotation" section of UniProt entry  and :File:Protein_C_1D_schematic.png).  For example, the catalytic triad of the serine protease would be changed from 211, 257, and 360 to 253, 299, and 402.  Does anyone have an objection if I make this change?  Boghog (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection. Indeed, I support the change. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:     Thanks for your support! I have gone ahead and made the change. Boghog (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residue numbering 

message: Should we consider changing the  numbers to the page of the article, rather than the journal? At the moment having a four digit number after a reference tag looks rather ugly. For example, for the first citation in the article, I would suggest changing 6822 > 1 and for the one after the first use of reference 4, 35 would be changed to 3. This would still allow the reader to easily find the information on the page if they wanted to but would make the article a little prettier. SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guilty of changing the page number in the other direction (e.g., 1 > 6822) based on the idea that if someone went back to the source, it would be quicker to find the exact page if the full page number were specified.  When I made this change, there were not so many in-line citations that specified page numbers and I agree that it now may have gotten out of hand.  In an attempt to improve the aesthetics of the article, I have added page number parameters to the  templates  in this edit so that page number are now surrounded by parenthesis. Does this look any better?  Boghog (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, I think it looked better with the colons. I'm also inclined to believe that using the page of the journal is better; because then we don't have to count ourselves (and make errors). It's easier to use (as Boghog notes). It's also more standard (the convention being used universally by the journals themselves). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on whether the parentheses around the page numbers improves the aesthetics so I have taken them back out.  In case anyone is coming late to this discussion and is curious how they look, a version that includes the parentheses may be found here..  Boghog (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference page numbering 

message: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This review not reflected

message: the article indicates that it is an autoprothrombin, but that is incorrect.  Protein C is by nature an anticoagulant, so it can't be a prothrombin since thrombin is a procoagulant.  The rest of article states that it functions as a natural anticoagulant, which is correct, but it doesn't mention it's primary roll with PAI-1 (plasminogen activating inhibitor-1).  It inhibits PAI-1 which disinhibits tPA which allows dissolution of a formed clot.71.61.221.173 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  how can protein C be an autoprothrombin if it's an anticoagulant and thrombin is procoagulant? 

message: Blood doi:10.1182/blood-2015-02-355974 JFW | T@lk 09:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering APC for other clinical uses