Talk:21-Hydroxylase/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biosynthetic pathways

@Ajpolino:, I need your advice. You have suggested in Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1 to replace "21-hydroxylase is an essential enzyme in the biosynthetic pathways that produce..." to "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of...". However, what I think is important is to emphasize that although 21-hydroxylase is essential in the biosynthesis of cortisol, the most important of all steroids (the only steroid without which a human will surely die), and aldosterone, a steroid of major importance, with very high mineralocorticoid receptor activity, 21-hydroxylase is not directly involved in a chemical reaction that yields cortisol and aldosterone. 21-hydroxylase catalyzes reaction of precursors of these steroids. In other words, 21-hydroxylase stays in a chain of chemical reaction, and is the most important enzyme in these chains. These chains of reactions are called "metabolic pathways" of "steroidogenesis". Both terms "metabolic pathways" of "steroidogenesis" have their appropriate sections in Wikipedia. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I hear your concern, though personally I don't think folks will misconstrue "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of..." to mean "21-hydroxylase directly produces...". Perhaps a better alternative is to add some context around that sentence to make it clear what exactly the function of 21-hydroxylase is. Maybe you could move the sentence 21-Hydroxylase catalyzes the addition... and 17α-hydroxyprogesterone in the "Reaction" section to the "Function" section. Then move the remaining This reaction was first described in 1952. to a new "History" section. Also, if you feel strongly about it, you can just leave it as is. Ajpolino (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Text Observations

@Ajpolino: I have edited the lead, made sure it covers every aspect (every section) of the article, albeit briefly. I didn't add references to the claims that I have added, but kept the references in the existing claims of the lead. I have also edited every sentence or paragraph that you have mentioned, but not in all cases I have literally put the variant that you have suggested. However, I have carefully considered your variants as ideas. Please let me know whether the text is now OK. If it is still not OK but can be fixed with minor edits, could you please make the edits? Otherwise, let me know what is left. Let us please first make sure that the text is OK, so we can then proceed with the images. I didn’t do anything about the images yet. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead currently does not cover any of the material in the "Structure", "Genetics", or "Clinical significance" sections. I'm not sure it needs to cover anything in the Structure section, but surely some mention of CAH is merited.

Also I've made a few edits, hopefully to improve clarity. Please review them to make sure I didn't introduce any errors. I've still got the other criteria to work through, so please pardon the slow progress. Busy week in real life. Ajpolino (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Sorry, my edits in the lead didn't get saved. I don't know why it happened, but sometimes it happens with me when my edits are not saved. Maybe it is me who misses something, I have to figure out the reason yet. I have edited the lead again, and checked. It is now saved. Please review. I think I have now given the meaning, i.e. briefly written in the lead what is written in details in the sections. Maybe it is the style which has room for improvement. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, it looks better. I've finished the rest of the review above. Feel free to work on things in any order you'd like. Just so you know, I'll likely be offline this weekend, so no big rush on my end. I'll be back to this Monday, and am happy to help get this across the "finish line" so to speak. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I've done with the images. I have removed one section with just one sentence and an image (the section had lot of whitespace), so we have been able to get rid of the "clear" template that produced this whitespace. I have moved that sentence and the image to the middle of another section. I have also removed the "px" pixel specification from thumbnails. As a result, the page looks much better on a desktop computer. Although the images became much smaller, with some details barely visible, you can still click on them and the a full-screen images in high resolution and large-sized details. And on a mobile phone, the page now looks very well! Please let me know whether you are now satisfied with the images. Should I do other work on the article? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm back. Pardon the absence. Regarding images, it's much better. My preference would still be to pick just one infobox to display, either {{Infobox enzyme}} (which is currently at the top) or {{Infobox gene}} (which currently crawls along the side of the second half of the article). I realize they have different links in them, but I'm not sure how much value the second infobox really adds to the article. That said, if you strongly prefer keeping both infoboxes, I won't stop you.

Regarding other work on the article, my full GA review is above at Talk:21-Hydroxylase#GA_Review. You can work on things in any order you like. To summarize, some of the referencing should be improved, especially at 21-Hydroxylase#Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia, and a caption should be improved. If you have questions or concerns, I'm happy to help. Just let me know. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Thank you, I will made the edits according to your observations. I have removed a reference to MDPI. It was only needed as an example of the use of an alternative name of the enzyme - 21α-hydroxylase - and the article was the latest one found via PubMed. I have removed it and put two subsequent articles sorted by date, descending, from the list of PubMed search results.

I have already referenced the article from the NEJM in Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency and even here, in the 21-Hydroxylase, in the section of Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. By the way, I have nominated the article Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia for Good Article, and it got the status. We can copy the text from it if you find it having better quality. However, In my opinion, even the articles currently cited, reiterate all the same. I mean that the claims that we put to Wikipedia are found in all the articles. I think that the two most authoritative articles on the these CYP21A2-related illnesses are the one from NEJM and the https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6456929/ (An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline). I didn’t read the article from the Lancet, however. Thank you for mentioning it. Will try to find it. As about the article from the NEJM, I read it when it came out on September 24. Here are the most relevant conclusions given in this article:

• Fetal and postnatal exposure to androgens and glucocorticoids in CAH patients can affect brain development and function, resulting in mental health problems. In male patients, the prevalence of anxiety, depression, alcoholism, personality disorders and suicidal tendencies is higher, and in females, the prevalence of adjustment disorders is higher. Substance abuse and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have higher prevalence in patients with severe (null) mutations. Compared with unaffected girls, girls with classic CAH are reported to have more aggressive behaviors but improved spatial navigation ability, and the amygdala activation patterns are different between affected and unaffected girls.
• Avoidance of romantic relationships is common in women with CAH
• Glucocorticoid treatment in CAH can affect working memory and cause brain changes, including white-matter hyperintensities, and reduction in the structural integrity of white matter. Cognitive impairment (if present) is sometimes thought to be related to hypoglycemia and salt loss.
• 10% of CAH patients suffer from CAH-X syndrome, which is characterized by CAH combined with the characteristics of the hypermobility-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and is due to continuous gene deletions diagnosed by genotyping that disrupts both CYP21A2 and TNXB.
• All patients in classic CAH (and probably even in the non-classic CAH) lose salt to some degree, so the division to Salt-Wasting and Simple-Virilizing forms is irrelevant.
• During the follicular phase, progesterone accumulates upstream of 17-hydroxyprogesterone, which thins the endometrium and changes cervical mucus in a manner similar to the effect of progesterone contraceptives, and also leads to oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea. Non-classical CAH is sometimes diagnosed when evaluating oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea and infertility. However, it is estimated that 90% of women with non-classical CAH have never received a diagnosis. Once attempting to conceive, approximately 83% of women with non-classical CAH will become pregnant within 1 year with or without glucocorticoid therapy, but such women have an increased risk of miscarriage.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response, so perhaps I didn't make my concern clear. I think it's great that you've also improved the other CAH-related articles. I'm not challenging your familiarity with the topic. My concern is that much of the material in 21-Hydroxylase#Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia, i.e. the paragraph that begins Genetic variants..., is cited to older sources and primary sources. Newer, secondary sources on the topic are available and so those should be used instead where possible and practical. If all the articles say the same thing, then you should reference the most authoritative source available, which you've suggested above in many cases is the NEJM source. Folks who come to read our articles will probably not be reading all available sources on the topic. They won't know who wrote this article, or how much they knew about the topic. They'll only know this article is reliable because they'll see it cites reliable authoritative sources. The community's thinking on the topic of "what constitutes a reliable source for medical topics" is summarized at WP:MEDRS. If the rationale for updating the sources isn't clear, I'm happy to discuss that further. Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino:Yes, I will replace older sources with the most recent secondary sources, but will keep the text, and will check that all the claims are formally found in these newly mentioned sources. As about the enzyme infobox and gene infobox, can we keep both, since they are filled very well and contain different information. The enzyme infobox contain the enzyme number and the chemical substance CAS number, and the metabolic pathways, while the gene infobox contains gene-related info for the mouse and the human like chromosome location. Although the information in these two infoboxes partially overlap, e.g. both indicate the enzyme EC number, but most of the information do not overlap. So if we delete one of the infoboxes, we will lose information. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, let me know when you're done and I'll have another look. Keeping both infoboxes is fine. This is really starting to come together I think! Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I have finished editing these two sections, changed the text. I have also removed primary sources and the claims that didn't find in secondary sources. Also added a few secondary sources (reviews). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I've made a couple of minor edits as well. I think this now meets the GA criteria, so I'll mark this review completed. Thanks for your time on this. Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Thank you very much for your contributions! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

21-Hydroxylase → 21-hydroxylase –

As in the article text. Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Umm, do you mean "21-hydroxylase", Tony? At the moment, your proposed title is the same as the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Jenks. Tony (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Prefixes in titles:

When the chosen article title starts with a prefix including positional identifiers (ortho-, meta-, para-, α-, β-, γ-, etc.), isomeric identifiers (sec-, tert-, etc.), stereochemical identifiers (cis-, trans-, (E)-, (Z)-, etc.), chiral identifiers ((R)-, (S)-, D-, L-, (+)-, (−)-, etc.), or numbers, the first letter after the prefix in the name should be capitalized: hence 1,1,1-Trichloroethane not 1,1,1-trichloroethane. A redirect from the uncapitalized version should be created to simplify linking from other articles. Non-numerical prefixes are italicized and uncapitalized (tert-Butanol, for example). Both numerical and non-numerical prefixes are followed by a hyphen.

137.205.21.92 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I can take this on, just give me a few days to get through it. Sorry to see such a long wait in the queue! Ajpolino (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll mostly assess the criteria in order and will work in bits and pieces. You're welcome to address things and reply to my comments as I go, or to wait for me to finish reviewing. Pardon the slow process, fitting this in as I find bits of time. Stay well! Ajpolino (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and lists):

The prose could use some minor cleanup to improve readability. Suggestions:

• Lead - The products of the conversions then continue through their appropriate pathways towards creation of... to "The products of the conversions are then used to create..."
• Function - The steroid 21-hydroxylase (or simply 21-hydroxylase) enzyme.... You could just mention "21-hydroxylase" as a common name at the top of the lead, and then use that name from there.
• Function - ...21-hydroxylase) enzyme is called this way because it hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position to "...21-hydroxylase) enzyme hydroxylates steroids at the C21 position."
• Function - 21-hydroxylase is an essential enzyme in the biosynthetic pathways that produce... to "21-hydroxylase is essential for the production of...".
• Mechanism - However, understanding of human 21-hydroxylase structure and function is of particular clinical value, as a failure of the enzyme to act appropriately results in congenital adrenal hyperplasia. can probably be removed. It's covered elsewhere in the article.
• Genetics#Role in the human major histocompatibility complex - the first paragraph here seems like too much detail on MHC class III for an article on 21-hydroxylase. I'd suggest removing that paragraph entirely, and bringing the second paragraph up with the rest of the section (i.e. removing the two subheadings for the Genetics section).
• Clinical significance - A related pseudogene is located near this gene. can be removed. We just read that in the section before this one.
• Clinical significance - In general, you can remove terms like "Studies have shown that..." without losing meaning. The manual of style section on weasel words uses a similar example.
• Clinical significance - but exhibit other phenotypical symptoms... - remove "phenotypical".
• Clinical significance#Congenital adrenal hyperplasia - I feel this section would be clearer if it was reorganized a bit. Let me think about it and get back to you.

The article has some MOS issues that we should address:

• Lead - The lead should be a concise summary of all the major points of the article (WP:LEAD). At the very least, a sentence or two on CAH should be added. I'd suggest you go through the article, keep in mind what the major points are, and then scroll up to the top and make sure they're all covered in the lead.
• Lead - we typically do not include citations in the lead (see WP:WHENNOTCITE) as all material in the lead should be repeated in greater detail with citations in the article body. That said, nothing strictly forbids citations in the lead (folks often include them for numerical data, quotes, and controversial material). So if you feel strongly about it, they can stay.
• Images - I can't find a particular requirement in the MOS, but I think this article has too many images/non-text elements for the size of the article. On my screen about half of the article is whitespace due to large images blocking out the text. The point of the manual of style is for articles to have a consistent look, and this one has an unusual look indeed. My suggestions would be to pick just one infobox (the later infobox is huge and forces the next section down farther than my screen length!), consider moving any less-essential images to a gallery or removing them, and reduce some of the images' size. Also setting a particular pixel size is discouraged (see WP:IMAGESIZE), so consider toying with the "thumbnail" size and scaling them using "upright" to see how that changes display.

Just as an FYI, if you have two images that you wish to display together, another option is {{Multiple image}} which can accomplish some nifty tricks. Sadly, it forces you to pick a pixel size, but other than that it's pretty neat. As an example, I've gone ahead and fit the two reaction images into one frame. Feel free to undo, just wanted to show how it looks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Could you fill in the details on the two references that just URLs? They're currently reference 1 and 42.

In general, we strive to use secondary sources (i.e. reviews) as references where possible (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources) as they're a more reliable indicator of mainstream scientific thinking than primary sources. It's completely fine to use primary sources to source uncontroversial facts, and to add detail not available in reviews, especially for a somewhat niche topic like this one. But wherever you can replace older primary sources with newer secondary sources, it improves the reliability of our articles. Also molecular biology changes quickly, so the newer the source, the more likely our article will be up-to-date and reliable. Some specific examples:

• Most of the citations in the "Congenital adrenal hyperplasia" subsection could be replaced with citations to recent reviews of CAH, e.g. 2017 Lancet and 2020 NEJM. If you don't have access to either, I'm happy to send them along.
• For the genetics section, the two reviews I linked above have some nice info, but I see there's also a 2018 review of the 21OH variants that cause CAH. I don't have access to that review, so I don't know how good it is. If you don't have access either, we can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

One of the citations in the lead is to this paper which is in a journal published by MDPI. MDPI has attracted some controversy over the years for having, at times, lax peer review. That's not to say that everything in an MDPI journal is flawed, but just that papers in those journals should be viewed with a touch of caution.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

Pass. If you're interested in adding more to this article in the future (i.e. Not required for this review!), it'd be great if you could add some more detail on the reaction itself to beef up the "Reaction" section, some more info on evolutionary relatedness (right now the Genetics section just mentions mouse, chicken, and quail) if available, and a brief History section. Otherwise looks great!

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

All images are appropriately licensed.

Can you change the caption for the last image? Maybe something like "Evolution of the CYP21A locus in humans and mice."? Captions don't need the "This diagram provides" bit.

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Page name

@Facts707, Anthony Appleyard, and Ajpolino: Concerning the recent page move, as was pointed out above, per Wikipedia chemistry naming conventions the "h" in hydroxylase should be capitalized. Also it is recommended to avoid starting sentences with a number or abbreviation. By extension, titles should follow this recommendation. Finally the IUBMB accepted name for this enzyme is Steroid 21-monooxygenase. Hence I suggest that the page be move to the IUBMB accepted name. There is a redirect by the same page name with a page history that is currently blocking this page move. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Facts707, Boghog, and Ajpolino: If general usage among organic chemists and biological chemists is to call this enzyme "21-hydroxylase" starting with a number, then some would say that we better follow suit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a clear differences between fields. Within the field of enzymology, the more specific "steroid 21-monooxygenase" is the preferred name. Within the medical field, 21-hydroxylase (as in 21-hydroxylase deficiency) is used. This page is primarily about the enzyme, not its deficiency (for which there is a separate page), hence the preferred enzymology name should take precedence. Also concerning determining the preferred capitalization (where page names should follow sentence case), how does one even restrict a Google Scholar search to the first word of a sentence or title? In my Google Scholar Search, most of the occurrences of 21-hydroxylase occur in the middle, not the beginning of sentences (consistent with style guide recommendations). Nothing can be concluded about capitalization from these examples. In the first six hits that I ran across where the search term was either in title case or started a sentence, four of the six capitalized the "h":

• upper case
• lower case but in PubMed abstract upper case
• upper case
• upper case upper case
• lower case
• upper case

If we stick with the 21-hydroxylase name, I propose this page be moved back to "21-Hydroxylase". Boghog (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pings. I have no opinion on whether the title should be capitalized -- it's fine to my eyes either way. As far as alternative titles, from a quick Pubmed search it appears Steroid 21-hydroxylase is almost as common in recent papers as "21-hydroxylase". Steroid 21-monooxygenase is occasionally used, but most papers (on Pubmed) with "Steroid 21-monooxygenase" in their abstracts actually use 21-hydroxylase/steroid 21-hydroxylase in their titles and present "Steroid 21-monoxygenase" only as an alternative name. I see the appeal of using IUBMB recommended names throughout; it's quick, neat, and consistent. But when an alternative name is far more common, my preference is we stick with the commonly used name as the article title. Happy to hear others' thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Like Sterol 14-demethylase‎ C-5 sterol desaturase, Sterol/Steroid always mentioned in Wikipedia Page name.--Htmlzycq (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard and Facts707:. The justification for the recent page move to lowercase 21-hydroxylase was Google Scholar shows "21-hydroxylase" predominates. Google scholar actually shows just the opposite. Chemical and enzyme names are common nouns and hence only capitalized if they occur at the beginning of sentences. Most occurrences of 21-hydroxylase in Google Scholar occur in the middle of sentences where nothing can be concluded about capitalization. As shown by the linked examples above where 21-hydroxylase occurs at the beginning of sentences or in sentences which are in title case, upper case 21-Hydroxylase predominates. Also per Wikipedia chemistry naming conventions the "h" in 21-hydroxylase should be capitalized. Therefore I request that the page be moved back to uppercase 21-Hydroxylase. Boghog (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Per WP:CHEMPREFIX, move page back to uppercase 21-Hydroxylase. Boghog (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boghog, Anthony Appleyard, and Ajpolino: Hi all, just catching up with this thread. Firstly my apologies, I didn't realize the title case was of much concern; I don't move pages or request non-technical moves too often, but when I do they're usually pretty clear and accepted. In this case, I could have figured a disciplined field like chem would have more detailed naming conventions. I created the WP:CHEMPREFIX shortcut yesterday when I read through the thread. To my eyes, tert-Butyl alcohol looks fine but 21-Hydroxylase looks out of place. Nonetheless there is a clear policy in place and so thanks Boghog for taking the time to set things straight. Also thanks to the other editors who helped out in good faith as we worked through it. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem Facts707 and thanks creating the WP:CHEMPREFIX short cut. I am also glad that we could work this out. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaping in with only a cursory glance at the content - with respect, I think this is a little overanalyzed - CYP-descriptor tends to be used in describing the coding genes - and I have been on a bit of a rant about target audience, it is likely not worth anymore dialog - I have never really thought of the matter previously - in drug dev. CYP xyz is common among researchers - I suspect it is just easier when discussing a topic - Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A few observations and thoughts -

Per MM's focus - I looked at this document - had a few comments, it has a GA status - I am not sure that is relevant to the following comments.

My comments align with my thinking on the CYP4F2 enzyme article - opening this up to a wider audience is likely not a lot of heavy lifting.

I have made a bold comment - that I am never sure of the real target audience of many of these fairly technical articles on WP - and my comments are all focused one the single goal of expanding the consummability of such articles. And I know folks do not like bolds and such - but for me it adds emphasis - as why to why I ever made the comment.

A few casual observations:

1. So walking the comment on the page name back - CYP usually refers to encoding genes, though the term CYP enzymes/proteins has been in common use - like forever. Most academic work does state CYP enzyme and then mentions protein by standard chemical function - what it actually chemically does - think this is clear in the infobox.
2. I was going to casually wordsmith some lede terms likely make a good faith efforts to perhaps target this to a British A level student, 18+ exam - this makes some sense and A level Biology/Chemistry is not a bad standard to align this with - it roughly aligns with US freshman Biochem and the effort to tone this all to this level appears a good goal. Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Let us see what can we do about it.

One thing is that we can move all other names from the lead text to the infobox. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed - I did get a tad bold - as I stated, in research - I normally hear CYP xyz in discussion - in publications the atual formal enzymatic name is likely the standard - I do not think it is a big deal - think the other article was CYP4F2 - consistency is not a bad thing.

BeingObjective (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Steroid 21-hydroxylase

I had to check this substrate-enzyme name - it seems to check out.

Nearly all enzymes end with the suffix of “-ase.” Generally, the names are of the form “substrate or product – reaction catalyzed.” For example, lactate dehydrogenase is for an enzyme that removes a hydrogen (plus 2e–, i.e., a hydride) from lactate, yielding the carbonyl in pyruvate.https://iubmb.qmul.ac.uk/enzyme/rules.html#:~:text=Systematic%20names%20consist%20of%20two,Rule%208.

BeingObjective (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Maxim Masiutin The more I say it in my head - yup, the more it sounds fine.

BeingObjective (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that we should mention that in the article? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean the 'etymology' of why is should be called steroid 21-hydroxylase?

Likely, yes.

I suppose if one of the driving ideas here (and of WP) is to make knowledge more accessible - and I do feel many of the science/technology articles are highly presumptive and do assume the reader is likely at least an undergraduate life-scientist - then yes.

Expanding again - I am now writing to what I have been calling an O or A-level, British student - 16 to 18+ examinations. Not sure of your familiarity with the UK's education system - it is where I started from - so I am familiar with the materials generally presented.

Education in the United Kingdom

It is a hard balance, one does not want to spend half the article defining what the writer assumes is a base knowledge.

There is likely a WP article discussing this.

BeingObjective (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a hard balance, I agree. Still, for an explanation of more than a few words it probably would be better to point the reader to a general article, for example on why enzymes are called -ase Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no issues with this - I think it was fairly heavily discussed - I would have not considered the topic except for the fairly lengthy debate amongst three editors. Yes, if a reader is interested, they will dig deeper - though in the article - I did see three different legacy usages - consistency should be a basic requirement - one hopes. BeingObjective (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseudogenes

Fixed it - I think.

Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin

I messed up the text flow around the infobox - HELP!

"Pseudogenes are common in genomes, and they originate as artifacts during the duplication process. Research has shown that retaining these faulty copies has a beneficial role, often providing regulation of their parent genes."

BeingObjective (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that you didn't mess anything. It is just Wikipedia formats text that way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The protein area is rather light weight.

@Maxim Masiutin

I think the protein discussion area is lightweight - I sense this was written by molecular biology type and not a biochemist.

There are many metrics that define proteins - not even sure m/wt is in there - this is an area that could have more data from an analytical biochemistry perspective.

Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an idea on where to take this data from, so it could be noteworthy, not mere a repetition of data from infobox, which is discouraged by WP:MCBMOS? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is blunt, but I actually really do have the background in this knowledge domain - I am not trying to offend in any manner.

I did not/do not see it in the infobox - is it there, did I miss it? It was not there in an apparent manner - perhaps in the links - or perhaps I totally missed it.

Correct me please if it is there.

Sure it is noteworthy - how do you define a protein - - genes - proteins - protein functionality -- etc.

What characteristics does a protein have???

Amino acid composition would be a super basic add - I did not see this and I see a lot of sophisticated dialog on protein folding - I know this is total CLOP and I think it needs to be changed.

Who really understands those two paragraphs - not the editor!!!

This looks verbatim - from an academic piece. Was this not picked up in the GA review: I can likely find the article it came from.

I doubt many actually would understand the ideas in this section - they likely would understand more basic information.

This is was originally written by a person with a molecular biology background - it is in the talk section - it is light on the actual protein - adding a crystallography image does not make it more accessible - it is interesting - but not sure how I'd use that data - I think the pathology section is much better - I thought you wanted to expand and make this data more consumable - did you have a change of heart?

Protein folding is a world of hurt - and is not something usually well understood by the target A level student I mentioned.

Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right, it would have been worth expanding the protein section, however, I'm not very skilled in proteins, and thank you for your edits of this section! I agree that it is not consumable for a person without a background, and I also don't have a background that would have allowed me to explain in simple terms.

Infoboxes are various boxes at the right of the text that list identifiers and sometimes properties. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I might be being a bit blunt - so sincere apologies.

I do think this article is one of the better of its type.

We are in total agreement, these are not the easiest articles to write - and correctly target to an audience and I really have no 'super powers' as to how to calibrate them - I do think even with an internal link - a little expansion does help - the pseudogene expansion as an example.

Much has changed in the world of molecular biology - and it is not my strength in 2023. So, I am certainly learning things from collaborating with you on these articles - I do not wish to offend you - you have been very understanding and helpful - kind of a rarity here IMHO.

My changes do need to be seriously challenged, I rather doubt I'd make any significant changes without your secondary checks and challenges - I do not note any other editors offering more than minor typo/citation formatting corrections.

I am truly shocked on the PCI-DES work that another med. pro has not commented - the changes were dramatic and I was expecting some push back -

BeingObjective (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I also sometimes feel uneasy when no one corrects or comments on my changes. Perhaps this is because people agree with the edits, or they don't have time to follow up. As for DES, they probably are happy with your edits. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Naming - a final dialog.

• 1.14.14.16
• 21-OHase
• CYP21
• CYP21B
• Cytochrome P-450c21
• Cytochrome P450 21
• Cytochrome P450 XXI
• Cytochrome P450-C21
• Cytochrome P450-C21B

https://go.drugbank.com/polypeptides/P08686 BeingObjective (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is neither a definitive nor complete list that presents at https://go.drugbank.com/polypeptides/P08686 because there are other names in the academic literature not found in this list; still this lists give a few names not even used once in the literature. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the link is incorrect? It does point out there is an inconsistency - real world vernacular etc.

I think the article has settled on a term and I do not want to raise yet another dialog - steroid 21-hydroxylase is fine and always was.

That was not why I added this.

I mentioned most R&D types would likely say CYP21 - and really talk to the gene and the protein - one would need to know the context - I get this info is not relevant to a WP article - it is an example of the real world versus google searches - did you review the link?

Cheers -

BeingObjective (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The term "Steroid 21-hydroxylase" is based on Uniprot as suggested by WP:MCBMOS. https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P08686/entry

The name CYP21 is mostly an abbreviation.

We had the same discussion on CYP4F2, where an editor suggested to use the Uniprot name. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This section - if you want to expand - clarify make accessible - needs to think of the target audience.

There is a lot in this section - and to me - is leans to CLOP -

It contains an evolutionary conserved core of a four α-helix bundle, two additional alpha helices, two sets of β-sheets, and a heme cofactor binding loop.

Each subunit in the human enzyme consists of a total of 13 α-helices and 9 β-strands that folds into a triangular prism-like tertiary structure. The iron(III) heme group that defines the active site resides in the center of each subunit.

The human enzyme binds one substrate at a time. In contrast, the well-characterized bovine enzyme can bind two substrates. The human and bovine enzyme share 80% amino acid sequence identity, but are structurally different, particularly in loop regions, and also evident in secondary structure elements. BeingObjective (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea on how it passed GA with that text. If I knew how to write this text simpler, I would have done that. I agree that the audience is not a wide audience. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference style

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, the editors should refrain from altering the style of elements such as date format, units, and so on, within an article unless there is a significant reason that is not merely a preference for a different style. Engaging in revert-wars over optional styles is not acceptable. If a consensus cannot be reached through discussion regarding the style to be used in an article, the style established by the first major contributor should be respected. My understanding is that this rule also applies to reference formats. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)