Talk:LTP induction: Difference between revisions
Tag: |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
||
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Merge with [[long-term potentiation]]== |
==Merge with [[long-term potentiation]]== |
||
I'd rather not merge it. In reading up on Wikipedia style it seems that it is preferable to keep articles relatively short. The main LTP article is kind of long. What I was attempting here was to split some of the details off into separate articles as the style suggestions suggest. This current article, "LTP induction" is going to get a lot longer than it is currently. I've just begun to write on it. So I think it will be less and less appropriate to merge it into the main LTP article. [[User:Synaptidude|Synaptidude]] 28 June 2005 17:08 (UTC) |
I'd rather not merge it. In reading up on Wikipedia style it seems that it is preferable to keep articles relatively short. The main LTP article is kind of long. What I was attempting here was to split some of the details off into separate articles as the style suggestions suggest. This current article, "LTP induction" is going to get a lot longer than it is currently. I've just begun to write on it. So I think it will be less and less appropriate to merge it into the main LTP article. [[User:Synaptidude|Synaptidude]] 28 June 2005 17:08 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 11:57, 4 February 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Merge with long-term potentiation
[edit]I'd rather not merge it. In reading up on Wikipedia style it seems that it is preferable to keep articles relatively short. The main LTP article is kind of long. What I was attempting here was to split some of the details off into separate articles as the style suggestions suggest. This current article, "LTP induction" is going to get a lot longer than it is currently. I've just begun to write on it. So I think it will be less and less appropriate to merge it into the main LTP article. Synaptidude 28 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)
- Agreed; it shouldn't be merged. --David Iberri (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
NMDA?
[edit]Why no mention of NMDA receptors.... only AMPA.....? Puzzling.
Because
[edit]I've not finished writing it yet.
Synaptidude 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)
Calcium
[edit]Because of its importance for signal transduction in LTP, I think a more complete description on the role of calcium in LTP induction should be written here...
SchwarzeSchlange 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
All types of LTP induction?
[edit]The article starts off with "induction of NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP)" and the article deals mainly with NMDA dependant LTP. Could we maybe subhead different induction protocols? There's mention of tetanic stimulation but there are others such as thetaburst stimulation, PPF etc which could be added to different subheadings as they are all different types of LTP induction. And then chemical LTP induction for mGluR mediated LTP etc... I notice this page isn't updated too often so i'll keep an eye out for feedback but maybe add some pieces/sandbox some subheadings over the next few months and see how it goes. TeaStew (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Reference(s)
[edit]Only one reference mentioned. Spelling errors in citation in authors name and article title. Cited article also does not really cover the material provided in the wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.50 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)