Talk:AMP-activated protein kinase

Style

The article is written in the format and tone of a formal scientific literature review. In fact I surmise that it was copied & pasted from some grad student's thesis/dissertation. While nice and sophisticated, this is hardly consistent with the Wikipedia style guide. 208.58.197.210 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, it is copied (plagiarized?) from here http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2227.pdf

a question about resveratrol and AMPK

I have heard some reports suggest that resveratrol is an AMP protein kinase modulator? Some sources suggest that this is an important effect mediating some of resveratrol's protective effects. Does anyone know anything about this? DFW HMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.129.233 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with PRKAR2A

I recently made an article on the PRKAR2A gene using content from ProteinBoxBot. I'm trying to add wikilinks and the article makes reference to "cAMP-dependent protein kinase (AMPK)." However, I find articles on Wikipedia for both AMPK and cAMP-dependent protein kinase. I know next to nothing about this field of biology and would be very appreciative if someone who knows better and I could sort this all out. Forluvoft (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Forluvoft. I see your probelm, there are two well developed articles on the same family of kinases. I think these two articles need to be merged together. K.murphy (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem converting reference style

I started changing the format of the references cited in this article a few days ago. As I've worked through the article I've noticed a number of inconsistencies which cause me concern. In the final paragraph of the AMPK activation section, Richter et al is cited as reference 27, ref 27 is actually corton et al. In the first paragraph of the AMPK and glucose transport section, Goodyear et al is cited as reference 33, ref 33 is actually Ojuka et al. In the third paragraph, again in the AMPK and glucose transport section, the paragraph talks about a 2005 study and cites reference 42. Ref 42 was published in 1997!!! As the reference list isnt consistent with the text clearly on these three occasions, it makes me wonder if all the other references are not muddled or have somehow become out of sync with the text as the article has evolved. I've decided theres no point continuing to re-format the references while I have concerns that many/all of the refernces are cited in the wrong places. I'm going to revert all my changes, if this issue gets resolved it will be easy to revert back again. K.murphy (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I also decided to reformat the references and in the middle realized that almost none of the references fit to text. It seems that large portions of the text where taken from some other text (e.g. "decreased in red quadriceps (RQ) with training (3 – see Fig.1).", there is no Fig. 1 in the article). I decided to leave the changes, it is easier to move the references within the article than finding all references again. Does anyone know who wrote most of the article? Panoramix303 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

General question

In the opening paragraph what exactly does "conserved from yeast to humans" mean?--TEAKAY-C II R (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a common expression in biology meaning that the structure didn't change much during evolution. This is usually meant to emphasize the importance of the protein. Hope it helpss, Panoramix303 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)