User talk:Boghog

Variability in PSA Measurement

I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals.

Been that way a long time

Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read carefully the discussion, there was a developing consensus that we should split the articles with testosterone as the primary topic. Boghog (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure and I support splitting aswell. The next question is how should the article be split and that question has not really been asked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has lead to two different proposals for how the article should be split (primary/secondary topics or through a disambiguation page). So yes, the question has already been asked in two different ways. Also Been that way a long time – it has been that way for the last two months. For the prior 16 years, the lead sentence didn't even mention medication. I was returning the article to the consensus that existed for the previous 16 years. Boghog (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Been bad a long time

Please get consensus first, esp. when coming follow-on to an article, that others have spent hours working on. Fix problems, not appearances. 73.211.138.148 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272 and 73.211.138.148: Fix problems, not plaster articles with attention banners. Also you have still not answered the question I have asked here and here. Why are you adding the identical attention banner to multiple sections? Boghog (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I wanted to post to confirm the validity of your concern that any issue posted to WP:MED tends to attract a group of people who share a bias for medical topics. You have raised concerns about this before. While I like that there is group discussion in medicine, I wish that this perspective could be counterbalanced by other, equally organized groups which collaborate. Right now Wikipedia does not have many groups as organized as the one in medicine, which means that the pro-medicine perspective can encroach on physiology, chemistry, and a range of related topics which ought to be well-presented. One of the unfairnesses of this is that for people like you who have a perspective in biochemistry, wherever you go, lots of medical advocates will appear and the relatively few biochem advocates are overwhelmed by numbers. This is not an ideal situation. I can recognize the lack of balance and think that it is not ideal. I am not sure how to respond to it, but I can acknowledge it and say that I wish for something better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I am just a little frustrated right now and I apologize for blowing up. Thanks for your soothing note. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

For your work on Selective factor 1 back in May. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. It wasn't that much work, but I do appreciate your note. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Boghog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Syncytin-1/HERVW/ERVWe1

Hi,

I was editing the syncytin-1 page and noticed you were also actively editing the page. I just want to clarify something that I noticed we were tending to go back and forth on. The provirus is in the HERV W family. ERVW1 is the provirus at the 7q21 locus (stands for endogenous retrovirus W member 1) and ERVWe1 is the name of the gene that encodes syncytin-1 (endogenous retrovirus W member 1 envelope). Syncytin-1 is the name of the protein (syncytin is a more general word for any syncytin protein, of which there are many - see heidmann papers). I think it's important that we keep the terminology consistent and correct throughout the article.

family: HERVW

provirus: ERVW1

envelope gene: ERVWe1

protein: syncytin-1

I'm going to go ahead and revert to the above described terminology, let me know if you have any other questions.

Jollyclause (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However the approved HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee symbol is ERVW-1, not ERVWe1. Boghog (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The syncytin-1 article is primarily about the human protein and the inherited endogenous retrovirus gene encoding that protein, not the ancestral provirus. Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

so syncytin-1 is one of the human proteins though... the above sentence implies that syncytin-1 is present in other mammalian species and what differentiates it is the gene that encodes it. Which would be innaccurate. The syncytin proteins in other species and even syncytin-2 in humans are not necessarily close relatives of syncytin-1... many use different receptors and have very little sequence identity within the SU. TM is conserved for most class I glycoproteins anyway.Jollyclause (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

According to HomoloGene: 137309, there is at least one ortholog to the human ERVW-1 gene. I am not certain that the dog gene is really an ortholog to the human gene, but that is at least what the Homologene claims. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jollyclause: Also per WP:LEAD, it is important to write the lead in such a way that it can be understood by a wide audience. It is also important to state why the subject is important early in the lead. That is why I moved up the function of the protein in the lead and in the article and move the technical description of the gene down. Boghog (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

coolJollyclause (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: Also, a few more things:

1. For nomenclature I would rely on NCBI and you can see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AF208161 and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/30816 that ERVW1 refers to the provirus at that locus. The "e" refers to the functional envelope protein there, syncytin-1 (as is seen in the literature).

2. I would like to remove The sentence: "Gene knockout of syncytin genes in mice provides evidence for their absolute requirement for placenta development and embryo survival." I have not read the primary article for this but the article cited is Heidmann's review that says syncytin-A is embryonic lethal while syncytin-B is not. This gets too hairy especially since this article is on syncytin-1. There is plenty of literature on the necessity of syncytin-1 in placental/embryonic development (see Holder (2012) Placenta; Mi (2000) Nature, or Benoit Barbeau (2009) JMB) we don't need to start confusing things adding in mouse syncytins. They are actually quite different from the human ones.