A belated welcome!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Chocolate_chip_cookies.jpg/220px-Chocolate_chip_cookies.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Face-smile.svg/20px-Face-smile.svg.png)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Reba16! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Reba16 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Move request
Hi there! I just moved the page as requested at WP:RMTR, but wanted to let you know you could have probably done that one yourself as you have an "Autoconfirmed users" account now. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I tried. I was able to move a different article a few days ago, but it wouldn't let me move this one. I forget the error message it gave me. Thanks. Reba16 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cinnamon leaf oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caustic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge proposal for Prostaglandin-F synthase
Hi Reba16 You made the proposal to merge Prostaglandin-F synthase and Prostaglandin F synthase, which looks like a no-brainer for Support to me. However, you didn't start a discussion on the Talk Page of either article, which is where people could show their support (or otherwise). Perhaps you would like to do that now? You don't need to wait more than a couple of weeks after that, if there are no objections, before going ahead and doing the merger. Contact me for advice if you are unfamiliar with the process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I've started a discussion. I'll merge the two articles in a few weeks if there is no objection. Reba16 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have now merged the two articles. Reba16 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again Reba16. I see that you have now merged the pages and done a good job of that. Just a couple of minor points. We usually add the template {{R from merge}} to the page that has become the re-direct, so that it is clear to future editors that it already has an extensive page history. (I've done that for you.) Also, we don't normally re-direct Talk pages for the page that was merged — but no harm done in this case as the page was virtually empty. The full instructions are at Help:Merge and are a bit complicated!. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. I will be sure to familiarize myself with the merge instructions before the next time I merge two pages. Reba16 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again Reba16. I see that you have now merged the pages and done a good job of that. Just a couple of minor points. We usually add the template {{R from merge}} to the page that has become the re-direct, so that it is clear to future editors that it already has an extensive page history. (I've done that for you.) Also, we don't normally re-direct Talk pages for the page that was merged — but no harm done in this case as the page was virtually empty. The full instructions are at Help:Merge and are a bit complicated!. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I've now taken a close look at the merged article and (as a chemist, not a molecular biologist) I'm getting very confused, so I hope you can sort out some of the issues I've noticed. These are:
- Why is the reaction in the lede of Prostaglandin F synthase written as if it was an oxidation, not a reduction? It is standard practice to put the starting materials on the left of a chemical equation, and this enzyme converts a ketone to an alcohol, or (if PGH2 to PGF2) breaks an O-O bond. The text later describes how NADPH is the source of reducing power and so logically fits on the left of the equation, not as the product of it. (I know that the IUBMB Enzyme database often gets this wrong!)
- How does Prostaglandin F synthase differ from AKR1C3 for which there is another article, where some of the PDB id's are the same, for example 1RY0?
- Why does the article on Prostaglandin H2 not describe the synthesis of PGF2 as one of the reactions from PGH2? Indeed, the diagram in that article would give the reader the impression that PGF2 is not formed directly but only through PGE2 (which chemically is odd since E2 is more oxidised than either H2 or F2).
- Similarly, why does the article on Prostaglandin D2 not describe the synthesis of PGF2 from it?
It looks to me as though a lot of these articles have been built up over the years without anyone taking an overview. Are you able to do that and work out how to fix inconsistencies like these, or should we be approaching one or more of the Project groups who have expressed an interest? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- These are tough questions. I'm not an enzymologist, but I do have a little bit of experience in this area, so I'll tackle them as best I can:
- Some reactions catalyzed by enzymes are reversible, and the difference between which side is called a reactant and which is called a product is arbitrary (or a matter of convention or perspective) in these cases. Under some biological conditions, the reaction may proceed in one direction and in other conditions it may go the other direction. I suspect that the original article at Prostaglandin-F synthase (where the reaction in the lede was merged from) was created by some automated process and that the content came from a database that was created by some other automated process. And the reason that the reaction was shown as an oxidation rather than the biologically relevant (I think) reduction is merely an artifact of those automated processes. But when the newer article on the same topic, Prostaglandin F synthase, was created it was written by an actual human being who recognized that the reaction written as a reduction makes more sense from the perspective of the biosynthesis of biologically relevant chemical compounds.
- I have no good idea about how Prostaglandin F synthase differs from AKR1C3. The article AKR1C3 seems to conflate information about an enzyme and a gene that encodes for that enzyme. Maybe the two articles Prostaglandin-F synthase and AKR1C3 were intended at some point to be one about the gene and one about the enzyme, but they've now become overlapping? There is certainly some overlap in identifiers and in some content, but there is enough content that is different that it makes me unsure how exactly the topics of the two articles are related.
- The diagram File:Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg confuses me too. As you've noted, it does appear to be inconsistent with the content at Prostaglandin F synthase. I share your concern that the sequence PGH2 --> PGE2 --> PGF2 does not make sense based on the chemical structures of those three compounds.
- I would guess that Prostaglandin D2 does not describe the synthesis of PGF2 from it because the article is just incomplete. This is very typical of Wikipedia, based on my years of reading Wikipedia articles. Niche articles like this tend to be written by people with narrow fields of research who write only about what they know best. You end up with articles that describe one aspect of topic really well without covering some other aspect at all, just because the one researcher who's an expert in that other aspect of the topic doesn't contribute to Wikipedia.
- Sorry I can't be of too much help. Asking for input from WikiProjects is probably the best way forward; but since these articles seem to be written by people who aren't long term Wikipedia editors, you'll probably need some luck to find someone who knows this topic well. Reba16 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Reba16, I think your analysis is spot on. I can tell that a number of articles on enzymes (id at List of enzymes) were created in the early days of Wikipedia and used very stilted language which persists at Prostaglandin F synthase when the lede says "Thus, the two substrates of this enzyme are .... whereas its three products are". I first ran into this when I re-wrote Cobalamin biosynthesis to add a much fuller account and found that most of the enzymes on the pathway had their own articles written just like that (I changed then all!). In my view as a chemist, there should be an article on a given notable chemical (e.g. Vitamin B12) and if the biosynthesis is complex and notable another covering that topic with, as is usually the case yet another on each of the enzymes involved. My bias is to focus on the actual chemical reaction being catalysed (which is what the EC number inks to) so there are sometimes multiple genes that give different proteins all of which function in the same, or very similar, ways. My suggestion now is that an article on, say Prostaglandin F synthase, should focus on the enzyme itself, including how it is arises from the genetics and what reaction it catalyses BUT NOT on the full pathway in which it is just one component. So, as currently written it is on the right lines. Do you have any further comments before I try to compose something for the Project page(s)? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've got a partial explanation of the confusions in the present articles. The diagram they all use is from 2004 or so. Hence it lacks some of the reaction details. It turns out that PGH2 -> PHE2 is known (reaction EC 5.3.99.3) and PGE2 can give PGF2α (reaction 1.1.1.189). However, PGH2 direct to PGF2α is also possible (reaction 1.1.1.188). Likewise, PGH2 -> PGD2 is known (reaction EC 5.3.99.2) and PGD2 can give PGF2α (reaction 1.1.1.188). So the diagram is incomplete rather than wrong. The best place to get all this information in one place is the "MetaCYC database here". Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Reba16, I think your analysis is spot on. I can tell that a number of articles on enzymes (id at List of enzymes) were created in the early days of Wikipedia and used very stilted language which persists at Prostaglandin F synthase when the lede says "Thus, the two substrates of this enzyme are .... whereas its three products are". I first ran into this when I re-wrote Cobalamin biosynthesis to add a much fuller account and found that most of the enzymes on the pathway had their own articles written just like that (I changed then all!). In my view as a chemist, there should be an article on a given notable chemical (e.g. Vitamin B12) and if the biosynthesis is complex and notable another covering that topic with, as is usually the case yet another on each of the enzymes involved. My bias is to focus on the actual chemical reaction being catalysed (which is what the EC number inks to) so there are sometimes multiple genes that give different proteins all of which function in the same, or very similar, ways. My suggestion now is that an article on, say Prostaglandin F synthase, should focus on the enzyme itself, including how it is arises from the genetics and what reaction it catalyses BUT NOT on the full pathway in which it is just one component. So, as currently written it is on the right lines. Do you have any further comments before I try to compose something for the Project page(s)? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)