Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Welcome to the WikiProject Molecular Biology talk page. Please post any comments, suggestions or questions. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

• Please remain civil, be respectful, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. (Start a new topic ).
• Threads older than 90 days are automatically archived.

WikiProject Molecular Biology Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Taskforce archives:

MCB: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Genetics: 1, 2, 3, 4
Computational Biology: 1, 2
Gene Wiki: 1, 2, 3, 4

Biophysics (inactive): 1, 2
Metabolic Pathways (inactive): 1
Cell Signaling (inactive): 1
RNA (inactive): 1

WikiProject Astrobiology

Hi! Anybody willing to join? We need at least 10 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Astrobiology Astropedian

adding new "List of Genomic Assays" article

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I want to create a new article so I'd like to ask some veterans if this is a reasonable approach. It's a long-ish proposal so I'll just link it to my user talk page and the TLDR is at the top: User_talk:Owlang#List_of_Genomic_Assays_(new_article_proposal)

And please let me know if I'm breaking any best-practices that I should be aware of. I dug around many Wikipedia docs but I got a bit lost and just did my best by patterning off what I could find. Owlang (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! It's true that WP docs can be overwhelming! I recommend starting with just the list/article first, then consider categories and templates later on. A list of genomic assay types would potentially make for a reasonable article that aids navigation. You'll want to decide what are the particular inclusion criteria for your list, to help keep it focused. For instance, broadly interpreted, every genetic test under the sun could be considered a specialized type of genomic assay. Are exome assays a kind of genomic assay? Would this be a list of assay types or a list of commercial kits or something else? And so on.

A list of assay types won't be huge at the start, so List of algorithms, with its simple lists of annotated entries, may be a good example to work from. The main thing with lists like this is that each entry should point to an associated target article. If there isn't a target article, make sure that the entry at least has citations to solid reliable sources WP:RS that indicate there could be an article made for the entry. The section Assay#Assay_types_based_on_the_targets_being_measured already has a nice list of assay types. You may want to first consider what a separate list article would contribute beyond that section. If the answer is "not much", you may instead want to simply create a redirect from List of Genomic Assays to that section. If there is a clear difference in your mind, you will want to spell that out in the list article lead section along with the inclusion criteria. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, this is very helpful. Actually that was me that added a bunch of the assays under Assay#Assay_types_based_on_the_targets_being_measured this week because there were only a handful under DNA and RNA and it looked extremely out of date (I didn't check but I suspect it was last updated a decade or two ago when these assays were barely or not invented yet).

Searching WP gave me a massive set of articles as a starting point. Many aren't really well-linked to their relevant topic or technique category pages and some I'm not sure meet the "notability" standards of Wikipedia. I can add these to my personal todo list to address at a later date.

On scope: While you're probably right I should set some bounds to focus the list with some criteria, I think part of the problem with all the current articles is that there is very inconsistent treatment of assay "families" and what rises to the level of "new assay" versus "assay variant" and when they justify the creation of a new article. I feel like even the field itself struggles with this which is part of why I think WP has the potential to be a really helpful resource for structuring/tracking the body of literature on this. I think my bounds should start fairly broad to include any assay or core technique that captures "genome-wide" data (so maybe limit to NGS assays and maybe also microarray approaches which is still pretty expansive) with a very flattened structure. I will also limit myself to articles and mentions already available in WP and skip the creation of new articles for now. Once I have a list, I can look at the average "notability" level of my set and try to match that level when considering the creation of new articles. Whether or not a commercial kit is available can be information that is stored in the main article.

On structure: If I restrict the list to a certain type/group of assay, there isn't going to be strict nesting of the groups (e.g. ChIA-PET is both a chromatin immunoprecipitation-based assay and a conformation-capture assay). In my mind, with everyone inventing new assay names all the time that may or may not be significantly different from their precursors, it would be beneficial to have an index of all assay names with their aliases and the names of their variants, regardless of their placement in the tree of assay "evolution." Each assay will have one link to some article that will give the user the most specific information they are looking for (sometimes a subsection of an article). Presumably every assay article will have links to both their precursors and derivatives and the user can navigate from there for the information they want. This can provide a flexible starting point with a more global view of the article landscape we are working with.

From there, it may be easier to see what natural groupings can be made for more domain or topic-specific groupings and if we do that, I would probably want to be able to double-list these assays across two or even multiple categories (another reason I'm wondering if an infobox template where you can tag a list of keywords for assay types, percursors, and derivatives would be more flexible).

My plan: I have drafted a starting list in my sandbox. I will work on writing up a lead that captures this sentiment. Once I have a full list, I'll think about how it can be reorganized to pattern off the List of algorithms article or if we should even consider making separate subset lists from this full one grouped by various topics (could put these lists as tables in their relevant topic article pages under "Methodologies"/"Techniques" as a couple already do, even if they are incomplete). Owlang (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we need a list of genomic assays. That's far too technical for the average Wikipedia reader and it just contributes to the overwhelming number of redundant and conflicting articles in molecular biology.

We should be devoting our efforts to reducing the number of articles and improving existing articles. That's the most pressing need right now.

Besides, we know from past experience that any article on molecular biology techniques will soon be out-of-date and after a few years nobody will be interested in fixing it.

It's also worth mentioning that the most valuable contribution would be a critical analysis of genomic techniques with a view to judging how we should interpret the results. For example, should all transcription factor binding sites be interpreted as regulatory sites? Should all detectable transcripts be interpreted as identifying a gene? Are all splice variants evidence of alternative splicing? Genome42 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay I do understand that but having already roughly surveyed Wikipedia for articles on genomic assays, I've already found several articles that could be consolidated into articles that cover their broader category of assays. I'm mostly talking about some slightly more obscure assays that haven't really stood the test of time and very brief (one-sentence) articles that could be turned into redirects. I think one of my goals of generating this index was to create a todo list for building better interconnectivity between articles that already exist on WP so if our goal was to consolidate, there is definitely still some potential here (I will treat my article idea as a todo list now).

I think adding critical analysis of genomic techniques would be really fun to write so I can also take this todo list and add to their respective articles. I will proceed cautiously though because I think I still don't have a grasp of the notability standard on the Mol Bio pages so a "critical analysis" may be hard to judge for me at this point. Owlang (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Oligodendrocyte-myelin glycoprotein vs Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein

Hello experts (hopefully!). Just before I put {{distinguish}} hatnotes on the articles, could you please confirm my assumption that Oligodendrocyte-myelin glycoprotein is not the same as Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein. Thanks, and please ping me in any reply. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

New article: Multi-epitope vaccines in Bioinformatics (ISCB competition)

Hello, I am working on an article about Multi Epitope Vaccines in Bioinformatics as part of the ISCB Student Wikipedia Competition Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Computational Biology/15th ISCB Wikipedia competition entries. I started this as a new article, and I was advised that for new topics I should reach out to the Computational Biology taskforce. I would really appreciate your guidance on the best way to proceed from here. Thank you very much for your time and help. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Multi-Epitope_Vaccines Esmaeil Roohparvar Basmenj Roohparvar.me (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Multi Epitope Vaccines in Bioinformatics

Hello, I am working on an article about Multi Epitope Vaccines in Bioinformatics as part of the ISCB Student Wikipedia Competition.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Computational Biology/15th ISCB Wikipedia competition entries

I started this as a new article, and I was advised that for new topics I should reach out to the Computational Biology taskforce.

I would really appreciate your guidance on the best way to proceed from here. Thank you very much for your time and help. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Multi-Epitope_Vaccines

Best Esmaeil Roohparvar Basmenj Roohparvar.me (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Article title

The PPP3CB article says

Serine/threonine-protein phosphatase 2B catalytic subunit beta isoform (PP2BB) is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the PPP3CB gene.

References

If the article mostly talks about PP2BB (the protein produced) rather than PPP3CB (the gene), should it be at this title? I'm not sure what the naming conventions are. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Scope check: expanding Nature Methods for 15th ISCB competition

Hi all,

I'm planning to enter the 15th ISCB Student Wikipedia competition by expanding Nature Methods. My main contribution would be a new "Method of the Year" section summarizing each annual selection (2007–2025), most of which are computational/bioinformatics methods (e.g. spatially resolved transcriptomics, long-read sequencing, protein structure prediction, single-cell genomics).

I hope this falls within the scope of WikiProject Computational Biology and the ISCB competition. Happy to adjust if needed.

Thanks! Marouenbg (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Dikinase

Could someone please add reliable sources to this stub? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Rating

Sooo I made a new article!!! I want to add it to wikiproject molecular biology, i js don't really know what to put for how the article is rated (low, mid, high importance) and it's class. Any help would be appreciated. Neonrareplasma (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to explain where the carnitine shuttle is found (animals, but not bacteria or other eukaryotes). Explain why it is important in animals but not other organisms.

You need to show the complete structure of L-carnitine.

You need to correct the article in order to make it clear that most fatty acids don't need carnitine to enter the mitochondria. The carnitine shuttle is only needed for long-chain fatty acids. Explain why animals need to import LCFA's into the mitochondria from time to time.

Give the alternate names for the three enzymes and explain how they differ in different organisms (e.g. Drosophila). The evolutionary history is important to explain why such a system evolved in animals.

Remember that Wikipedia biochemistry/molecular biology articles are not just about human biochemistry. Try to avoid terms like "diet" that reflect a human-centric bias. It would be interesting to explain whether L-carnitine is required in food in various animals or whether they can make enough of it themselves. Genome42 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay so I've made most of the changes. I can't find much information about the shuttle's enzymes in different organism but I think that that more belongs on the enzyme's pages rather than here. I think i've explained the evolutionary history well, and it's mechanism is more or less the same in eukaryotes. Please tell me what you think! Neonrareplasma (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Genetic drift

Genetic drift has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Review edits from 117.198.113.109

Can anybody with basic understanding of genetics have a look at those two edits? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_HIJK&diff=1159185182&oldid=1155976753 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_IJK&diff=1159185224&oldid=1116273407 I can not find anything in the source that supports this edit. But I really do not have the background knowledge to understand that paper. I do not think this is vandalism but more a copy/paste or grammar error or something like that. --Fabiwanne (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Oxidative phosphorylation at FAR

I have nominated Oxidative phosphorylation for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop creating unnecessary problems. The introduction to the Oxidative phosphorylation article contains standard biochemistry information that can be found in any good biochemistry textbook. There's a citation to one of those textbooks (Voet & Voet) but even that's not necessary. Genome42 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Lipotropic

Please add reliable sources where tagged. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You are an experienced Wikipedia editor and a biology teacher. Add them yourself if you think they are really necessary. (They aren't.) Genome42 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is quite marginal, but I am also concerned about the viability of the topic overall. The recent literature (since ~1990) appears limited and sporadic, and I am cautious about its quality. This might be a WP:TNT in my opinion. Dbsseven (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Following up. I've nominated it for deletion under WP:TNT.Dbsseven (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request: review COI proposal for Calreticulin History section

I have filed a COI edit request on the Talk:Calreticulin page proposing a new “History and discovery” section summarizing early liver/calregulin work and later consolidation under calreticulin, based mainly on a 2024 review (Okura et al., Biomolecules 14:866).

COI: I am David M. Waisman, an author on several of the primary papers and on the 2024 review. I would appreciate an uninvolved editor with molecular/cell biology expertise reviewing the request and, if appropriate, implementing the changes.

The COI request is here: Talk:Calreticulin#Proposed_History_and_discovery_section (adjust the anchor to match the actual section title on the Calreticulin Talk page). Dmwaisman (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Make category Ion channels a subcategory of Membrane channels

I proposed to to make Category:Ion channels a sub-category of Category:Membrane channels. Kindly, share your opinion at Category talk:Ion channels#Make this category a subcategory of Membrane channels.

Ion Soggo (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

What's the purpose of having categories and subcategories? I've been editing Wikipedia for twenty years and I've never used them. Sounds like a "make work" project to me.

There are far more important things to do. Genome42 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Genome42: I totally agree there are more important things to improve in the Wikipedia articles. Still, categories seem very useful to me. They help me find related articles, and they bring logical order and hierarchy to the body of knowledge. WP:CATEGORY explains this much better than I could. Since the categories are there, I believe it is good to maintain their hierarchical structure as intended in WP:SUBCAT. Best wishes. Ion Soggo (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to find the categories on various pages and check out the lists in several categories and subcategories.

Looks completely useless to me. Genome42 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Collapsing orthologs

Does anyone have any opinion on Module talk:Infobox gene § Edit request 11 June 2026? If so, please comment there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Review request for Draft:Huang Shi

Hello, I have significantly improved the draft for the geneticist Huang Shi with independent secondary sources. Could a reviewer from this project please take a quick look? Draft:Huang Shi Claudia Ulrich (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Make category Ionotropic receptors a subcategory of Ion channels

I proposed to to make Category:Ionotropic receptors a subcategory of Category:Ion channels. Kindly, share your opinion at Category talk:Ionotropic receptors#Make this category a subcategory of Ion channels.

Ion Soggo (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Biochemistry § CHNOPS and related redirects. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)