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)


 * AMPK (AMP activated protein kinase) and PKA (cAMP-dependent protein kinase) are two fairly different proteins that actually have opposite effects in terms of glucose regulation. AMPK is thought to be involved in lowering glucose levels, and is one of the proposed reasons why metformin is able to lower a patient's blood sugar (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC209533/).  PKA on the other hand is a active in numerous pathways in biology, and is a principal factor in the actions of Glucagon in raising a person's blood sugar (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14988413) June 24, 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kthill (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 June 2011 (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)
 * In Style above, someone wrote "it is copied (plagiarized?) from here http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2227.pdf" - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2013 (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)

AMPK Activation
Results from Suter (2006) and Sanders (2007)(doi 10.1074/jbc.M606357200 and doi 10.1042/BJ20061520 respectively) show that LBK1 phosphorylates Thr172 before AMP binding and that AMP binding causes a conformational change that protects Thr172 from dephosphorylation. This is contrary to what is stated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.102.90 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WOW....this is really quite helpful
A thousand thanks to the folks that drew the distinction between AMPK and cAMPK! It's something I didn't know that I didn't know! Now I have to go back and untangle my notes! This is a very nicely written article...even if it is based on someone's thesis; did they give permission? doctorwolfie (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved in the mechansims of Alzheimers disease
No mention of the long known role in Alzheimers disease. Now the upstream kinase in neurons is identified, see Team Unravels Central Mystery of Alzheimer's based on The CAMKK2-AMPK Kinase Pathway Mediates the Synaptotoxic Effects of Aβ Oligomers through Tau Phosphorylation. - Rod57 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

new papers
The new structure of the full-length AMPK with its activator was published in - Nature Communications 2013;4:3017. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4017.

Structural basis of AMPK regulation by small molecule activators.

--BXIAO (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting us to this relevant paper. I note that this is an open access paper with a CC-BY licence, so text and figures can be copied from the paper, so long the authors are attributed. I will upload the paper's figures to Wikimedia Commons from where they can be included in this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As promised, I've uploaded some of the structural images from the paper, for use in this (and other?) Wikipedia articles. See the file pages on Commons for descriptions. There are many more images in the paper, but I'm not qualified to determine which are relevant to the article.

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

another AMPK structure
Structure 2014 Aug 5;22(8):1161-72. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2014.06.009. Epub 2014 Jul 24.

Structural basis for AMPK activation: natural and synthetic ligands regulate kinase activity from opposite poles by different molecular mechanisms

--BXIAO (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not open access, but looks like a highly relevant and especially recent source. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not open access, but looks like a highly relevant and especially recent source. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thyroid hormone section has a wrong ref
Thyroid hormone section has a wrong ref, did it belong somewhere else?

I think whoever wrote this had the following in mind: Branvold DJ, Allred DR, Beckstead DJ, Kim HJ, Fillmore N, Condon BM, Brown JD, Sudweeks SN, Thomson DM, Winder WW. "Thyroid hormone effects on LKB1, MO25, phospho-AMPK, phospho-CREB, and PGC-1alpha in rat muscle". J Appl Physiol (1985). 2008 Oct;105(4):1218-27. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00997.2007. Epub 2008 Jul 31. PMID: 18669938. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18669938

I'd replace it, but I wonder where the existing one belonged.--Bstard12 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

ndash
adenosine monophosphate-activated sure looks like it ought to be an ndash, but sometimes particular fields differ from standard linguistics (e.g. Canadian political districts), so I'll leave it for the next person. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)