Talk:Cadherin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maymi Myint.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
From the article "Cadherins within one class will only bind to themselves." I think this is untrue in general. Please see Prakasam et al. (2005) PNAS (doi:10.1073/pnas.0606701103). The authors present bead aggregation and force displacement measurements on C-, E-, and N- cadherin from Xenopus, canine, and chicken, respectively. The different forms bind to each other and heterophillic adhesion strength is not significantly different from homophillic adhesion strength.

I concur with the above concerns, and removed/replaced the offending statement with one with substantially more detail and a few citations.Rritterson (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Abdulaziz19992.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cancer
Should there be something on E-cadherin's significance in breast cancer? See Tan DSP et al. (1999). The biological and prognostic significance of cell polarity and E-cadherin in grade I infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. Journal of Pathology, 189(1), 20-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Tags
I added the refimprove and expand tags to the article. Specifically, the article has several papers listed as further reader, but no inline citations, despite the fact there are several unreferenced statements in the article. In addition, several details about cadherin are currently missing, including discussion on the calcium binding requirements, the cadherin lateral and adhesion interfaces as debated between biochemical assays and x-ray crystallography, discussion of cadherin as a signaling molecule (e.g. activation of Rac and PI3-K), as well as the interplay between cell polarity, mature cell-cell contacts and cadherin as architect. It would be helpful to have an expert on the topic expand where he/she can, but in the interim I will attempt to add what I can. Rritterson (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the list of further reading is a fairly hodgepodge collection of highly specialized papers. Some citations to basic review on the topic might be more appropriate. Rritterson (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Popularized summary section
These biological articles are fascinating, but way to technical for me. Would it be possible to have a popularized section and bring it down to a laymen's level? If not, is there a good popularized book that might be placed into the "Further reading" section? I've always wondered how cells group together and know where to locate themselves in the body. Pknkly (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A layman's article may be useful, but the subject is complex, and not even Biologists at the forefront understand how cells are able to recognize each other, though cadherin may play a part. (There are entire subfields of biology dedicated to the topic) A separate article on the subject, or perhaps a subheading under something like embryogenesis, that cites this article may be more appropriate. This article on cadherin is so incomplete from a basic science standpoint that my opinion is to expand the science and general factual information first, before trying to reduce the complexity. In the meantime, I will try to find a good non-technical text and add it in the 'further reading' section. Rritterson (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT a molecular biologist but I love the detail in this article. I teach anatomy & physiology and this has greatly expanded my understanding of cell-to-cell junctions. I may never share this detail, but my explanations to my classes will be based on my greater understanding. I can understand the need for less detail in many articles, but I think that anyone searching on cadherins will, as I do, appreciate the level of detail. It is exactly the level of detail that causes me to turn to Wikipedia and to support it annually.Professor Leakey (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Help help
I generally would agree with Rritterson within my own area of expertise but -- I usually pride myself on being able to parse just about anything and was aghast to find I could make neither head nor tail of this article. (I got here as I was googling my way through the records relating to a recent hospital visit.)

Then, just as I was leaving in despair, I found something relating to my question: "used by pathologists to diagnose different kinds of breast cancer. When compared with invasive duct carcinoma, E-cadherin expression is markedly reduced or absent in the great majority of invasive lobular carcinomas when studied by immunohistochemistry.[7]" It's pretty buried and though I can see that it is probably more important to explain what it is than to go into its uses, and that this is probably where the article should start, wow. Is it a protein? hormone? Animal, vegetable or mineral?

As my contribution to the article I will ask if the sentence cited above cannot without loss of meaning be reworded as: "Pathologists can distinguish invasive duct carcinoma from invasive lobular carcinomas using E-cadherin expression; in lobular carcinomas it's absent or much lower than in invasive duct carcinomas.[7]" If so I believe my version is clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.169.9 (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just took another look and actually, the first paragraph does say it's a protein. I just boggled at all the technical terminology. I don't know what a class-1 transmembrane protein is. I am definitely not the person to re-write this article, but I'd like to suggest a clarification here on the talk page. I still don't completely understand the topic but the proposed change improves readability by using shorter, simpler sentences. If it introduces an error perhaps the subject matter experts can correct it and then make the change if everyone agrees with the result.

The first paragraph currently says: Cadherins (named for "calcium-dependent adhesion") are a class of type-1 transmembrane proteins. They play important roles in cell adhesion, ensuring that cells within tissues are bound together. They are dependent on calcium (Ca2+) ions to function, hence their name.

How about: Cadherin proteins help bind together the cells within tissues. They depend on calcium ions (Ca2+) and get their name from this trait - calcium-dependent adhesion. They are a class of type-1 transmembrane proteins.

Undone edits
I removed a recent addition, whereby an author removed a paragraph of text in the article and added a citation to his own work.(Presumed from username similarity to the author of the cited article) In general, I suspect wikipedia frowns upon self-promotion of one's own work, though if I am wrong, someone else may revert my reversion. Also, if the author of the cited review believes it to be important, it might be useful to put a comment on this talk page, so that other, third-party contributors could assess its merits and add a citation to it, if necessary. (Apologies for reverting the edit while not signed in) Rritterson (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I added a citation to a review I recently wrote but I don't remember to have removed a paragraph (if I did this was not my intention). Before you remove a citation I believe you should at least read it (have you?) because I really think it is appropriate. It is actually a review on the entire cadherin superfamily and an update of the highly cited article by Nollet et al (J Mol Biol 2000). So I hope you (or someone else) will add the citation again (or the one by Nollet) for those who want to read more on the cadherin superfamily. If I have some more time I will try to add some more text (if that's ok and it won't be removed again ;-)). Phulpiau, 14 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

I removed the citation not because I felt the cited paper was irrelevant or unimportant (quite the opposite, actually), but that, as primary author, adding it yourself could cause the appearance that the article no longer maintains the impartiality that wikipedia would like to maintain. After a glance over your article (I cannot read it at the moment as I am not at a computer that has journal subscription access), I have added the citation back into the article at the place you had it (but maintained the text that followed). While the molecular evolution of the cadherin superfamily is an important source of information, I wonder if it would also be helpful to include a general review that talks briefly about the functional classification of the different cadherin subtypes. Could you add one as a companion to your citation? Also, any contributions to the article are VERY welcome. As you can see from the article revision history, the majority of contributions recently have merely been adding and subtracting citations, without adding information directly to the article. :-)

The functional classification agrees well with the phylogenetic and evolutionary classification. I have added another review as you suggested. I will try to add new information in the coming days/weeks (and your feedback will be very welcome again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phulpiau (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Autism
Should there be a mention that a genome wide study hints at cadherins being possibly linked with autism?

Wang K et al. (2009). Common genetic variants on 5p14.1 associate with autism spectrum disorders. Nature. 459, 528-533

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7246/full/nature07999.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.100.162 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadherin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925073601/http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/genefamily/cdh.php to http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/genefamily/cdh.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Tumors and cancer in general
Hey, I agree with digging more into breast cancer but cancer in general. I'm going to be working on the relation between cadherins and tumors leading to cancer I just need to find more sources on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyRZ123 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Developmental and Molecular Biology Spring 2024
— Assignment last updated by Liamoconnorfloridatech (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)