Talk:Cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide

Structures/sequences
Request for : Sequence/Structure of some examples eg LL-37/hCAP-18 Rod57 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * especially the conserved and variable domains. - Rod57 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Identification of CRAMP, a Cathelin-related Antimicrobial Peptide Expressed in the Embryonic and Adult Mouse gives
 * FALL-39 as FALLGDFFRKSKEKIGKEFKRIVQRIKDFLRNLVPRTES but the PR-39 sequence doesnt seem to have much in common. - Rod57 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Max 25D
Can anyone find a study that says how high 25D levels can get before cathelidicin levels are reduced, indicating that the vitamin d receptor has been blocked? T. Marshall suggests that this should happen via molecular modeling, but I can't find an in-vivo research paper to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because there is no support for his protocol. He is a fraud and there actually is no clinical evidence supporting his methods. Most people in the medical world, consider him a quack, though he and his followers often portray him differently. 70.184.145.25 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (I'm re-signing this because I was not logged in. Sorry in advance if this is not how you are supposed to do it). Judderwocky (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, that while I might agree with you, it is not our place to stand in judgment over literature appearing in reputable peer-reviewed venues. And in the case of TG Marshall, his team are trying their darnedest to create a scientific context to support their therapy (e.g., see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576059 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278764; http://autoimmunityresearch.org/preprints/2013-Lindseth-ImmunologicResearch.pdf). Hence, I support appearance of a statement that the Marshall perspective exists, along with any substantial countering arguments that have cited the perspective without support.


 * Finally, I would note that while I support neither the therapy, nor its theoretical underpinnings, [ i ] areas of persistent medical puzzlement are not without associated cases of clear shifts in paradigms for treatment and understanding of pathology (e.g., recall peptic ulcer before H. pylori), [ ii ] there is no reason, a priori, to dismiss either the notion that mixed populations of pathogens contribute to chronic debilitating conditions (given the infancy of our understanding of the pathogenic metabiome), or the notion that chronic, debilitating conditions might find their eventual explanation in a complex interplay of pathogenic and immunologic interactions. Indeed, history as well supports the conclusion that an unflinchingly certain medical establishment is "getting it wrong" as it does that alternative medical treatments from committed individuals outside the mainstream are nothing more than quackery. Take care in suggesting an unclothed emperor, in a room that has no light.  LeProf  50.179.245.225 (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

TY, and… Primary literature citation moved to Talk, as insufficient for statement claim
This is a very good start for an important comprehensive article, esp. in the literature research gathered to support an eventual highest-quality description of a protein structural motif relevant to molecular medicine in ID. Thank you for effort to date.

Business: The following earlier appearing citation has been moved here to Talk, because it is a narrow, primary literature source (focusing on a cathelicidin role in a model infection of the skin and skin structure/ISSS), and as such it is insufficient to support the very broad claim being made by a critical lede statement (see quoted sentence below). If the following redacted Nature citation makes such a broad statement, the citation or citations supporting it in the Nature article should appear here (rather than the focused Nature article itself). Better, secondary sources (reviews) of this area, arguing for a preponderance of scientific evidence in support of the stated broad role should appear instead of the following narrow reference (high quality though it is).


 * "Cathelicidins serve a critical role in mammalian innate immune defense against invasive bacterial infection."


 * name="pmid11719807">
 * [opening and closing bracket-ref-bracket syntax removed]

Note, some of the necessary review references may already be present in the article, so the editing to replace the "citation needed" tag may be very fast--for the earlier contributing editor or others that know this field well. However, if specific review literature examples cannot be identified that make this broad claim with authority, the statement appearing in the lede, quoted here, should be weakened to follow the literature cited.

Finally, subject matter specialists should review and update the article at their convenience (as this is a rapidly developing area of science); at the point that such is done, the primary literature in the References in the Further reading at end should be markedly winnowed down. As an encyclopedia, rather than a review, the role of Wikipedia editing in the sciences is not comprehensive presentation, but selecting the critical secondary sources (when at all possible) to present the preponderance of scientific opinion on a subject, or at least, to present an authoritative reflection of the scope of sound opinion (rather than all detail and all perspectives). LeProf  50.179.245.225 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)