Talk:FOSB

Induction in D1/D2 MSNs by stimulus and ventral/dorsal striatal region
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3834048/table/T1/  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ventral MSNs - mesolimbic pathway
 * Dorsal MSNs - nigrostriatal pathway

Review
G9a  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 21:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Antidepressant ∆FosB review

 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 15:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed transcluded
, do you know how to collapse the table when it is transcluded? Sizeofint (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Role in addiction
Is this paragraph linguistically correct? Especially the phrase "like drugs of abuse". "ΔFosB also plays an important role in regulating behavioral responses to natural rewards, such as palatable food, sex, and exercise.[6][12] Natural rewards, like drugs of abuse, induce gene expression of ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens, and chronic acquisition of these rewards can result in a similar pathological addictive state through ΔFosB overexpression.[6][7][12] Consequently, ΔFosB is the key mechanism involved in addictions to natural rewards (i.e., behavioral addictions) as well;[6][7][12] in particular, ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens is critical for the reinforcing effects of sexual reward.[12]" --Igenno (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Drugs of abuse" is a very vague term, but it is a term that is consistently used in some of these sources as a substitute for the term "addictive drugs". I probably wouldn't have used it in the article if not for the sources that were cited.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence is the word "like," which in this construction in American English usually means "such as." This presents "drugs of abuse" as an example of natural rewards. The reader has to translate to the other meaning of like which is "similar to." To make the sentence clearer just use "similar to." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flkevin (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Table template and onlyinclude tags (originally called FOSB table)
To clarify what I meant in the edit summary, if you were to go to a page revision which used the article transclusion, like special:permalink/727552968, without the onlyinclude tags in the current page, the whole article would be transcluded in that page revision instead of the table itself.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and why does that matter. According to Help:Page history:


 * (emphasis mine). Why is it worth keeping transclusion markup in untranscluded pages just for the sake of old revisions? To support my point, Persondata, which was once used on more than one million pages and probably tens of millions of old revisions, was deleted less than a month ago. P p p er y  (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I care because it fucks up old page revisions to articles which I actively edit, making it a pain in the ass when I need to look through a old revision. Let me pose the same question to you: why do you care if an onlyinclude tag is in an article?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, having an onlyinclude tag in an article is a problem because, as I stated in the previous discussion at Talk:Amphetamine, including them on articles produces counterintuitive transclusion results. (I, actually, was confused when I first encountered onlyinclude tags and selective transclusion - it was on Categories for discussion/Speedy transcluding Criteria for speedy deletion). Really, though it is just needless noise that goes against my belief that articles and templates should be kept seperate. P p p er y  (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am moving this discussion to Talk:FOSB as it is more about the article than about me. P p p er y  (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by produces counterintuitive transclusion results? I generally agree that transclusion should occur from the template space and not article space, but there are times when it really is much simpler to transclude from 1 article to another. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be needlessly decentralized and much more complicated to transclude in all the sections currently in amphetamine to amphetamine and the transcluded articles from templates for those sections as opposed to transcluding from that article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What I mean by produces counterintuitive transclusion results is that it seems counterintuitive for someone (who doesn't know about the onlyinclude tags) types, the fact that only some table (which is a tiny part of the article) is transcluded would be very confusing. (This actually happened to me, although the onlyinclude-using page was Criteria for speedy deletion). I agree that it would needlessly decentralized to move the transcluded parts of Amphetamine to template space, which is why I (attempted to) convert it to labeled section transclusion rather than splitting off to a template. P p p er y (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Also, it is not nice to use swear words (It fucks up old revisions) P p p er y  (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The onlyinclude tags that are currently in the article only serve to fix historical page revisions - they're not there to transclude the table by transcluding from this article. While it is possible to do this with the onlyinclude tags being present, it'd be needlessly complicated for someone to figure out where the table actually is located if this article is transcluded instead since it's like transcluding from a redirect which has other content on the page. I don't intend to transclude from this page so there shouldn't be an issue with   occurring in any articles in the future; I merely want to fix historical page revisions with the onlyinclude tags.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in FOSB
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of FOSB's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cellular basis": From NF-κB:  From Methylphenidate:  <li>From Striatum: </li> <li>From Opioid use disorder: </li> <li>From Ethanol: </li> <li>From Alternative splicing: </li> <li>From Disease theory of alcoholism: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

State IEG instead of gene in the intro sentence?
given that it's a more precise statement, wouldn't it be better to refer to FOSB as an IEG instead of a gene in the first lead sentence? I.e., writing something like "... is a protein that, in humans, is encoded by the immediate early gene FOSB" instead of "... is a protein that, in humans, is encoded by the FOSB gene". I normally would just be bold and change this without discussion, but I don't have a sufficient background knowledge of genetics to know whether or not this might be an incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise incorrect description. Or more simply, I don't know what I don't know about genetics.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't know much about alternative splicing so I'm not sure if my understanding of the term "truncated splice variant" is correct: does this mean that the overall amino acid sequence of the truncated protein is missing a sub-sequence which is present in the full-length protein? Assuming that's right, could a truncated protein be missing a sub-sequence at the C-terminus end, N-terminus end, and/or the interior of the full-length protein's amino acid sequence, or only at the C-terminus and/or N-terminus ends?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Seppi. An IEG (immediate early gene) describes when the gene is expressed and is a rather specialized topic. I also think it is important to keep the lead sentence dead simple and there should be nothing in the lead that is not discussed in more detail in the body of the article. This type of detail would be more appropriate in a new section on regulation/mechanism. There are  different type of alternative splicing, involving either truncation and/or incorporation of alternative stretches of amino acid residues.  Truncation can in principle occur anywhere (N-terminus, C-terminus, or in the interior). Boghog (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of human FOSB, there are 10 splice variants that have been detected which involve truncation in either the N-terminus and/or one or more of four different interior sites. Boghog (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose I'll just go ahead and mention it in the body but not the lead then.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)