Talk:Huntingtin

Untitled
Some text in this article was originally taken from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=hd (public domain)

Page Move
Huntingtin is the official name for the gene and there was some confusion, as the previous entry for Huntingtin content referred to the protein ( also referred to as huntingtin cnfusingly ), I have moved this protein article to huntingtin protein, now need to move hd(gene) to huntingtin but can't as there is history...Leevanjackson (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the page has now been moved Leevanjackson (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
In my opinion, since the subject matter of genes and their corresponding proteins are so closely interrelated, these two pages should be merged. Boghog2 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had it in my head - but have to check that various wikiprojects wanted to keep proteins and genes seperate, only other objection is if either of the articles gets expanded in the future this may call for a split back again, other than that the gene research is relatively stable compared to the protein and it sometimes helps to keep them seperate. LeeVJ (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the merge. I think it's pretty rare that we'll want to keep genes and their corresponding proteins separate...  AndrewGNF (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked into the convention, but I think it would make more sense to include proteins directly coded fby a gene in the gene article, would read better. LeeVJ (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, the two articles would be more meaningful 'merged', so if there is a convention ( which I haven't found) then it shouldn't apply here. L&there4;V 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I feel more close to the merge option, although I am not completely sure... There is always time to divide it into two again when there is enough content.Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll action the merge as time permits unless I'm beaten to it. L&there4;V 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merged completed, but further cleanup is needed. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers ! Have cleared up any related wikilinks and double redirects. L&there4;V 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah and I see you meant a few other cleanups - have merged the interactions. L&there4;V 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Role of nuclear inclusions in disease
In the article, it is stated that inclusions were once thought to be part of disease pathology, but is no longer. This is not true, as there is still a discussion whether the inclusions are beneficial, malignant or neutral. Certainly, the soluble fragments are toxic, but the role of the inclusions themselves have not been elucidated. I recommend that that part of the article is altered to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpuellodiablo (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Role has transcription factor
It is stated that "It has been experimentally demonstrated that Huntingtin acts as a transcription factor in upregulating the expression of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF)[6]."

This highly inacurate based on the cited article. The experiments provided evidence that Htt modulates BDNF expression at the transcritpion level but suggesting that it is a transcription factor is a leap of faith. Unless other, definitive answer (ChIP with Htt for instance) is providade, the claim above should be altered to "It has been experimentally demonstrated that Huntingtin upregulates the expression of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) at the transcription level. Wheter it is due to direct action on the genes remains to be demonstrated", or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krespim (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I have modified the text according to your suggestion.  There are more recently papers that discuss the effect of Huntingtin on BDNF expression, but as far as I can tell, the mechanism still has not been worked out.  Boghog (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First Image
I would like to suggest we make some changes for the first image to better focus on the structure of the Huntingtin protein itself. First, we can easily remove the Maltose Binding Protein (MBP) from the structure and render the Huntingtin protein on its own. This would make a less-busy image that would more clearly show the protein of interest. Second, the caption is not completely accurate regarding the role of MBP in the structure. MBP is used as much to aid in purification of the protein as it is for crystallography; there are many examples of this in RCSB, many of which cleaved MBP off prior to x-ray work. MBP actually has pretty minimal value in crystallography - there are many other techniques that are more valuable for working with the crystal structure than using the very large (~42 kDa) MBP tag. 74.79.62.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Huntingtin. 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/20090327130709/http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/causes/huntprot/p1.html to http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/causes/huntprot/p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19980211231514/http://bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il/cards-bin/carddisp?HD to http://bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il/cards-bin/carddisp?HD

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) 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Etymology section?
Can anyone do an explanation for the little difference in spelling between the chorea and the protein/gene? Neither etymonline nor my copy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary says. Thanks. Frans Fowler (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I came here to say just this. Having a seemingly peculiar name but not once mentioning it seems like the elephant in the room.
 * I believe the -tin suffix may appear due to similarities to actin; anchoring the cytoskeleton and transporting things etc. I don't have a source for this though. Perhaps the original 1993 (?) publication of its discovery would shed light on this. Dan Pope (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Mitochondrial dysfunction
I'm not sure why the defects in mitochondria get their own set-off section - should probably just be another paragraph under "Function". Sgtbilko99 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)