Talk:Molecular motor

Moved synthetic section
The synthetic motors section was full of juicy information that deserved to have its own article. It makes sense that this should have its own article, because each of the naturally occurring molecular motors also has its own article. All content relating to the construction of synthetic molecular motors should be placed in that article. --chodges 21:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Remark on requirement for molecular motors
I removed the remark on the requirement for biological and synthetic motors for several reasons. First, few motors in biology display 360° rotation (cf. kinesin, myosin, actin). Secondly, unidirectional motion is also not always seen in biological motors (cf. F0F1 ATPase, which runs in both directions). In particular, many biological motors run in both directions because they display reversability. Lastly, the requirement for energy input is also unclear -- because many of these motors act as Brownian ratchets, they extract thermal energy from the bath to rectify their motion in some direction. In a purely semantic debate, this might argue against the requirement for energy "input." --chodges 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

First big edit
I built off the original to include examples, experimental methods, and theoretical models (chodges)

Synthetic molecular motors
thanks for the edit and moving synthetic molecular motors to a separate page. That is much better than outright deleting material. I just hope that biologists and chemists can work on a single article, Wiki should be a multidisciplinary effort. One remark on the three requirements (unidirectional 360° movement with net energy input: that is a goal the synthetic chemists set for themselves. V8rik 21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

merge with Moving plant proteins
I added a merge tag here, just to correspond with the one on that article, but I wonder if maybe it would really be better merged with Moving proteins?Lisamh 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When i saw the title moving proteins my first thought was proteins that move from cell to cell. To be really fussy, don't all proteins move? I would imagine that both these ''moving protein articles should be merged into this molecular motors article. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The term 'moving plant proteins' does not sound right. It suggests that the plants are moving. It might be better to say 'plant motor proteins', since 'motor proteins' is the standard term for proteins like myosin, kinesin and dynein that produce motion. The term 'moving proteins' suggests proteins that are in motion rather than proteins that are acting as motors.


 * "Moving proteins" does not appear to be a scientific term. Movement proteins are e.g. proteins of viral origin that help plant viruses to move systemically from cell to cell. They are not motor proteins, which seems to be what the page moving proteins is talking about. Therefore, I would suggest to move moving proteins to motor proteins. It would need to be expanded to include a summary, sections about the "classical" motor proteins (myosin, kinesin, dynein), and a section about those that are unique to plants (e.g. KCBP). - tameeria 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Motor proteins
Motor proteins currently redirects here, even from a link within this article itself. Since synthetic molecular motors have their own page, I think motor proteins (myosin, kinesin, dynein) should have theirs as well. The content on this page is only a list of examples anyway but says nothing about the mechanism of these proteins moving things around the cell. - tameeria 06:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)