Talk:P300-CBP coactivator family

Hedgehog33 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger
Regarding the proposed merger of EP300 into P300/CBP, as the the two proteins P300 and EP300 are identical, I support the merger. In addition, since the P300/CBP page is essentially a superset of the of the information contained in the EP300 page, I suggest that we replace the EP300 page with a redirect to P300/CBP. Boghog2 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not support the merger. I agree that P300 and EP300 are identical, but the P300/CBP article deals with common features of two distinct proteins, EP300 and CREBBP (also called CBP).  I'd suggest leaving all three articles, but put the majority of the gene-specific information on the individual gene pages. AndrewGNF 03:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now changed my mind and support keeping all three pages. Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

De-merging and renaming

 * De-merging: As AndrewGNF pointed out above, CPB (CREBBP) and p300 (EP300) are two related but distinct proteins each encoded by a different gene. Therefore a separate article for each is justified. In addition, there is frequent reference in the literature to the p300/CBP protein family which was the reason why this article was created.  I have therefore restored and expanded the CREBBP article and moved the CREBBP PBB template from this article back to the CREBBP article. This article which is about the protein family contains the more compact protein templates while the gene/protein specific articles contain the more complete PBB  templates.


 * Renaming: The entry is somewhat inappropriately named since neither CBP nor p300 is a transcription factor (neither directly bind to DNA and hence by definition are not transcription factors). These proteins are more properly classified as coactivators. Therefore I have renamed this article as p300-CBP coactivator family to more accurately reflect the subject matter of this article.    Boghog2 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)