Talk:P53/Archive 1

Phosphotransferase?
Can someone provide a reference that says p53 is a phosphotransferase? "p53 is a DNA-binding protein containing DNA-binding, oligomerization and transcription activation domains." (source) --JWSchmidt 01:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that TP53 is a phosphotransferase? Boris 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the article links to EC 2.7.1.37. The article is in this category. --JWSchmidt 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha. I'll check the history to see who put that. And i'll delete it right now, until they provide info. Boris 15:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I already left this question about p53. --JWSchmidt 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I find that the EC classification is arbitrary at times, or rather fails being specific enough. The article does not actually say p53 is a phosphotransferase; it simply mentions its EC code for the sake of reference. The OMIM article is silent on its phosphotransferase activity, and the long list of relevant publications in PubMed/Gene only refers to p53 activity depending on its own phosphorylation (but does it autophosphorylate and does it matter)... Perhaps the category text in Category:EC 2.7.1 should be changed. JFW | T@lk  21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been wanting to make Category:Transcription factors for a long time. Now I did. I suspect that p53 was called an enzyme by mistake. --JWSchmidt 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If p53 has an EC code, shouldn't that category remain? JFW | T@lk  10:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Blimey, my fault. There is no EC code for p53. I have no idea how this could have happened. JFW | T@lk  10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Original references
As a big fan of original/classical references, I found that p53 was actually discovered almost simultaneously by groups that were led by Levine, Lane and Old. Does everyone agree that all three references should be included here, or (alternatively) is there a good historical review that we could quote that summarises the quest for p53 and developments that lead to its discovery? JFW | T@lk  15:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wolff, i agree but we should not use any names in the article, because it would be unfair to the researchers that have worked on TP53 after that - team (or group) one, two, etc. with link to the reference in the "Reference" section would do just fine. I also think we should add "History of discovery" (or whatever the name is) section more offten - some of the stories about the discoveries are very interesting, and the feeling i get is if i'm reading a criminal story - chasing the bad guy. Boris 15:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the original discovery should be attributed to these three authors. This is the same in many other scientific articles. If Levine, Lane and Old are mentioned then perhaps some other major breakthroughs should also be referenced. Indeed the discoveries are very interesting and often very serindipitous. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it may also contain historical material. JFW | T@lk  16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gene or protein
The article isn't very clear on whether p53 is the name of the gene or a gene product. I thought is was name for both of them, and this page seems to agree. To make it clear on Wikipedia, should we do more than just put the gene in italics? --EnSamulili 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above mentioned opinion and I toke the lead to sort that problem JOK 10:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The name of its gene is TP53. Quite some info from this page should be moved there. --WS 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As the name of the protein. The difference is that the gene is writen in italic - TP53 . There are multisubunit heteromeric proteins that are functional after their full assembly, so apparently they need to have their own names, but this is not the case for TP53 (homotetramer). -- Boris 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Official name: Cellular tumor antigen p53 "It rymes with Jimmy!"?
I ran a search and the only hit I got was this site. Also, "rhyme" is spelled incorrectly. I am removing "It rymes with Jimmy!" from the official name since I can't find any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.104.68.14 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

cancer wiki
I believe that the part about the p53 and the clinical trials should be included in the 'cancer' wiki as it is a form of treatment that may not be far away.

Mike 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stereo pair photo
I created this stereo-pair image of the DNA-binding domain of p53. I think it's a little bit nicer than the picture that is currently on the front page since it allows for true 3D visualization of the structure. Perhaps it can be added to the main page? Mrestko 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I uploaded a new version of the image on the front page showing both surface and secondary structure. I find the cartoon representation informative because only there you can see for example how an alpha helix of a protein fits nicely into the groove of the DNA. Anyway, feel free to add the stereo image to the article if you find it useful. -- Splette :) How's my driving? 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that your image includes a render of the surface I actually think it's more informative than mine. However, I do value stereo-pairs since proteins are actual 3D objects and it's more intuitive to see them in true 3D.  I'll work  on a better stereo-pair after Thanksgiving that doesn't so closely duplicate the main image.  Good work! Mrestko 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It
It should be pointed out that the David Lane mentioned here (History)is *not* the same person as the neo-nazi that the link takes you to!

Removed broken [4] to what used to be this well-known essay:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/89010952/ABSTRACT. Someone should find it again, as it was a good citation. Ixtli 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done by User:Truthflux JFW | T@lk  18:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merge from TP53
I've proposed the merge from TP53. I'm not clear, but from discussion further up the page, it seems that TP53 can refer to both the gene and the protein, which is very confusing (it seems that putting it in italics refers to the gene). Regardless of this, a lot of the information here is duplicated at TP53, so either the distinction between the pages should be much clearer, or a dab page needs to go at TP53 or P53, with a redirect going one way or the other, or pages like TP53 (gene) and TP53 (protein) need to be set up. So two issues here: I've also added a redirect from Talk:TP53 to here, as this is the more developed article with categories and everything (someone needs to add categories to TP53). Carcharoth 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How to ensure all the redirects and dabs avoid confusion (possibly involving renaming of pages)
 * How to distribute the information between the two articles (ie. keep separate or merge).
 * In case it helps, the redirects pointing at p53 are: Protein P53, P53 gene, P53 protein, Tumor suppressor p53, Phosphoprotein p53, Antigen NY-CO-13, Cellular tumor antigen p53, TP53 gene, Tumor suppressor protein p53.
 * There are no redirects for TP53.
 * Further investigation has revealed that there was an earlier redirect at TP53 here, and this was reverted here, with the comment "not everything is found in p53, merge first". Well, that was back in January, and no merge has yet taken place. Anyone agree there should be a merge? Carcharoth 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfectly fine to have an article both for the protein and the gene and I don't see any compelling reason to merge them. I won't object though if other people want to merge them, but please merge all content and don't just delete the content of one of the articles making it a redirect (I did that revert). --WS 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem with having separate articles is that currently there are several "gene" redirects that point at the protein page: P53 gene and TP53 gene. If the gene and protein pages are kept separate, then the redirects need to be corrected. Also, the gene page is pretty poor at the moment. I'll tidy that up. Carcharoth 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied up the pages so the differences are clear. I've also redirected the redirects mentioned above. I'll now remove the merge tags from both articles. Carcharoth 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can give two compelling reasons for having one page rather than two, both of which are illustrated in the case of p53: 1) the two pages will have tremendous overlap; 2) one page will invariably be clearer/better written/more complete/something. A third reason, related to the first reason, is that the gene will invariably be described in terms of the role of the protein. Keeping in mind "one gene several protein variants", I think it is far cleaner and clearer to have a single page, making it clear throughout when you are talking about one or the other (a naming convention here for genes and proteins helps, like upper/lower case, italics/roman--pick one, just be consistent). I would vote for merging them, and I'd vote to do the same for any other gene/protein page pairs. EquationDoc 07:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I change my vote--I say keep genes and proteins separate, but define more clearly what belongs where. EquationDoc 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, given the last post here was several months ago, I vote to merge them. Although I doubt it says as much in the manual, Wikipedia is not a gene database. It makes no sense to me to have one article on the gene and one on the protein - they're two sides of the same thing, at least from the point of view of an encyclopaedia.--Owl 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Having these articles separately causes some confusion (at least for me), because it is not very obvious that the other article exists. If the decision stays not to merge them, ther must be some kind of clear evidence that there is another article on this gene/protein in the first lines; or, some kind of disambig. But I would still prefer them to be merged. --Maxxicum 08:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a merge of the TP53 material into the p53 article, as p53 is the most common term for both the gene and protein "p53 gene" is much more commonly-used than "TP53" Tim Vickers 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having two articles is more confusing, IMHO; having separate article on gene and gene product is hardly standard procedure, is it? Merge into p53. // habj 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The gene (TP53), and the protein (p53), are two entirely distinct objects and warrant distinct entries. The article on TP53 should describe its cloning, chromosomal location, genetic structure (promoter and exonic), transcriptional regulation, splice variations, paralogues and homologues, together perhaps with data concerning polymorphisms and disease related mutations. The article on the protein, p53, would doubtless be the more substantial, dealing with structure and function, including homotetramerisation, DNA bindng, functional modification by phosphorylation, protein interactions (ARF, MDM2, etc), transcriptional targets, and the functional basis for mutant phenotypes. Obviously each article should reference the other as appropriate, but there need be no confusion between them: a fact either relates to the gene, or the protein, and so should be placed in the relevant article. Xarqi 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles should definitely be merged. Preferably to TP53 as that is the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee-approved name. Grouse (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote is also for a merge. As it stands, the TP53 article contains little to no gene-specific information that wouldn't belong in the p53 protein article. The present content from both articles should be combined into a single article. Because people tend to refer to both the protein and gene as p53 in speech (specifying protein or gene when necessary), it would make the articles more reader-friendly to have all the information in a single article. While the gene and protein are distinct entities, I think most readers would prefer that the two be discussed together. As for the name of the combined article, p53 is the more commonly-used name, but TP53 works as well because it is more "official." We'll just have to make sure all the proper redirects get put in.
 * If we decide to keep the two articles separate, there should be a tag at the top of each page telling readers which page (gene or protein) they're on and linking to the other one. I don't know what it's called, but the protein page can have the one that says words to the effect of "This page is about the protein. For the page about the gene, click this link."
 * Given that the TP53 (gene) article currently doesn't have enough gene-specific info (in my opinion) to remain separate from the protein article, another alternative may be to simply merge them now and allow the combined article to grow. If, after some time, the section on gene-specific details (eg. cloning, chromosomal location, genetic structure, splice variations, etc etc) grows to the point where it can stand alone, we can then split off that section into a new TP53 article.
 * 142.103.207.10 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support a merger.  With very few exceptions, the vast majority of other gene/protein pages are kept together.  To split p53 into seperate gene and protein pages is confusing.  Boghog2 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous role
I haven't scanned the whole article, only the relevant passages, but maybe this should be incorporated: "Recent evidence suggests that increased p53 activity can, at least under some circumstances, promote organismal aging."

From: (Second-last sentence in the abstract). 84.197.138.195 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the explanation (adapted from the conclusion): p53 is found to balance the cell between senescence or apoptosis and tumor suppression. However, since killing cells may also mean killing very proliferative cells needed for maintaining the juvenality of an organ, tumor-suppression could also mean ageing. 84.197.138.195 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevent place
I thought this info would be of interest in the article, but couldn't see where to put it or even if it is relevant.. LeeVJ (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Carriers of the Huntington's disease gene have higher levels of the tumor suppressor protein p53 and a better than average immune system to non-carriers.

Copyright violation?
The entire section titled: "Potential therapeutic use" appears to be a cut and paste of Section 7 of this page. Is bioinformatics.org using Wikipedia info (can't find a reference on their page) or is it the other way around?

Pete 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The bioinformatics.org server says that the page you pointed out was last edited on Friday, December 03, 2004 2:34:59 AM, so it looks like it is, in fact, a copyright violation. I'll just go and delete the section. – ClockworkSoul 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should re-write the section, don't just delete it because its copyright violation, then your just throwing away relevent information. (152.78.249.48 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)DT152.78.249.48 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Contradiction
this article seems to contradict itself - this sentence for example: "Most of these mutations destroy the ability of the protein to bind to its target DNA sequences, and thus prevents transcriptional activation of these genes".

Mutations in p53 which cause mutation do indeed stop the protein from binding to the DNA but this does not prevent transcriptional activation, its allows it. How else do you think cancerous cells proliferate?


 * Thing is, my friend, that p53 has elicits antitumoral effects by way of transcribing anti-proliferative genes, (such as p21) and proapoptotic ones.--Tycho (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar pages in userspace
I've found two pages at User:kpzhang and User talk:adrg, created on July 18 and 19 of 2008 and not edited since then, which seem to duplicate the content of this page. I haven't checked to determine if there is any information in those articles that doesn't appear here. Could somebody inspect them, and then deal with them accordingly (probably speedy deletion). Thanks. Mind matrix  14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one was just a copy/paste over a userpage - I've reverted it. Mind  matrix  14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In section under gene: species/chromosome list incomplete, poorly headed and not particularly relevant
I see the phrase "For these mammals, the gene is located on different chromosomes:" followed by a list of a few mammals and chromosome numbers.

The wording seems to imply that the "normal" chromosome for p53 is chromosome 17 (where it is found in humans). The wording suggests that chromosomes can be matched "apples to apples" across a wide range of mammals when in fact this is not the case.

Perhaps the main question here is the relevance of the species/chromosome list.

More interesting is the cross-species thermo-kinetic properties of the p53 protein (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Arginine 248
Arginine 248 seems to be about a single specific amino acid in P53, it's completely unnecessary for it to have a separate page and will never have enough information to get past 2 or 3 sentences. I have proposed that it be merged into this article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Interactions list - group by type?
P53 is a nice, alphabetical list showing at a glance that p53 interacts with many proteins (or genetic loci?).

I feel like it would be more useful to those learning about this topic if the list was structured to group these interaction partners by categorical feature and the nature of their interaction with p53.Johnfravolda (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Alignment Version
I am not familiar with the format of the box which contains the overview information but I think the alignment version needs to specified, especially with GRCh/hg38 starting to be cited. Dgauss (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)