Talk:Protein allergy

initial comments
A very start! You might take a look at this article, Enzyme, for a "good" (excellent) example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article is really great! It is very in depth and informative. Great job at keeping it strictly factual. There are a few spelling errors and grammatical issues but I have fixed a few. As far as I can see, this is a great article. Although I am not well versed on this subject, your explanations seem to be satisfactory and are broken down into clear, simple explanations. Great Job!

Wexlax20 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Sara from class! I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing my article (Kaitlin) and for all the comments you left me. I was wondering what sections you think I should condense and what the title of the newly synthesized section should be. Now back to your article... it's great! I thought it was very interesting and very well written. The photos you included were really good and the text boxes provided the information in a clear and easy to understand way. The only thing I think you could touch on is in the acute and late phase response sections. I don't know if this is the case, but if there are symptoms involved with these (such as acute phase = this is when you begin to see hives, etc) that would be helpful to include. The acute phase has so much information it is slightly hard to understand. I have the same issue with my article as well but I think if you can say that is when such and such occurs that will clear it up a bit! All in all, you have a great article and it is clear that you worked very hard on it! Saralo16 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is a very informational article! I did not know anything about what a protein allergy was, but now I definitely have a better understanding! I think the charts and diagrams are very helpful. You may want to try to move the large chart with the different vitamins out of the footnote section, but I think thte chart is very easy to understand, even to someone who does not know about protein allergies. There are a couple of punctuation errors, with commas particularly, but none that greatly affect how the article is read. Great job girls! This is a great article! Donovank (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is quite informative. I liked all of your pictures and charts. They helped a lot with understanding the information. One thing I wanted to mention was the fluidity of the pictures and graphs. The graph at the end of the article would be better if it did not flow into the bottom sections on references and what not. I am not sure if it is a picture or not, but if it is what can be done to keep that graph in the section is to make your own graph with wikipedia. I know there is some sort of option available for that because I did it in my article on the freshman fifteen. Check it out if you need to see how it is done. Other than that, great work.Benro129 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
I also read your article and think you guys have done a great job. I know a bit about proteins and how they work, but certain areas may need some more information so an average reader can follow easier. Your table is great and so are your pictures. Other than a few missing commas I did not see many errors. I was trying to find stuff you could add if you needed to make it longer : I thought maybe how these allergies affect muscle growth and recovery. I was looking at it as an athlete who might have a problem getting enough protein because of allergies.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing the finished article.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(By Tyler Ruby)

I didn't want to change around and mess with your article so I thought that I would just post this and you could decide what you wanted to change. I read your article and I thought that it was very good. There is a lot of good information. It seems like you approached it from all angles and covered mostly everything that has to do with protein allergies. After reading it I did find a couple of spelling errors and one or two things that you might want to add. I'll just put the section title below and the spelling errors that I saw or what I thought you could add if you want.

Protein Structure- I thought that maybe you could say where in the cell the protein is made and what actually makes the protein (Ribosomes).

Protein Folding- I saw in the fouth line of the first paragraph it says "need", but I think it should be "needed". Also in the fourth line of the second paragraph you said "In contrast to hydrophilic side chains there are those of the nonpolar category which are considered to be hydrophilic side chains or water hating". I think it should be hydrophobic instead of hydrophilic. Hydrophobic means water hating whereas hydrophilic means water loving. Then in the rest of that paragraph you should change hydrophilic to hydrophobic. In the third paragraph-second line, you have "fold into is desired three-dimensional shape". I think it should be "its" instead of "is"

This is everything that I saw that you might want to consider. Overall though I thought the article was really good and you guys should be really happy with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.146 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the corrections and help! Clarker1 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Per the request of User:Clarker1, I'm going to begin a peer-review process. As a bit of a heads up, any changes which have to do with Wikipedia's manual of style will just be made (with proper edit summaries, to ensure users are aware of what the changes are). Edits related to content will also be made, but suggestions about improvements will be given here, on the talk page, so that a consensus may be reached. The first order of business, however, is moving the page; Wikipedia naming conventions state that articles should only have the first letter capitalized (except in cases of proper nouns), and so I'll be moving the page to Protein allergy. Jhfortier (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further review of this article has demonstrated a number of issues. Wikipedia has specific articles discussing proteins in depth (such as the article Proteins) and so going into great detail on proteins, their functions, and examples of their actions is not necessary in this article.  It adds length and complexity when a simple link would suffice.  My recommendation is to condense or remove the sections on protein structure, protein folding, how proteins work, and protein control.  The focus of an article on allergies out to be the actual allergies. A quick paragraph about proteins with prodigious use of links would be sufficient.


 * Areas that might be considered for expansion include discussing how exactly a protein allergy occurs (i.e. protein recognition and response by immune cells). This would be a great first or second section, to establish quite early-on how the allergy occurs.  More information and examples of this could be found on the page allergy, which also has some really great tables and images that might be useful for this page.


 * Additionally, there is an excess of detail in certain parts of the article. For example, when discussing the use of epinephrine as a treatment for allergies, a simple link to the article would eliminate the need for an in-depth explanation of the fight-or-flight response.  I understand that this article was originally prepared as a school assignment, and in that case the explanation might have been necessary.  As a stand-alone article, though, this page could make exceptional use of links to avoid lengthy explanation; if people don't know about epinephrine and wish to know more, they could always click on the link.


 * On a positive note, the inline citations are fantastic . Very few articles at this stage of development have such consistently good references, so well done on that.  The information about common allergies is also really excellent, and really relevant to people's interest if they go looking for information on allergies.
 * If you would like any assistance in these edits, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'd be more than happy to help you improve this article, and with a little work I'm sure it could attain Good Article status.  One of the most difficult things about writing your first article is finding the correct balance of explanation and linking.  You want to explain things well enough for a technical article to be readable, but you don't want an excess of irrelevant detail.  Please let me know if I can be of any help at all!!!  Jhfortier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!!Clarker1 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, it was very helpful. I was hoping to keep the sections about protein function, folding, etc. Would you suggest just linking our article to the allergy article? Or would you insert a paragraph about what the allergy article addresses? hersh016 (hersh016) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Hello to you both. As stated above in the peer review, those sections simply weren't relevant to the article, and were making it unnecessarily long.  The best example I can think of is as follows: if you were writing an article about the book Alice in Wonderland, you wouldn't have extensive information on the feeding habits, breeding habits, and life cycle of rabbits.  Although there IS a rabbit in Alice in Wonderland, people don't need to know all that much about rabbits to increase their understanding of Alice in Wonderland.  In the same way, writing about the role of proteins as enzymatic catalysts, motor proteins etc etc. is just not important when you're reading about protein allergies.  Does that make sense?  The other concrete example I can give is found (amusingly enough) in the article Sesame Street.  There are many international versions of the show Sesame Street, and those have their own separate article under International co-productions of Sesame Street; the parts which are directly relevant to the American version of Sesame street are discussed very briefly in the relevant sub-section with just enough detail for the reader to understand how these co-productions came about.


 * That's what I mean when I talk about the balance between explaining and linking. With respect to this article in particular, for example, if you wanted to discuss protein structure, perhaps discuss how different protein structures interact with factors of the host immune system (hydrogen bonding?  structural specialization?) to cause the allergy.  There should be just enough background information to allow the reader to understand the context of the article, without going into unnecessary detail.


 * Another thing you might consider (which I neglected to mention in the peer review) is finding places where you could insert links to your article. You'll notice that at the bottom of many articles, there is a section called "See Also".  In articles such as peanut or allergy you might consider inserting a link to your article in the See Also section, or else somewhere appropriate in the body of an article.  This is the best way to get more readers to find this article and, in turn, more editors with different types of expertise contributing to it.  The best articles on Wikipedia have lots of different contributors from many different perspectives contributing to make sure they're neutral, unbiased, and well-written.
 * I look forward to working with both (or all?) of you on this article, and hopefully we can get it up to GA standard in the next few weeks or months. Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
Although I do not know much about protein or how it works, this article is very informative to readers with in-depth explanations and easy to understand terminology. Some of the most interesting sections for me were about the symptoms, very helpful and much more than the average person would know. I also think the chart of common protein allergies was helpful to illustrate the types of food that cause these allergies and the chart of alternative sources was a great touch!! The work you have done is very good. Keep progressing! Chelcal (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant sections/GA review
Per my recommendations of the peer review, I've decided to be bold and remove all of the irrelevant sections. I also added a section describing the pathophysiology of allergic response, which was taken from the article Allergy. These sections were great, but were not relevant to this article at all, and needed to be removed.

If this article is going to avoid being merged into the general Allergy article, it needs some strong sections to distinguish the notability of protein allergies particularly. As for the GA nomination, I get the feeling this article will be quick-failed; it's simply not ready yet.Jhfortier (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They should have some more time to work on it before you decide to quick fail. The students are committed to getting it into shape.  I left a note on your talk page as well.  I hope you'll give them a chance, with some direction.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article does not meet any of the quick fail criteria. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick fail criteria You are right. It doesn't. I'd like to see some collaboration here, ladies, with Jhfortier and others to get this passed.  Jh, it seems to me that some of the material on protein construction and folding should actually be in there, called the underlying causes of protein allergies.  Obviously some people are allergic and some are not, and it's the genetic thing, how the proteins go together, that makes the allergy. Perhaps not as much as was in there previously, but a bit on how the proteins do not form properly would be appropriate.  The article shouldn't be just about the allergy and its symptoms, but its underlying causes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Auntieruth55, I agree with you in the sense that there is information that this article still needs. Structural information related to the interaction between proteins and IgE cells is the type of structural info that would benefit this article.  I've grabbed the following section from the page Food allergy, which I think has a good level of detail:


 * ... the immune system produces IgE antibodies against protein epitopes on non-pathogenic substances, including dietary components... The IgE molecules are coated onto mast cells, which inhabit the mucosal lining of the digestive tract. Upon ingesting an allergen, the IgE reacts with mast cells and tissue-bound basophils to release a number of chemicals (including histamine) in a process called degranulation.


 * The article from which this was taken needs a great deal of work (perhaps even merging with this article, or else the main allergy article), and I'm not by any means suggesting that it be copy-pasted verbatim. I just think it's a good demonstration of how the structure of the protein interacts with the immune cells is important, rather than just general information on protein folding.  I currently don't have the correct biochemistry reference text to re-write that kind of section, but I'll try to get my hands on one in the next few days and see what user-friendly and relevant stuff I can come up with.  Jhfortier (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The students may have the proper text.  Ladies, do you have the text books you were using? Or are they still at home?   Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are at home. I am not sure that the books would have how a protein reacts in relation to the immune system. I can try to see if there is another text book from one of my friends. I have a few friends in microbiology that may have something in their text about this. Other than that I am not really sure where I would find a viable source. hersh016
 * okay, see what you can find, and work with your partner and Jhf on this. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

jhfortier, we really appreciate all the help! Would you be willing to maybe tell us how we can collaborate both the "new article" you edited and the old article? That way we don't lose the aspects needed for our project and have the improvements from your help! Clarker1 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The beauty of Wikipedia is that everybody is on equal footing when it comes to content: everybody's vote counts, and consensus is reached through (sometimes lengthy) discussions and weighing the merits of different opinions. While I value your deference, we both (all?) need to work together to find something that works really well for this article, and your vote counts just as much as mine! :)


 * I see that you've resurrected the sections I had removed. I think I've made my point repeatedly above with respect to redundancy and irrelevance: in my opinion, at the very least, the sections labelled "How proteins work" and "Protein control" need to be removed.  These sections don't seem to contain any information relevant to the topic of protein allergies.  The protein folding and structure sections should undergo MAJOR overhauls (in my humble opinion) so that they are brief, and give details which are relevant to the protein allergy response (e.g. "certain amino acid residues are commonly found at the active sites where proteins and immune cells interact, causing the allergic reaction" or something to that effect).  If you really really think that the sections I've mentioned above (How Proteins Work and Protein Control) belong in the article, my only suggestion is to get another objective peer review from an experienced editor.


 * I'm not exactly sure what the criteria are for your assignment, so I'm not really able to say how the article can continue to fulfill your assignment's needs. I'm under the impression that your instructor is very Wiki-savvy, and can easily review "removed" content (in the article's history) to see what you had written.  If you have requirements with respect to the length of the article, might I suggest we assimilate some of the content from the article food allergy onto this page?  They have a promising-looking section regarding diagnosis which could be moved over to this article (either directly, or in a paraphrased form).  Another thought would be expanding on the non-food protein allergies; we have a section about the foods which cause allergies, but now a section on non-food protein allergens would be helpful.


 * As a final note, depending on how involved this project is (again, I have no idea of the criteria) you might even consider merging the entire "Food Allergy" article to this one. That article seems to indicate that all food allergies are protein allergies (I have no idea if this is true...that article is not really well-written or well-referenced), and if this is true, then these articles could likely be merged over the next few weeks/months.  Just something to think about...


 * Wow... this was WAY longer than I meant it to be...haha, I do tend to babble. I understand completely that you're trying to earn a good grade (I've been through the Undergrad process, and know how important grades are), but my perspective is that of an editor working to improve the article without overburdening them with details.   Hopefully we can find some good consensus that works for everybody!   Jhfortier (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * J, they told me in class today they had added parts of it back into the article. Clearly one of the students feels strongly about it, and I tend to agree that just because there is another entire article about protein and protein folding does not mean that the issue should not be mentioned here, with a simplified explanation.  I edit some of the history articles, and repeat material often, despite the presence of other full-length articles on the subject.  For example, even though there is a perfectly good article on, for example, the French Revolution, does not mean I won't insert a couple of paragraphs about the French revolution into something I'm editing.   So I'm not particularly concerned that there is a bit on protein creation and protein folding, as long as it does not dominate the article, which I don't think it does.  I do think the article should be heavily wikilinked in those sections to the other articles on proteins and protein creation and structure, but to give an accessible version of the protein and how it relates to allergies in an article about protein allergies doesn't seem to me to be out of line.  Let's see what the ladies say about this, okay?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladies, you'll still need to relate the sections you added back to allergies, though. It's not just a matter of describing proteins but describing them as they relate to allergies.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As suggested, we've linked the article to the allergy, protein, and protein folding page. Also, I will add stuff from the food allergy page, also as requested. Would I just cite the information from wikipedia? Is that allowed? Clarker1 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the other article, and are you confident in its accuracy? It has cites you can also use.  Would it be difficult to cite proper reliable sources? J? what do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The one book we used has a section that contains information that is also in the food article we can use. thanks!Clarker1 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that it is best to remove some information that is fine. We just didn't feel that all of it should be removed, as our professor stated. Thanks for all of your help. So should I take some of the details out of the sections and make it a more general description? hersh016 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.146 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the general consensus is that some of the information belongs, and some of it doesn't. If there's a general feeling that the structure and folding information really belongs, I'll yield that point to the general consensus.  What I keep coming back to is the information about protein regulation (feedback inhibition and GTP binding don't have anything to do with allergies), and the information about the various roles of proteins (catalysts, signal receptors, etc etc).  I'm going to make a few changes, and maybe we can work from there?  I'm hoping that some compromise on both sides (rather than just reverts to old versions) can be found.  Jhfortier (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooookay! I worked on a few of the sections (structure, level of organization, and functionality).  The information in there has changed very very little; what I've done is us a bit more of a summary style, combine many short sentences into longer ones etc etc.  Hopefully everybody finds this acceptable.  The wiki-linking I've done is, I think, fairly good; for example, in the functionality section, there's a mention of a protein's "job", and then a wikilink to the full article, in case someone wants to read about protein motors, or enzymatic catalysts etc.  Thoughts? Jhfortier (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you Jhfortier! Clarker1 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was actually going to remove that part this morning, because after I read it more closely I understand where you are coming from. So you think we should leave it now? I am willing to do whatever you feel is best for this article to be the best that it can be. I truly appreciate your help with this project. hersh016 (talk)

I decided to remove the part on protein control. I do not think that it fits. Jhfortier, thank you so much for your help in trying to edit those sections, but I agree with you that it is best to remove them for the sake of the flow for the rest of the article! hersh016 (talk)

Ok so I made those last few changes without signing into my account.. I just wanted to be sure that you knew I was on during our class time. hersh016 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * I think that's a good move, Hersh016, and makes the overall article stronger. Perhaps a section on protein allergies not related to food?  As it stands right now, this article is very food-focussed, so maybe some mention of other protein allergies might be helpful.


 * I've also got some concerns about the tables. They're very well formatted, but I don't know if they're necessarily helpful to the article as a whole.  An alternative idea might be a table showing how prevalent some allergies are, particularly the common ones such as peanut and soy.  Just a thought... Jhfortier (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * or collapsing tables. .... Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review
Annoyingly, just quick-failed this without consulting  or the talk page. I have posted an objection on the talk page for Good article noms. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the quick fail and have listed the article on hold on the GAnom page, with you, Jhfortier as the reviewer.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Auntieruth, I'm actually quite upset with this development. I was never asked to GA review this article (I believe I've made my opinion clear on my view of this article's readiness).  I was contacted for a peer review for this article, which is ongoing, and I'm currently quite happy with the way that the article is shaping up.  It's been great working in collaboration with the other editors of this page, and the compromises are really improving the page, I think.


 * At this point, I feel that I've contributed far too much to this article to be an objective GA reviewer, and (more importantly) I really don't appreciate being appointed to the role without anybody even asking; it lead to another very busy editor using up her time explaining the GA review process (with which I'm already quite familiar). I'll be removing my name from the GA nom page with respect to this review.  Jhfortier (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be removed from the GA queue until it's ready? Sasata (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Jh, I thought you were doing a GA, I apologize for upsetting you. The bulk of discussion came under the title of something relating to GA review so I figured that was going on.  I'll suggest to the editors that they withdraw the nom for a bit until it can be improved, and then resubmit it.  Will that be okay?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

withdrawal of GA nom for a few days, until it's in order
Ladies, I've asked that the GA nom be withdrawn for a few days, just so you have the time to fix problems that have arisen. I had misunderstood what Jh was doing--not GA, but peer review--and in discussion on the GA nominations talk page, we concluded that perhaps it would be good to pull the nomination for a brief time until you have the chance to make your changes and incorporate the peer review material. Withdrawal will not influence your grade. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the nom again. I saw the article in the list of nominations, took a look at it and immediately saw that it contains a lot of incorrect information (as well as a lot of good stuff).  It is simply not ready to be nominated, and looking back over the history here, multiple people have said so.  Please do not renominate the article until it has stabilized.  The GA process is not suited to articles that need major rewriting.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to chime in and I'm not trying to be a pain. You should read the GA criteria, and if you don't think your article already meets those criteria, you shouldn't nominate it. Nominating an article for GA is not meant as a mechanism to solicit feedback (although, of course, feedback is given). ike9898 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
I apologize if this comment is redundant, I haven't read all of the discussion. The lead section needs a lot of work. It needs to encompass the most important points of the whole subject of Protein Allergy, so that if that's the only section a reader looked at, he would know very clearly what the article is about. The lead section should not, in my opinion, explain what a protein is. ike9898 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello u|Ike9898. As you saw on the top of the article page, this article is under significant revision right now.  We're hammering out a lot of different points about the actual content of the article, and so far consensus has been reached on a lot of points.  It's been quite productive so far.


 * I tend to write lead sections the same way I write scientific abstracts: after all the content stuff is done. When we have the article in a more complete state, it will be far easier to write a lead that adequately summarizes the entire article.  Although it could use some work, I'm sure the lead will due for the next few weeks while we all work on the article. Jhfortier (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing the lead! I was getting around to it, being busy with end of the year things made it hard to get it done. Thanks so much for all your help this semester regarding the article! Clarker1 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! I'm sure it'll go under a few more transformations as the article improves; I've got a really neat food-protein allergy article at home that I keep meaning to use to enhance this article, but (like you) things have been just too crazy!  I'll try to get to it later this week! Jhfortier (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining sections of protein background info
Just wondering what everybody would think of the idea of combining all of the background information on proteins (structure, organization, folding) into one Section with a bunch of sub-sections? The content is brief enough, and I think it would make the table of contents a bit less cluttered. Thoughts? Jhfortier (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that. I do think it also needs to specifically relate why and how proteins link to allergies, and I'm still waiting for that to happen.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I combined the protein sections. I titled the subsections Protein background, but if there is a better suggestion, please let me know!Clarker1 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I added what I think fits into the lead of "Allergic Response." It is a few brief lines about how IgE tag molecules and how it is not known why some people produce allergies to proteins or how.Clarker1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the crux of the argument about including the protein sections, though (if yes, it should go first). There are a number of unique properties of proteins which allow them to become allergens. Specifically, stabilizing forces in the tertiary and quaternary structure of the proteins allow them to resist degradation and interact properly with IgE immune cells. Does this mean: Stabilizing forces in normal protein development allow them to resist degradation and interact properly with the IgE immune cells. However, if proteins do not form properly, they have unique properties that convert them from ? into allergens.  This can occur at several stages of protein formation.  ??? have I got this right?  If so then this needs to go first, and at each stage at which this can happen, you need to explain how what has gone wrong creates the vulnerability.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What has gone wrong would be the same as how a person becomes allergic to a specific protein, and that is not known what makes a person allergic to something, just that the immune system identifies a nonharmful substance as harmful. I added that into the same section as mentioned above. Clarker1 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Auntieruth55, I think there's a bit of confusion about protein stability etc etc. One of the properties of most (I can't guarantee all) food protein allegens is that the protein resists degradation from the hot/acidic environment in the stomach in order to be absorbed into the bloodstream and there interact with immune cells.  If peanut proteins were all denatured to their amino acid subunits in the stomach, there would be no allergy, because the immune system wouldn't interact with a simple amino acid chain.  Disulfide bonds, lots of hydrogen bonding, and other forces make the particular allergenic proteins stable enough that they don't degrade when they're ingested.  The complete protein is then able to cross-link with the IgE immune cells, and cause the allergic reaction.


 * There seems to be a bit of a tendency in this article to indicate that something bad/wrong has happened to make proteins allergens. In truth, allergenic proteins are absolutely normal, it's our immune systems which are working "improperly".  So the sentence "if proteins do not form properly, they have unique properties that convert them from ? into allergens" isn't quite right.  The proteins are fine, it's the IgE cells which are overactive. Does that make sense at all?  Jhfortier (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jhf, do you have a source for that explanation? I would like to incorporate that before the part where it is mentioned that IgE's tag the protein.  I think it provides better explanation! Clarker1 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Outdent My source is my undergrad degree (haha, go Biochem!) but citation number 16 ("What makes a food protein an allergen?") is a journal article I've been using to reference things that I learned in lectures.  If you can access that article through your academic institution, great.  If not, I'll keep adding stuff tonight. It seems like a good reference for this article for now.


 * Right now I'm desperately searching for non-food protein allergies; I'm worried that this article might end up being flagged to be merged with the food allergy article. Any help would be hugely appreciated! Jhfortier (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * JHF, what about latex-induced dermatitus? I vaguely remember reading that this was caused by trace residual proteins in natural latex.  What about the allergies people get to animal dander and saliva?  Not sure about any of these, but possibly they'll give you a lead. ike9898 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the great majority of natural allergens are proteins. If you search Google Scholar for "insect venom protein allergy" and "pollen protein allergy" you'll find lots of publications.  I'm sure this is covered in textbooks on immunology, but I'm way out of my domain here so can't be more specific. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

good explanation

 * This is a good explanation and that explanation needs to be incorporated into the article, and summarized in the lead. In the lead, it jumps from what is a protein to what is an allergy, and missing part is the link between them.  As I've indicated, it looks to the non bio chem person (me) that the problem is how the protein forms, but you're telling me that is the immune system, and that is not explained int he article.  Is allergy to dog/cat dander a protein allergy? Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this help? Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * or this re milk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * scholar1; pollen-food allergy; latex allergy; dust mites. this is what I found in a search of google scholar.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That explanation (in some form) is under the section 'functionality', as it's related to the functionality of proteins. Some of those references look good, although the first two aren't from peer-reviewed journals and so aren't really reliable references for this article (which falls under the more stringent category wp:medrs).  I'll try to work the explanation and those new references into the lead/article in the next little while. Jhfortier (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated again.  I've fixed the bare links, and added a cite (not sure it's as "reliable" as you might want") for something that was marked as needing a ref.  There is still an empty section. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there also food allergies that are not protein based? Strawberries? Citrus? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawberry allergies are protein-linked (brief review of sources suggests that it's a protein related to ripening). Citrus allergies are less clear, because some people are sensitive to citric acid, and others are actually allergic to citrus. Jhfortier (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the Latex allergy article (above) and it clearly is not a food, and it is clearly a protein allergy (has the (IgE) response, and the researchers called it a protein allergy). I added a section. Someone should check it to make sure I've paraphrased correctly (and enough).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the only other one I can think of is poison ivy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and wool--but that might not be a protein? lanolin? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These sections look fantastic! I had honestly not even considered poison ivy; I would have thought it elicited a skin reaction the same way a jellyfish sting does (nematocysts).  Very very cool stuff! Jhfortier (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I started thinking about what causes poison ivy, and I remembered it was oil. Soooooo.....it is a short trip to that for someone who doesn't know enough to think it wouldn't be right.  ;)  Sometimes ignorance is a good thing.  And the latex article I found a couple of days ago was also helpful.  Someone  else will have to unravel the wool allergy. I couldn't figure out if it proteins in lanolin or something else.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ike says that the poison ivy thing isn't protein based, but it does interact with a protein....so....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick check at the relevent Wiki page for the oil (I won't try to spell it) shows quite quickly that it is NOT a protein. My bad for not doing due diligence and looking into it.  Regarding it being a protein-ivolving allergy, I think one thing that's really important to keep in mind is that proteins are ubiquitous; even an elementary biochemistry course is insanely eye-opening because you realize that proteins are everywhere.  We tend to think of proteins as being found in meats, cheese, eggs and other high-protein foods, but they're also in pretty much every single living organism.


 * So although the allergy involves protein interaction, it's not technically a protein allergy; the allergy is to a non-protein chemical constituent. Ike seems to be *extremely* savvy about proteins and chemistry, and it never hurts to have that kind of a person checking up on the veracity of the article.  Biochemistry-themed writing requires absurdly careful articulation, since things are really unique and sometimes English isn't very good at describing them.  I'm glad to have such a diligent editor doing fact-checking. Jhfortier (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another non-food allergy?
Metabisulfites? the preservatives that are now regulated? They act like allergies, and I think they are a protein interaction (not sure). They block the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide, if I remember correctly. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick check tells me that they're not proteins; metal ions and bisulfites (sulfur-oxygen compounds). Never heard of those; it's quite frightening what industries will put in food!!  Jhfortier (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Peer Review
I've put in a request for another peer review from an editor who specializes in scientific articles. I really think it needs another critical peer review from somebody familiar with scientific articles would be extremely helpful. Jhfortier (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Info for this topic.....
--222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC) --222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC) --222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+beef+allergenic&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=bovine+serum+albumin+beef&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+heparin+allergy&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+heparin+allergic&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+heparin+allergen&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Check your source
In the urushiol section, ".0050 milligrams (7.7×10−5 gr)". Those two values are not equivalent. Once you figure out which value is correct, I can format it for you. ike9898 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, it's 50 micrograms. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Background
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am not sure that the background section is useful. The background is about proteins well the article is about protein allergies.
 * Hi Doc, this has been a bit of a sticking point from the start. As this was a school project, I understand that the students that were writing it wanted to include a lot of background information, and they've been really great about working to help trim down the excess material as they learn to use wikilinks effectively.  Their instructor has told me that she's very capable of evaluating their progress based on historical versions of the page, so I'm sure we'd all welcome any edits you'd like to make to trim down the excess.  Jhfortier (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Most allergies are due to proteins. Wondering if this should be merged with the allergy or the food allergy article? I do not currently see sufficient justification for it to be separate. We do not have any ICD10 codes etc. like we do in the other article. This topic does not exist on Uptodate, gets no direct pubmed hits, or google scholar hits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doc, if most allergies are caused by proteins, then perhaps the others should be merged into this one. Clearly, based on this article, there are protein allergies that are not food (latex), and other allergies that are caused by a toxin attaching to a protein on the skin (poison ivy). So...  Question.  Are protein allergies different from other allergies? If yes, then this should be an article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, food allergy is tagged as needing citations, expansion, clarification, etc. it seems to me that Protein allergies are a subset of allergies, significant enough to warrant their own article regardless of Uptodate.  If there are no ICD10 codes, add them. I am the instructor involved in the creation of this article (my students created and wrote it as part of a class assignment), and we did not know which/or how to add the proper ICD10 codes.  Clearly you do.  So feel free to add them.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that your class has put a significant amount of work into this article. Wikipedia however should reflect the published literature.  If you look at the reference section of this article the majority refer to food allergies not protein allergies.  Uptodate, eMedicine, and Medline also refer to this topic as food allergies rather than protein allergies.  If you look at journal publications via pubmed you will also see to the reference to food allergies.  I will post a note over at WT:MED to see if we can get a further opinions. BTW I am not recommended we delete this content just move it to another name. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that. Let's see what they say at the other.  I think this is a better article than the food allergies one (IMO, of course), and it deals neatly with the specifics of a specific kind of allergy.  There are often cases of large topics having a really big article, that eventually reverses into a series of smaller break-out articles so that a specific area of the topic can be covered in greater detail.  A topic of allergies would certainly be enormous, and as a subarticle of allergies, and of proteins, this one seems well-contained.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about merging the appropriate/relevant sections of food allergy into this one, and then moving the food-related parts over to the Food Allergy article, and the other bits (e.g. latex allegies) over to perhaps the main allergy page?  I fully support AuntieRuth's opinion that this article is, in many ways, better than the article currently at food allergy.  I also support Jmh's statement that the article must support the published literature; I've had concerns for a while that this article might not stand on its own merits, irrespective of how good it was.  So how does that sound?  Merging the info from Food Allergy into this article, then moving it all over to the Food allergy-titled page? If we can all agree, I'd be happy to start shifting content.Jhfortier (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry JHF I am a little confused on what you suggest. You think we should keep this content and place it in an article named Food allergy with the latex stuff moved to the main allergy page?  If that is the case I agree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OUTDENT -- My apologies, I made sense in my head but was terribly inarticulate on paper/wiki. Roughly yes, that's what I mean, and I'm glad we're at least partially in agreement. It seems to me that with a few tweaks, this would be an *excellent* article to go under the heading of Food allergy, especially since the Food allergy article leaves something to be desired on many fronts. Rather than trying to fit all of the good content from Protein allergy to the existing food allergy page, I think we all ought to try moving any good content from Food allergy to Protein allergy, and then move the resulting article to the Food allergy page in its entirety (i.e. replace the Food allergy article). Does that make more sense?

Moving the great information on latex allergies to the main Allergy page (or, heck, to the Latex allergy page, if it isn't already there!) would be another important step, of course. Jhfortier (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree that proposal is a good one and support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll post an email to the other two editors and see what they think. Much of this makes sense, but I do think that protein allergies should be explained as such.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. ike9898 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, making sure I understand this. Major article on "Allergies" would include brief summaries of "protein allergies" and (as a subset of protein allergies) "food allergies", "latex allergies" and allergies caused by toxins interacting with the Integral membrane proteins (such as poison ivy). To do this, we would move some of the food allergy stuff into the protein allergy stuff, replace the food allergy page with the protein allergy page (but naming it food allergies) and creating a a separate article on latex allergies?

If I have this right, then tell me again what the problem with a separate article on protein allergies is? If not all protein allergies are food allergies, but all food allergies are protein allergies, then protein allergies should be on its own, and food allergies should be a sub article of protein allergies. Latex allergies could also be a sub article of protein allergies. And there should be an article on allergies like urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, and they should all be linked back to the protein allergy article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Allergies

↓


 * (1) Allergies caused by protein interactions

↓


 * (1a) Food allergies
 * (2a) Latex
 * (3a) urushiol induced, and others?


 * (2) Allergies caused by ?
 * (2a) ?

Auntieruth, there already is a separate article on latex allergy so the information from this page would probably fit quite nicely into there (if it isn't already on that page). Regarding the information on urushiol, it is not a protein allergy and does not belong in this discussion (and there already is a decent article on urushiol-induced contact dermatitis). If you'll forgive my anthrpomorphizing, proteins have their sticky little hands involved in nearly every single cellular process, but in this case they are not the source of the allergy. Allergies caused by protein interactions/allergies which involve interaction with cellular proteins are ALL allergies; at some point along the signal cascade which causes the allergic response, at least one protein will be used.

The thing is, when the average user goes looking for information on food allergies, they'll probably type in food allergies. Moving all of this information (including the fantastic work your students did) would make more sense, since it's the logical place to have the information located. And if people are looking for information about non-food allergies, they can always go to the main allergy page. I really can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't be taking all of this information and merging it into places where it would be easier to find, more frequently linked-to. Jhfortier (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why we are doing this is because protein allergy is not a a subclassification of allergies used in medicine well food allergy, and latex allergy are. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the published literature and currently this is a cotrack.  We are in fact merging protein allergy into food allergy just most of the content is coming from protein allergy.  We will than redirect this page name to the main allergy page.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think this makes sense.... (although I'm not sure it does to me but I'm not a cell biologist, I'm an historian.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * further thoughts: if most allergies are due to proteins, or if proteins have their sticky hands in just about all cell functions, then this should also be made clearer in the allergies and food allergies articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Almost all allergies are due to antigens that are proteins, polysaccharides may be allergenic but this is less common.  DNA and lipids are not immunologic unless bound to proteins.  Thus the more general information here should be moved Allergy the more specific to food allergy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would feel more confident in this if a great amount of the food allergy article were deleted. I thought that article was poorly written and cited (mostly lists). Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep a close eye on the movement of content (Doc seems to be doing it now) and will make sure that the good information doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I do wish we could've had some input from your students on this, but GA noms tend to attract a great deal of attention to articles, and can set in motion big changes from other editors. It'll all turn out as a great article in the end, I'm sure.


 * they are in finals, so probably aren't available. I sent them an email, but...they also have their grade in the course, so they may not be motivated either. ;)    17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have merged with allergy and food allergy
Merged but not sure what to do with this content:

Proteins have unique properties that allow them to become allergens. Specifically, stabilizing forces in the tertiary and quaternary structure of the proteins resist degradation. Subsequently, they interact improperly with IgE immune cells. Most potentially allergenic proteins cannot survive the destructive environment of the digestive tract; similarly, others that are harmless but have strong structure resist the acidic environment of the digestive system and are sometimes tagged by the immune system as harmful. In other reactions, toxins attach to an existing protein. The immune system considers the protein as harmful to the organism, and rejects the protein, causing a dermatological or systemic response.

Protein structure and organization
A protein is made from a long chain of amino acids, also known as a polypeptide chain, linked via peptide bonds. The higher order structure of a protein depends on the sequence of amino acids which form its primary sequence, as various non-covalent interactions between these amino acids ensure proper protein folding. Proteins have specific amino acid sequences, which all identical proteins share. The twenty different amino acids differ in their side chains, which are relatively large and somewhat polar. These individual amino acids are known as monomers, in the polymer chain known as the protein, which assembles through polymerization.

A protein's secondary structure is created by hydrogen-bond interactions between the amide and carboxyl groups of the amino acid backbone. Secondary structure includes the formation of alpha helices and beta sheets. The tertiary structure is the overall shape of the protein, and is usually driven by the protein's tendency to orient hydrophobic amino acid side chains internally, although hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions and disulfide bonds also help to stabilize proteins in the tertiary state Quaternary structure is the overall combination of polypeptide subunits to form the functional unit. All levels of protein structure are based on the previous level. If there is an error in the primary structure of the protein this will carry to the higher levels.

Protein function
Protein folding is essential to the overall function of the individual protein. Polypeptide chains are often very long and flexible, which leads to a wide variety of ways for a protein to fold. Non-covalent interactions control the shape and structure of the nascent protein. While a single non-covalent bond is very weak, a combination of many weak bonds provide the needed strength and structure for a given protein. Electrostatic interactions, hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals attractions all aid in protein folding. The specific polar and non-polar side chains of amino acids are also involved the protein's folding and, in turn, its function. The final folded structure of a protein is protein's conformation. A protein's proper amino acid sequence is absolutely required to induce proper folding into the quaternary structure. Two common folding patterns seen in proteins are the alpha helix and beta sheets.

The function of a protein is directly determined by its structure, specifically the aforementioned non-covalent bonds. Proteins interact with other molecules at unique protein binding sites on the ligand. Proteins can have a myriad of functions, including the enzymatic catalysts which facilitate essential reactions in cells. Proteins can also act as a cell signal receptor, essential to initiating cellular responses to chemical signals, or as motor proteins, which are involved with movement of or within individual cells. Another example of protein function is that of structural proteins, which enable cell flexibility and support stability.

Proteins and the immune system
The ways in which proteins develop and fold give them their structure; some protein structures allow them to resist degradation in the acidic environment of the digestive tract. Others, which might function as cell signal receptors, can be structurally changed by the attachment of other cells. In both cases, the addition of a cell to a protein, its partial degradation, or its survival of the digestive system causes the immune system to tag the cell as foreign and dangerous. This tagging causes an allergic response.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

remaining material
As a non-cell biologist, I found that information almost more useful than anything else. It was a clear explanation for the amateur about how proteins are created, function and become integral to the allergy process. I do think it needs to go somewhere. Possibly in the allergy article itself, in a section about allergies and proteins. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I have moved to the pathophysiology section of the main allergy page. Can you make sure we bring along all the sources that are needed for the refs?  I have moved them all to the food allergy page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check on it tonight to make sure all of the information has settled in well. As for the "leftover" protein information, perhaps it would be well-suited to Simple English Wikipedia?  Just a thought... Jhfortier (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * that may be, but I still think it clarifies some of the food allergy issues by explaining not only that they happen but how they happen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to also combine into the food allergy page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly it can go in both places? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)