Talk:SLC22A6

Merger proposal
The intention of Gene Wiki pages such as this one is that the subject matter includes not only the gene, but the protein encoded by that gene. With very few exceptions, the protein and corresponding gene are covered by the same article. Hence the OAT1 article should be merged into this one. Boghog (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from the author of OAT1
Given the importance of OAT1 in medicine, more readers are likely to search Wikipedia for OAT1 than SLC22A6. Since the title "SLC22A6" is likely to confuse lay readers, the title of the merged article should (in my opinion) be "Organic anion transporter 1" since the vast majority of readers are likely to simply want to know what "OAT1" stands for. In addition, the newer name "OAT1" is easier to remember than the older name "SLC22A6". If the two articles are merged, "OAT1" and "SLC22A6" should redirect to the merged page.

Given the importance of the hypothesis that OAT1 is involved in antiviral induced Fanconi syndrome, this hypothesis should be presented as soon as possible in the (proposed) merged article since most readers are likely to be interested in this hypothesis. I doubt the hypothesis is likely to generate controversy. However, if it does, this would be an argument against merger.

I am pleased that you view the material in the OAT1 article as worthy of retention. KBlott (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response and for creating the OAT1 article. I have no problem with merging in the other direction.  The main reason that I suggested merging OAT1 into SLC22A6 is that "Solute carrier family 22 member 6" is the recommended UniProt name (see ) while SLC22A6 is the official  HUGO gene name (see ).  In either case, readers will have no problem locating the article no matter what it is name since a redirect will be left behind, so that if someone is searching for SLC22A6 they will automatically be taken to OAT1.  While we are at it, we should probably rename the OAT1 article to "Organic anion transporter 1" and have redirects from "SLC22A6", "Solute carrier family 22 member 6", and "OAT1" all pointing to "Organic anion transporter 1".  Does this sound reasonable?  Boghog (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. I am a bit uneasy with the claim (in SLC22A6) that OAT1 is involved in the "sodium-dependant" excretion of organic anions.  While this is technically true, the wording gives the impression that sodium is an OAT1 co-substrate.  The claim that OAT1 is an co-transporter doesn't appear to be controversial.  However, according to Sekine OAT1 is an organic anion/dicarboxylate exchanger.  Sodium appears to be involved in the recycling of dicarboxylate.  The sodium-dicarboxylate cotransporter (NaDC3) may be co-expressed along with OAT1 on S2 cells.  OAT1 appears to transport dicarboxylate out of the cell when it transports an organic anion into the cell.  NaDC3 then may reclaim the dicarboxylate, provided sodium is available.  In the absence of sodium, the cell may be unable to recycle dicarboxylate and OAT1 can no longer function.


 * agrees that OAT1 functions as organic anion exchanger when the uptake of one molecule of organic anion is coupled with an efflux of one molecule of endogenous dicarboxylic acid (glutarate, ketoglutarate, etc) and describes this activity as "sodium-independant". KBlott (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)