Talk:Visual phototransduction

Untitled
The picture here of RPE65 converting the All-Trans Retinyl Ester to 11-cis-retinol is incorrect. RPE65 is an isomerhydrolase. Meaning that it acts as an isomerase, and a hydrolase. The way the arrow directs in this diagram makes it seem like it converts 11-cis-retinol to all-trans retinyl ester. Thus the molecules are on the wrong sides. DeuceIt  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

I was wondering if anyone had a good diagram of phototransduction, or a way of turning a .pdf file into a jpg, as I drew a quite nice diagram but my scanner only scans into pdf format for some reason. thanks a lot. Benji64 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

GIMP is an image editor which can convert between pdf and jpg files. It can also be used to convert between many different document and image formats. If you want something less lightweight than GIMP [], you could also download ImageMagick [] and use its convert utility (I think GIMP actually uses ImageMagick as its backend, but I'm not sure). These tools are available as free software for Windows, Linux and Mac OS. User:Serotonin_deficient:Serotonin_deficient

In the diagram adapted from Leskov (2000), the activated alpha subunit of the G protein (G*) should have GTP attached, not GDP. It is correct in the paper. Perhaps the paper's figure could be used, with his permission.

Lots of good citations available if someone has time. A good starting place is the open source text book, Webvision. Biolprof (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Too difficult to understand
This article is too scientific and too difficult to understand for a layman. --Waqqashanafi (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Specific to vertebrate photoreceptors
This article contains information about vetebrate photoreceptor. Invertebrate receptors (e.g. in insects and crustaceans), which are the most common ones in the animal kingdom, differ in many aspects (e.g. they depolarise, not hyperpolarise, in response to light). The article should be renamed to "Vertebrate phototransduction" or be more general. 130.235.244.96 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Split 'Visual Cycle'
Visual cycle was boldly merged to visual phototransduction in 2008. This is nonsense as the two topics are very different elements of vision, where the former follows the flow of retinal and the latter follows the visual signal cascade. They have very little overlap, as can be see from the very little overlap the concepts have in this article. I would propose the split of back to its own article... but... there is also the article bleach and recycle that gets mentioned once in visual phototransduction, but is otherwise very much an orphan. "bleach and recycle" gets zero hits on google scholar, but the article is really just a misnomer for the visual cycle.

So I propose either moving the visual cycle info from this page and bleach and recycle back to Visual cycle, or we can kill the redirect, then rename bleach and recycle to "visual cycle". Thoughts please! Curran919 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the initiative to improve this. I support your idea of having an article called Visual cycle as the main article on the retinal's voyage. It would contain the contents of the current Bleach and recycle and anything more from Visual phototransduction that can benefit it. Maybe there's a more "correct" method, but the following suggestion would retain all the edit history in a sensible place:


 * 1) Rename the article Visual cycle, presently a redirect to Visual phototransduction, to the new title "Retinoid cycle", which is a title that should exist in any case.
 * 2) Rename Bleach and recycle to be Visual cycle as you proposed.
 * 3) Edit the redirect at Retinoid cycle to point to Visual cycle.
 * 4) Create Bleach and recycle as a redirect to Visual cycle.
 * 5) Update  to have a  hatnote, and keep about the level of detail that is already there as useful perspective, since the visual cycle is an important part of that process.
 * –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @MadeOfAtoms thanks! Sounds like a plan. I'll take care of that. Curran919 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I'm not sure that Bleach and recycle as an article title even needs to be retained...whatever you think. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I may have done something wrong. I renamed visual cycle, which duplicated visual cycle as a double-redirect page to retinoid cycle > Visual phototransduction. I couldn't rename Bleach and recycle to visual cycle without first deleting Visual cycle. I've nominated it for speedy deletion with a link to this discussion, but would there have been a better way of doing this? Curran919 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All done. gave Visual cycle a new lead, but it still needs more attention. The article gets a bit too chemistry-y for my abilities. Will close this discussion now. Curran919 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it would be for the best to merge them. I wasn't even aware of the bleach and recycle page to be quite honest. Revan (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)