User:Gcarpen7/Emopamil binding protein

Emopamil Binding Protein
Emopamil binding protein is a protein that in humans is encoded by the EBP gene, located on the X chromosome. The protein has been shown to have a high-affinity reception for anti-ischemic drugs, such as Emopamil, resulting in the its discovery and given name. The protein has a mass of 27.3 kDa and resembles a σ-receptor located in the endoplasmic reticulum of various tissues as an integral membrane protein.

Clinical Significance
Mutations in EBP cause Conradi–Hünermann syndrome and impairs cholesterol biosynthesis. Unborn males affected with EBP mutations are not expected to be liveborn, (with up to only 5% male births). Individuals that are liveborn with EBP mutations experience stunted growth, limb reduction, back issues and later cataracts may develop along with coarse hair and hair loss.

Cloning
Isolation, replication and characterization of the EBP and EBP-like protein have been performed in yeast/E. Coli strains (which lack the EBP protein in nature) to study the high-affinity drug binding affects.

Critiquing Articles:
Initially, my article of choice did not have much text to critique. Since there was such limited information, it was implied that there could be several tidbits of information added to this page. Deciding what to add to the page was a bit tricky. First, there were already several links within the emopamil binding protein page to places like ncbi and genecards. Adding certain tidbits of information onto the page that is already on the linked databases is redundant. Second, the page to be updated was technically for the gene and not the protein itself. I could not find the protein itself on wikipedia, but I did find a class of similar proteins that EBP falls under. Since it was a class of proteins and not the protein itself, I simply added a "See Also" link to the article to the class of proteins "cholestenol delta-isomerase". Finally, the need to have some vital sentences about research done on the protein/gene was adamant. Therefore, several articles were reviewed and supposed relevant information from the articles were added to wikipedia.

Summarizing your Contributions:
As for the text contributions themselves, there were only two sentences when I signed up for this article update. Information about the protein to be coded was added to the first sentence of the article such as the mass and type of receptor. Genetic defects on this gene cause horrid conditions in unborn and information about that was added, along with a supporting citation for further information. Lastly, a cloning section was added since it was found to be interesting that the gene is implanted/replicated via microbials for research purposes. Altogether, with the new information and polished headings, the article seems visually aesthetically pleasing and informative.

Peer Review/Feedback:
The main feedback on my initial submissions include the correction of grammatical errors, clarification on Conradi-Hunnerman syndrome, clarification on cloning and the need to beef up information about the protein itself. The response to the feedback included the use of a text-audio playback program to hear the errors and ultimately make them easier to catch. Once the grammar was accounted for, clarification on the cloning process (along with applying the appropriate citation for the cloning section) and on conradi-hunermann syndrome was updated and made "clearer". Finally, as stated before a link to a class of proteins EBP falls under was added, and information from an article that had the mass and receptor type etc. was added to the first section along with the appropriate citation.

As far as reviewing the other two articles, one writer would seem to do well to add more of their citation information into the article, as they had plenty of citations to review but no information out of the articles. The other article reviewed was slightly short and I advised to beef it up a bit and referenced genecards and ncbi for further information.

Wikipedia Generally:
In the past, I would look at wikipedia articles and would want to write similar to that. After taking psychology, I thought that the APA format is similar to how wikipedia does their citations in that there is a citation every couple of sentences (which is much more citations than most of the articles I had read at the time used). From then on I would try to verify the sources, and after seeing ACS citations and such with the information provided, I started to trust wikipedia content more and more. Therefore, I was intrigued from the start about the wikipedia page update project. It was interesting to see how the process of creating an article and allow others to viably update the articles. This class was not the first class where I noticed I wanted to update something that wasn't quite right on wikipedia based on a viable source, but I did not know how to do so and lacked confidence before to do so. Since I have learned about the wikipedia update process, this is no longer an issue.

As for the data being applicable and informative to the wiki-audience, it seems by adding the information added with the citations and "See Also" links will help future browsers to gain the insight they need on the EBP protein. Key terms, such as cloning, sigma-receptor and integral membrane protein, were added that seem to give function to the protein being coded. The cloning section and citation to that section seems to provide a research background basis for anyone wanting to know more about the cloning of this gene.

Finally, the thought of updating more protein information to the protein link was considered, however, there is not much on the basic information of EBP. Everywhere I looked (not on genecards or ncbi) led back to one study in the early 90s that took place in Europe, and even through the library, only the abstract was available (I guess they have some patent pending thing going on or something). Despite this challenge, it is still rewarding to have updated what was updated on the emopamil binding protein page.