Talk:20alpha-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase

Latest comment: 6 years ago by DrStrauss in topic Requested move 18 July 2017

20alpha hydroxysteriod dehydrogenase is AKR1C1 edit

The paper by Strickler et al. obviously has some flaws. It missed the AKR1C1 as a HSD20A. There is confusion in old an new literature whether HSD20A is a HSD17B2 enzyme or not. If you look into the Strickler paper you will note that the HSD20A activity is only a by-product. The AKR1C1 has a low and therefore significant Km of 0.6 µM which is the lowest of all substances mentioned in the pubmed protein entry Q04828.1. This should be stressed. --B.Kleine (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 18 July 2017 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus - stale discussion DrStrauss talk 09:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply



20alpha-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase20α-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase – Proper styling and to match other steroid-metabolizing enzyme names (e.g., 5α-reductase). Medgirl131 21:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Winged Blades Godric 11:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 03:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - the 5α-reductase case was also requested at WP:RMTR by Medgirl131, and was moved there in October 2016 after 12 years at the old name, so its debatable whether it establishes a precedent or not. I think this should probably be more thoroughly discussed before going further. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Amakuru. Amakuru, is it possible that you could change the status of this "non-controversial" to "under discussion"? Some other page-mover or sys-op might move it directly. This is listed at WP:RM#TR, thats how I found this in first place. (kindly ping me when replying.) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Usernamekiran: it shouldn't still be listed at WP:RMTR - I cleared it from there about 20 mins ago. It's possible it lingered on the parent WP:RM page a little longer until the cache cleared, but seems to be gone now. Have you refreshed your page? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Amakuru: Yup, it was the cache issue. It has left the WP:RM without even purging the server cache. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.