Talk:Integral membrane protein

"Cells assemble IMPs in the endoplasmic reticulum. A short signal sequence at the N-terminus typically marks a protein as destined for installation in the membrane." This is true only if the protein membrane insertion is processed during the protein translation. But there's a lot of protein where the membrane insertion mechanism is post-translational! Additionally, procaryotes have no endoplasmic reticulum but have membrane proteins!

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 01:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

In addition to the fact, that integral membrane proteins are not generally cotranslationally inserted into the ER, i.e. membrane proteins in organells like mitochondira, chloroplast etc., membrane proteins are not generally ancored to the cytoskeleton. It might be true for many in the plasma membrane, but it is not at all a principal feature of membrane proteins.

The rest of the article is really good. It might be worth to mention beta-barrels, as structural feature of integral membrane molecule, and maybe also their function in bioenergetics, as all protein complexes of the oxidive phosphorylation chain in the mitochondria and in the photophosphorylation chain in the chloroplast consist of integral membrane proteins.

Given that you obviously know about the subject, could you make edits as you see appropriate? You see, that is what being bold is all about. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the section of intergral monotrophic membrane protein incorrectly refered to it's main article of peripheral membrane protein? I thought one type are attached, categorised by association with the bylayer, whereas peripheral membrane protein are temporarily attached... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.160.25 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure Section

I'm partally aggreed with the Structure section. In the case of protein, structure means alpha-halix, b-strand, etc. I think it is more correct to talk about protein-membrane interactions. In this case, there is 2 category of interaction : transmembrane or non-transmembrane. Thus the transmembrane category can be related to transmembrane helices and b-barrels while the non-transmembrane category can be related to in-plane membrane helices, lipid-linked proteins and other type of interactions such as the cardiotoxin one.

Further development

I think we should simply refer here to two other main articles: Transmembrane proteins and Integral monotopic proteins. This second article should be created. Biophys 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The "integral monotopic proteins" section had a "main article:" link to the peripheral membrane protein page. This must have been an error. I removed the link. Peripheral membrane proteins are by definition removable, whereas integral proteins are by definition permanently adhered to the membrane. Peripheral proteins are not a sub-class of integral proteins. If "integral monotopic proteins" are indeed a subclass of integral proteins and not simply a misnomer for a subclass of peripheral membrane proteins, then they should be removed from this article. So the question is, are integral monotopic proteins really a unique subclass or integral proteins, or has the word "integral" in their name lead to their faulty inclusion here? Johnny^California 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This had been changed back again. Could someone please add some more description of integral monotopic, so that the distinction to peripheral is clear? --Ettrig (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

positive inside rule

I have got one question: Is there any article which deals with the positive inside rule? Since it is one of the buzzwords in this context it might be senseful to add such a section in one of the membrane protein articles. What do you think?

(Sorry for mistakes, I was initially searching in the German Wiki, but positive inside seems to be missing there as well) Leonard Fresenborg (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)