Talk:Bacteriorhodopsin

The first sentance

Isn't it a bit weird to start an article with a negating sentance? Moreover, in numerous university courses I have been taught that it is a photosynthetic protein, showing that photosynthesis has developed at least twice independantly, etc. subasd 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it...subasd 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Worth looking at

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/060708/139/65pz8.html 66.178.22.82 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrongo! "At the heart of each protein chain [of bacteriorhodopsin]is a molecule of retinal, which is bound deep inside the protein and connected through a lysine amino acid."

Conflicted sentence

This sentence is awkward and suffers from multiple personality disorder:

Rhodopsins also contain retinal; however, the functions of rhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are different, and there is only slight (Something cannot be "slightly" homologous, it either is or isn't homologous. Maybe the poster meant to say shows REGIONS of homology within the amino acid sequence). homology in their amino acid sequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.39 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bacterial rhodopsins

Do these two articles talk about the same thing ? I don't know enough to tell, but if so, they should be merged. --George (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The content is about the same thing. The other article is older, but has less content. As far as I can tell, all of it duplicated here. The term "bacterial rhodopsin" is ambiguous, since it can refer either to bacteriorhodopsin, or to a much broader category: microbial or type-I rhodopsin. We do not currently have an article on microbial rhodopsin, but probably should. For now, the closest we have are these bits and pieces:

Rhodopsin#Microbial rhodopsins

Opsin#Type.C2.A0I opsins

If we had an article on microbial rhodopsins, "Bacterial rhodopsins" could become a disambiguation page.

Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm going to create an article on Microbial rhodopsin since we need one. The disambiguation page should be Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). The current page Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) should be deleted. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've created the article '''Microbial rhodopsin and the disambiguation page Bacterial rhodopsin (singular). Now all we need to do is look at the Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) to see if there is anything that needs to be migrated here. Somehow I think not. Then we need to request that Bacterial rhodopsins (plural) be deleted. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Archaearhodopsin → Bacteriorhodopsin – Even though the protein is used by archaea, its official name is still bacteriorhodopsin. Please do not confuse it with archaearhodopsin1, an entirely different protein Whyintheworld (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. Bacteriorhodopsin has not been renamed archaerhodopsin - please note the correct spelling. Although it is true that had bacteriorhodopsin been discovered today this would have been its likely name, it wasn't, and bacteriorhodopsin is the accepted name for this specific protein. The protein is a model protein used by hundreds of research groups worldwide with thousands of papers featuring it, all naming it bacteriorhodopsin. To compound the issue there are very similar proteins belonging to the same group but coming from a different archaea which are all named archaerhodopsin, i.e. archaerhodopsin-1, -2 and -3 and -4. Please rename this article bacteriorhodopsin. Dr Garrick Taylor. Biomembrane structure unit, University of Oxford. --Gft103 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Case has been made quite clearly. —innotata 03:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

SUGGEST: additional sections

section on history of discovery (who, where, when);

section on applied research for commercial exploitation (i.e. tumor detection); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard from NYC (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)