Utriv

Deletion of PAMPs

Hi Utriv, Thanks for your interest in the TLR page - you look like you're trying hard to clean it up! However, I was curious to know why you insist on removing the PAMPs from the TLR page when these are molecules/molecular patterns are the prominent feature of TLR recongnition and research (i.e. all the ligands for TLRs are PAMPs). Another editor also made a comment about the absence of PAMPs from the article a few edits ago, so this is not just my opinion. Also, the sentence on plants is misleading to a person unfamiliar with TLRs - plants do have R proteins that have a TIR domain and LRR domain, but structurally they are more similar to NOD-like receptors than TLRs (their middle domain is a nucleotide binding domain and they are found inside the cell not on the surface). Mmmm, maybe a structure sectin where the plant info could be included? What is your opinion? Ciar 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ciar: I have left the mention of PAMPs in, but the term is controversial because all microbes (not merely pathogens) express signature molecules that are detected by TLRs, and because the term "patterns" is ambiguous (patterns among organisms? repeating molecular units forming a pattern?). Many workers in the field would prefer that it be dropped. I do think that this page could benefit from some illustrations of domain structure. It is important to point out that the primordial function of the TIR domain was probably defensive rather than developmental.

"Many workers in the field would prefer that it be dropped." This does not mean we should aid in the removal of the term. This is bias. If the term is being used (especially by cited sources) it should remain in the article. If a new term is being developed, and can be cited, it should be included in the article too - with both terms being included in the article.--ZayZayEM 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Toll like receptor Reversions

Please look here. Talk:Toll-like_receptor#Reversions. You may be violating the Three revert rule, but you may get somewhere with a discussion.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -Amatulic 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)