Talk:N-linked glycosylation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Untitled
Should clinical significance section contain link to page with said diseases or list of diseases? Vokesk (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
amyelogenin
The only spelling used for this word appears to stem from this article. Should the wiki page say amelogenin? Why do corn have a gene for enamel? Vokesk (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am planning on editing this page as part of an educational assignment. Dna 621 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 27 March 2014. Further details are available here. |
Minor edit suggestion: In the section about therapeutic proteins, we list well known N-glycoprotein antibodies. However, etanercept is not really an antibody, rather it is a hybrid antibody-like construct. I would suggest either deleting or specifying precisely what it is. Furthermore, we have two members with the same target (etanercept and infliximab both target TNF-alpha), perhaps another representative like Herceptin/trastuzumab or something similar might be more suitable? I didn't want to edit in case someone had strong views here. (Carba (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC))
First sentence fixed
I fixed the first sentence which was definitely necessary, to say the least. I kept the "glycan", even though I think it's borderline wrong. A glycan refers to a polysaccharide-portion, i.e. a carbohydrate-portion composed of many monosaccharides - in contrast to an oligosaccharide, which consists of only a few monosaccharides. This distiction is a good thing, right? But anyways, I found that, alas, meanwhile, the term "glycan" can also be used for an oligosaccharide-portion - as I said, I don't understand why, but what can I do.
Under no circumstances, however, was "glycan" used correctly in sentense before my correction.
--Felix Tritschler (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to this edit, what is the function of the clause 'studied in biochemistry' in the first sentence? I cannot seem to link the multi-clausal sentence together into a coherent sentence. I vouch for removing the 'studied in biochemistry' from the first sentence, or a restructuring of the first sentence to make it more cohesive. (P.S I hope that I have formatted this response appropriately).