Talk:Voltage-gated calcium channel

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Cell Signaling task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Biophysics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

References

This article lags references. Definetly. --200.52.186.214 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The missing subtype?

I've found a bunch of sources that say there are six subtypes (L, N, P, Q, R, and T), and one source ^* that says there are seven, but does not list them! Does anyone know what this missing subtype is? Thanks much, delldot | talk 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^* Kim AH, Kerchner GA, and Choi DW. 2002. Blocking Excitotoxicity. Chapter 1 in: CNS Neuroproteciton. Marcoux FW and Choi DW, editors. Springer, New York. pp. 3 - 36.

There are only five actually: L, T, N, P/Q, and R. Of course, there are 4 L-type channels and three T-type channels for a total of 10 channels total. At least, this is how many α-1 subunits there are. See Hille's book, any review, or: http://www.neuro.wustl.edu/neuromuscular/mother/chan.html#ca for examples. -Dpryan 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the P/Q chanel just one channel or two?!?

One gene->two channels. Q is an alternatively spliced form of P...so kind of one channel and kind of two, depending on how you define things. --Dpryan 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't the nomenclature for voltage gated ion channels changed? Last thing I read L channels were now called Cav1.1-1.4, P channels are Cav 2.1, and N channels are Cav2.2, and so forth...

Classification of subtypes

Ideally, the clasifications of the channel subtypes on this page should be reorganized to reflect the functional differences. Unfortunatly, there hasn't been a review article writen about the functional differences that reflects the new (e.g. 1.1.3, etc) classification scheme. (source: pubmed search on 5/9/07) I don't think we can really fix this page until the literature sorts itself out. Too bad for people like me who are trying to learn it! Bakerstmd 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have you read this review: Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2000. 16:521–55. it is a long article, but it is very useful for VGCC. (he also wrote a review for VDNC's as well)
I have added a Pharmacol Review reference from 2005 (see reference #1 in article), which appears to directly answer your question (see table 1 in ref). Boghog2 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage-activated calcium channel as redirect?

How about voltage-activated calcium channel as a redirect to here? Allens (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable - the term is used quite widely in the literature, the term voltage-operated is also used and perhaps should be included as a redirect.Adh (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Boghog (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle physiology

I think this section isnt quite right here - it focuses largely on L-type channels (for which there is a separate page) and perhaps digresses too much into excitation contraction coupling in smooth muscle. If there are no objections I will transfer the material to the L-type page at some point Adh (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How "high/low" is the "high/low" voltage activated amount

This article repeatedly mentions high- and low-voltage, but never mentions any numbers associated and/or relative amounts . . . or, am missing something? --Thorwald (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Voltage-dependent calcium channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713204304/http://biosupport.licor.com/docs/2005/BJ20050237.pdf to http://biosupport.licor.com/docs/2005/BJ20050237.pdf

Hi, non Wikipedia user here. I found that the link for the study listed here is a broken link, but the full text can be read here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180727/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35BA:23D0:8993:D5F8:FDB5:A650 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of name

Would these be better named as voltage-gated calcium channels? --Iztwoz (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The page should be moved to "Voltage-gated calcium channel". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2017

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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage-dependent calcium channel → Voltage-gated calcium channel – more usually used name and in line with other entries Iztwoz (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the various names already discussed on the talk page, this doesn't sound like a technical. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iztwoz and Dicklyon: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Voltage-dependent calcium channel" and "voltage-gated calcium channel" are both terms in common use, but the common name for the entire class of ion channels which are functionally regulated (i.e., channel gating is regulated) by membrane voltage is "voltage-gated" (see IUPHAR's entry on this class of calcium channels). UNIPROT seems to use the term "voltage-dependent" for individual proteins; however, UNIPROT doesn't classify proteins as part of a family. All of the function annotations of those channels on UNIPROT, however, are listed as having "voltage-gated calcium channel activity". In a nutshell, this page should be moved to "Voltage-gated calcium channel", which is the more common descriptor of this class of channels. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the expanded rationale. And I can see from books n-grams that the voltage-gated term has been gaining in popularity in recent decades; voltage-operated and voltage-activated are used much less. Both -gated and -dependent are commonly used, so I will remain neutral on this unless I see a stronger reason to go or stay. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: All the entry pages use gated channels, so purely for the sake of consistency this page ought to be in line with those. Ligand-gated ion channel, voltage-gated sodium channel, ATP-gated channel, cyclic nucleotide-gated channel, voltage-gated potassium channel, voltage-gated proton channel, voltage-gated ion channel. The ion channel page refers to gated throughout. Also it is used in description where the word dependent cannot be similarly used - channels are said to be in an open state or closed state.......--Iztwoz (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I support this move. But let's wait the week to see if there's more input. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support for "-gated" --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 17 November 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.

Connection between VGCCs and electromagnetic fields (EMFs)

There has been ongoing debate for years over the possible effects of wireless device radiation on the human biology. At least one researcher has suggested that EMFs may impact the body via VGCCs, see Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. I'd be interested to have someone with more scientific experience than I review the linked journal article and determine whether any of the research warrants inclusion in this article. — SimonEast (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]