Template talk:Targeted cancer therapeutic agents

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Problem

This template is called "extracellular" chemotherapeutic agents, but almost all the kinase inhibitors here act intracellularly. Change the template name, or remove the kinase inhibitors? Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Should all L01 drugs fit either here or Template:Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents? If so, changing the name may be best. Natureium (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Changing the template name would be the most straight forward, but to what? I haven't gone through all the entries in the list, but most if not all the kinase inhibitors in this navbox are to membrane associated receptor kinases. So while the binding site may be cytoplasmic, the protein to which the binding site is associated with is at least partially extracellular. Also many of the extracellular antibodies and receptor kinase inhibitors act at the identical receptor. So in that sense, it would make sense to keep them together. One possibility is Chemotherapeutic agents acting at membrane receptors. But that is too awkward. Boghog (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Does it have to be mechanistic? What about just "Targeted therapy"? Natureium (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I am either way on moving entries to intracellular vs changing the name. The argument that because RTKs are transmembrane these drugs fit here is just bizarre from a pharmacology standpoint -- the properties required for a drug that needs to get inside cells to work, are different than those that need only hit an extracellular target.
If we rename I too was going to suggest smg like "targeted cancer drugs" or the like, to make these distinct from old school carpet bombing drugs. That is a mechanistic definition, btw.  :) Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not at all bizarre from a drug target standpoint. Targeted cancer therapy is way too broad. If we used that name, then we would need to merge {{Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} with {{Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} and end up with a bloated navbox which defeats the purpose of a navbox. Better to keep them separate with better names or divide them in some other way. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Anypodetos:, your thoughts? Boghog (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
as i said i would be fine with moving them to intracellular. They cannot stay here as they are not "Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents " - they are nothing like say a mAb that blocks a receptor per se. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the -mabs and -nibs in this navbox belong together. They all block proteins (often the same) involved in early stages of controlling cell proliferation and apoptosis. Jytdog, why do you say that they don't block a receptor "per se" (see e.g. File:ErbB1 Erlotinib.jpg)? The intracellular template contains drugs targeting later steps (DNA, microtubuli...). I haven't checked all the substances in these templates, but that seems to be the basic idea. I'll tell you if I come up with a good name :-/ --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The second reason I don't like moving them to the intracellular template is because it gets way to big. BTW, Janus kinase is purely intracellular, so everything involving "transmembrane" is out of the question. What about something like "Early stage / Upstream chemotherapeutic agents" and "Late stage / Downstream chemotherapeutic agents"? Just brainstorming. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Receptor-binding antineoplastic agents? Receptor-targeting antineoplastic agents? Natureium (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Merging the RTK inhibitors from {{Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} into {{Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} would still result in a bloated navbox. It would be strange to divide drugs that act at identical proteins. Their path to binding only differs by which face of the membrane they approach their target. The more fundamental difference is whether the binding site is a receptor or an enzyme. Boghog (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"Receptor-binding antineoplastic agents" doesn't work either because there are also intracellular receptors and extracellular enzymes. Boghog (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why would we have to merge them with {{Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} if we use targeted cancer therapy as the name?
Is there a more common term for 'traditional chemotherapy'? Natureium (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Anypodetos, when I say "block the receptor per se" i mean block the extracellular portion of the transmembrane protein that binds to the ligand (e.g. the part of the EGFR that binds to EGF). Drugs like Erlotinib don't prevent that - they block the signal transduction by binding to the intracellular part of the TM protein. The challenges of discovering and developing small molecules that bind to intracellular domains are dramatically different than discovering and developing molecules that act extracellularly. c'mon. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is less difference than you might think. The challenges of developing a small molecule drug that binds to the extracellular domain of a GPRC or ligand gated ion channel are pretty similar to problems associated with developing small molecule drugs that bind to intracellular enzymes or nuclear receptors. And who says the only way to classify a drug is based on how they were developed? Boghog (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I just brought up the discovery development challenges as one example of how they are different. (and don't get me started on GPCRs!)  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would be fine with separating drugs that act on receptors vs enzymes (although RTKs are both right?) Maybe we should have the navbox be on RTK inhibitors, broken down by type and then by extracellular vs intracellular? Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • just want to pull this up out of the weeds. The template is called "Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents" and when I saw that, I expected to find drugs that act extracellularly. Not drugs that act inside cells. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed: I suggest (similar to Boghog) changing to Chemotherapeutic agents targeting receptors on the grounds that 'membrane receptors' is almost redundant (given the particular compounds being discussed) and 'targeting' is better than 'acting at' as it makes fewer assumptions as to the actual (rather than presumed) mechanism of action. The non-receptor targeting agents, like non-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, should then be removed. Klbrain (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that there is no such thing as "extracellular chemotherapy" and that the phrase "intracellular chemotherapy" is redundant. All the drugs in the "extracellular chemotherapy" are actually examples of "targeted anticancer therapy". With a few exceptions that should be removed, all the examples in {{Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} are nonspecific intracellular poisons. Hence I propose the following:

{{Targeted cancer therapy}} in turn could be split up into extra and intracellular targeted cancer therapy navboxes. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with this strategy. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A source that supports the title for {{Targeted cancer therapy}} is "Targeted Cancer Therapies". Fact Sheet. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While we are at it, the sidebar on the NCI web site also lists other types of cancer therapies:
Boghog (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much. i think we have consensus that also accords with reality, as you have demonstrated.  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
What's the difference between "Targeted cancer therapy" and "Targeted therapy"? Natureium (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The later is just shorthand for the former. Adding "cancer" to "targeted therapy" makes it more explicit and I would argue is more appropriate for a general audience. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just confused because I thought your list above meant the NCI listed both separately. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it is good to specify "targeted cancer therapy" for this since drugs like Etanercept/Enbrel are also "targeted therapy" ... Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the good discussion. Since there is general consensus to rename the templates, I have gone ahead and moved this template to {{Targeted cancer therapeutic agents}} and also put in a request to reverse the redirect from {{Intracellular chemotherapeutic agents}} to {{Chemotherapeutic agents}}. Boghog (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)