Talk:Artificial enzyme

"Wikipedia is not a catalogue"

Since this is an encyclopedia not a catalogue, I've hidden the list of papers and reviews that are not cited in the article. Actually, some of them are already cited, so they are redundant (duplicate entries) and should be removed. The rest should either be incorporated into the article as citations (perhaps with new text, if they add anything), or removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a catalog - yes, and what we’ve got is a raft of primary sources, occasionally also on the margins of WP:MEDREF territory. I’m trying to convert the catalog-type material in the article as at present into more of an outline history; at the same time, it seems to me tht those review articles are the closest thing I’m aware of to (more-desirable) secondary sources, and I’ve promoted them back to reader view - placed appropriately, I hope?, in the two relevant sections (2010, and 2000 transferred from 2010).

I’ll keep an eye out for duplicates. I’m aware, too, tht the article is getting out of date - nothing since 2016, I think - but it needs someone with better knowledge than me to tackle that.

There’s also room for doubt whether some of the results listed are actually involve artificial enzymes - see below! – SquisherDa (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the whole timeline section is just random collection of stuff that happened without really being connected together and without any context showing why any particular items are important. — Chris Capoccia 💬 22:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of nanozymes

The image presently has a timeline of nanozymes which I think is a copyvio, and if not, is inadequately attributed. For future editors, some sources to consider might include the review articles doi:10.1039/C3CS35486E and doi:10.1039/C5QI00240K and the 2016 book published by Springer. EdChem (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: The image can be seen in the google books link but has now been deleted from commons as a copyvio. EdChem (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial enzyme results?

I’m demoting an article on polyoxometalate derivatives and Alzheimer's disease to a hidden comment. Please sort this out if I’m doing the wrong thing!, but I’m not at all sure tht the polyoxometalate derivatives mentioned are enzyme-mimics at all. The "peroxidase-like activity" mentioned in the abstract is activity of amyloid-β/haem, not the polyoxometalate being studied! – SquisherDa (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanozymes section

I think the the section for nanozymes should be forked into a new page. The timeline is incredibly long, and there could be so much more to add on Nanozymes that could not be added on Artificial Enzymes because it would make the page too long.

I also think that if the Nanozymes section is forked, than the 2010s and 2020s section should be split into multiple paragraphs and subsections, as it is very long and hard to read in its current format. Also, it is made up of a bunch of separate sentences usually starting with "a" or "an", which makes it much less cohesive.

Thank you for your time.

2601:600:8680:9150:F978:50D6:3761:4C0C (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't synzyme the same as artificial enzyme?

My question is the following: If synzyme refers to the same thing as artificial enzyme, then shouldn't the two articles be merged? kupirijo (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]