Talk:Protein isoform

	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
???	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).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jack1104ch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

definition

Can the first sentence of this article be rewritten so that the definition does not contain the defined term? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a definition of isoform be given? Can this be defined interms of the physical characteristics of species that constitute an isoform group? As opposed to a definition of what it takes to make an isoform (i.e. for proteins, coming from SNP modifications of DNA, etc). For small molecules, one would discuss the various isomers (same connectivity, although not necessarily the same geometry, e.g. chirality). One might discuss molecules with the same molecular weight, but not the same atoms, or with the same atoms but with different connectivities. Can protein, or glycan isoforms be defined in terms of primary, secondary, tertiary and quantenary structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence now says "A protein isoform is any of several different forms of the same protein." but what counts as the same protein ? It can't be amino acid sequence. Does it require a minimum degree of homology and substantially similar biochemical behaviour ? Is there an implication that the different isoforms exist in the same cell or organism ? Rod57 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi everyone, I plan to expand this stub by adding some sections: definition and mechanism. And I will rewrite the 1st paragraph in the beginning of the page and change the title of the section glycoforms. I will also add some references that I was used in the editing. I think some figures from alternative splicing article is very useful in this page. So I may add some figures in mechanism section. I will upload my work some time next week. Jack1104ch (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Protein isoform/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is readable and well-written, and adequately states the importance of the topic, but lacks references. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition unclear

The introductory sentence says that the term "isoform" is ambiguous, as it describes two different concepts: "one-gene-multiple-proteins" and "multiple-genes-similar-proteins". But then in the rest of the article it's not clear which of the two concepts is being described. Most of the article seems to talk about the "one-gene-multiple-proteins" concept via alternative splicing, but the AMPK example in the definition section seems to refer to the "multiple-genes-similar-proteins" concept. This is very confusing. AxelBoldt (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead to clear up the definition. See if it helps. --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: this is a lot better, thanks! AxelBoldt (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]