Talk:Chaperone (protein)

Rename to Chaperone (biochemistry)

Currently, the Chaperone article describes the protein, while the Chaperon article describes the chastity monitor. That's misleading and confusing, since both spellings are common for both meanings. Which is why articles such as The Virgin Suicides and List of sexology topics link "Chaperone" instead of of "Chaperon". Scientists tend to use the final e, and everyody else tends to drop it, but both forms are common in both contexts. I think the only solution is to rename this article "Chaperone (biochemistry)" and have "Chaperone" redirect to "Chaperon".

Because of the large number of links to "Chaperone", this can't be done all at once. I intend to take the following steps:

1. Create a redirect called "Chaperone (biochemistry)" that goes to "Chaperone".
2. Change the biochemistry-related articles that link to "Chaperone" to link to "Chaperone (biochemistry)". (I'll leave other "Chaperone" links alone.) That will include the "see other meaning" link on "Chaperon"
3. Request a rename of "Chaperone" to "Chaperone (biochemistry)."
4. Create a new redirect for "Chaperone" to "Chaperon"

---Isaac R 16:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really necessary. There were six articles that linked to this page (Chaperone) when they meant the escort (chaperon), but I've fixed those. I note that List of sexology topics actually listed both words; this has been fixed. Since there's a disambiguation link at the top of both articles, I don't see a serious problem here. If absolutely necessary, a disambiguation page could be created at Chaperone, linking to "Chaperone (biochemistry)" and Chaperone (social).

The way to do that would be:

1. Move Chaperone to "Chaperone (biochemistry)" using the move button at the top of the article (do not cut and paste to the new title, that doesn't preserve the article history properly.)) This automatically redirects Chaperone → "Chaperone (biochemistry)".
2. Run through the what links here list for Chaperone and update all those wikilinks.
3. Move Chaperon to Chaperone (social) (or whatever title seems sensible), again using the move function.
4. Fix all the Chaperon redirects.
5. Last, remove the redirect at Chaperone and write a proper disambig page.

Presto! No admin assistance for page renaming or preservation of history required, and GFDL compliance is maintained. You also wouldn't annoy nearly so many scientific editors who wonder why their protein folding articles automatically link to a page about chastity monitors.

Regardless, I'd wait a few days just to see if anybody else has any comments on the idea. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, give me some credit. If I didn't know the proper procedure for moves, would I have bothered posting this message? ¶ The six social links aren't the reason I can't do this all at once. It's the large number of biochem links. I suppose I could get around that by creating renaming "chaperon" to "chaperon (social)" and creating a new dab page called "chaperon". But there's a long list of reasons I don't want to do that. I'll list them if you want, but this discussion is already longer than the original aritcles! ---Isaac R 17:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I thought it was better to be detailed now than to have to fix a cut & paste move later. I've just seen a couple of editors who ought to have known better do a cut & paste recently, and I guess I'm a bit sensitive to it. I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't know better, and if anyone else is reading this I wanted the reasoning behind my suggestion to be explicit.

  For what it's worth, I didn't think either article had a particularly long list of links. Chaperone has maybe twenty-five, while Chaperon has fifteen or so. If you do move Chaperone to "Chaperone (biochemistry)", the automagically created redirect will mean nobody even notices the difference during the twenty minutes it takes to update the links in other articles. Some people have proposed moving Chicago, Illinois to Chicago—that is a lot of links to fix. :)

  Of course, since it seem that more articles use chaperone in the biochemical sense, perhaps it's not wise to turn the word over to the other usage? My own preference is to leave matters as they are now, but a disambig page at Chaperone as I described above would also be a good approach. I'm open to hearing your reasoning behind your suggestion, though...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, maybe I can skip the parts that require the intervention of an admin. Though I don't see where that's a big deal -- it's a simple procedure, and only restricted to admins for technical reasons. Last time I did it took less than an hour to resolve. ¶ Since the ordinary usage of "chaperon" is very much more common (I never heard of the protein before today), I'd prefer to not rename that article and dispense with a dab page. I'm not sure that particular issue is worth extended discussion in any case. ---Isaac R

• • • Yeah, I've been thinking about it and it probably does make sense to bounce straight to the social definition. I work in the warped world of protein chemistry, so I'm used to chaperone only being used in the biochemical sense. Don't forget to add a dab link to "Chaperone (biochemistry)", and happy editing. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page moved. Other chaperone proteins were named "name (protein)", so I have followed that pattern. Snowman (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref

I could not find this ref. on Pubmed:

Terasawa, et al, J Biochemistry (Tokyo), 137(4): 443-447, 2005

Will whoever added it supply more info.... Kjaergaard 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why 60 90 100 etc?

What is this nomenclature based on ?

---

The approximate molecular weight of each of the proteins/protein families, in kilodaltons (kDa). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How to explain "tetradecameric" and such?

I added a few internal Wikipedia references to "in vivo" and "in vitro" and to the subsection Quaternary_structure#Nomenclature_of_quaternary_structures so as to try to give some reference to those. The article is very technical and jargon-rich, but I would think those would help. Is there a better way to do it? Matt 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of page

Although this is a big topic in biology, is the word chaparone more likely to be used in everyday use as a person who supervises young people. Should the other meaning be the primary topic? Should this page have another name, such as, "Chaperone protein", "Chaperone (protein)" or "Chaperone (biology)"? Snowman (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. Page moved. Other chaperone proteins were named "name (protein)", so I have followed that pattern. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

It seems like this introduction is so bent on debunking the notion that chaperones fold proteins that it doesn't lay out what they DO do in the first place. The second sentence of the article is no place for sentences like this, "The common perception that chaperones are primarily concerned with protein folding is incorrect." Similarly, the first sentence in the second paragraph is problematic, "Chaperones do not necessarily convey steric information required for proteins to fold: thus statements of the form `chaperones fold proteins` can be misleading." I come to this article knowing very little about chaperones, and thus I never had the notions that chaperones fold proteins. The article assumes the reader has these notions, that the reader has the "common perception." A far better introduction would simply lay out exactly what they do. If it is absolutely necessary to say what they DON'T do in order to better convey what they DO do, then it should be done in a way that doesn't try to disprove something to its readers in the second paragraph. As I've said, I do not know enough about chaperones to really make these two paragraphs better. I only know that they were unhelpful for a reader who is well versed in chemistry but a newcomer to this particular subject. I hope someone who is well versed might be able to tinker with it and fix it.Stever Augustus (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaperone (protein). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523130904/http://ultr23.vub.ac.be/ultr/pub/pdfs/290.pdf to http://ultr23.vub.ac.be/ultr/pub/pdfs/290.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Revent?

Chaperones can also work as disaggregases, i.e. they can interact with aberrant protein assemblies and revent them to monomers.[7]

What does 'revent' mean?

I looked up the source article and couldn't even find the word.

2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:C8BE:2AD7:A992:6C2 (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was a typo for revert. TerryE (talk) TerryE (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Just checked the article and history; This was already picked up and corrected a year ago. TerryE (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)