Thread:Naming of pathway? (1)
From WikiPathways
Viewing a history listing.
| 01:01, 27 April 2011 | AlexanderPico (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | |
| 15:56, 26 April 2011 | DWin (Talk | contribs) | New thread created |
There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 30 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.
I have two concerns: -- A) It it really the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway and statins are just inhibitors of one obligate step, -- B) If the entire "pathway" to lipoproteins is to be included then the connection of VLDL and HDL secretion from the hepatocyte should be more explicitly represented. At the moment it is not really possible to see that it is VLDL and HDL that are secreted and the other entities coming from other sources.
I'm new here, so let me know if I should be doing something different than raising this concenr in this manner.
This is the right place to raise concerns about this pathway. You can also raise these discussions on the wikipathways-discuss google group, if you want to involve more folks than those with this pathway on their watchlist.
A) I guess both names are useful. I depends on the perspective of the person looking at it. Statins is perhaps the more specialized title, yet also of more general interest. I don't see much gain in changing the title at this point. Though there could be another pathway started called cholesterol biosynthesis.
B) Feel free to add relevant connections and participants to the pathway. The open, collaborative editing model here supports this sort of collective curation. If the edits take the pathway in a new direction or too far from original focus, I'd recommend starting a new pathway.
--AlexanderPico 01:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
