Talk:Catabolism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] On hormones
"Classic" and "Newer" catabolic hormones appear to be subsets of "catabolic hormones," yet "newer" is presented under the heading "classic." This presentation is confusing or misleading. I am a lay person, but to me, "newer" just doesn't seem like the right word here. Are these hormones new? Or is it that they are more recently discovered or more recently studied or more recently considered? It might be better to simply list the "newer" hormones in a list with the "classic" hormones. After all, why make a distinction? Is there a difference? If an important distinction exists, that distiction should be explained. If there is no distiction, we shouldn't distinguish.Chris Vandemore 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The person who added the new hormones screwed up the apparent hierarchies. I am fixing it. alteripse 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Emperical formula of carbohydrates
The section on th empirical formula of carbohydrates is incorrect. This was once believed to be true but has since shown to be incorrect. The formula is at best a general rule of thumb.MattDal 05:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Return to Redirect
This does not really make sense. If you move the subsections of catabolism to another "stub", we just have two stubs in a row now. Thise short intros should stay at Cell metabolism, to refer to the detailed articles about each. It is disturbing to a user to keep clicking through short outlines to get to the meat if that is what they are seeking. If not, I would think a user would prefer all the "superficial" stuff on one page if possible. This approach also plays havoc with the Categories. - Marshman 18:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Opening sentence
The most common simplistic explanation of anabolic and catabolic reactions include the mention of whether there is overall release or consumption of energy and this feature decides their nomenclature. This also has primacy over what it is rather than catabolic reactions are <whatever you have presently explained>. The first sentence of the article is shown in popups of wikilinks and this is a valuable tool for persons skimming difficult articles for which they need to cross-refer cross-wiki. For this purpose this change is important. AshLin 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Completely rewritten for clarity and accuracy. Tim Vickers 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photosynthesis
In talk:metabolism we are discussing whether photosynthesis is a catabolic reaction. --Etxrge (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking down to smaller units
Please read the following, then the question I have concerning it:
"In catabolism, large molecules such as polysaccharides, fatty acids, nucleic acids and proteins are broken down into smaller units such as monosaccharides, fatty acids, nucleotides and amino acids, respectively."
My question is: Does the second occurence of the phrase "fatty acids" seem redundant? I wonder if the word "other" should be put before it, or can it be reworded somehow so that the double occurence makes sense to people that are new to this subject? (Myself included.) Thank you. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Lipids" is better, since fatty acids are often components of lipids. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
