Talk:Lipid II

No Lipid Classification on WP?

I see no infobox for lipids, only {infox protein} and {infobox protein family}, neither of which i think is appropriate. The Lipid MAPS system is almost 10 years old, why not on WP? Someone please help putting one in. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Overview article

This article is a good, relatively recent (2008) reference on Lipid II. It has lots of usable information for this article, including info on antibiotics that target Lipid II. Mythomane (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Teixobactin

While interesting the way the addition on Teixobactin was made amounted to a trivia section. With the press coverage of Teixobactin being so great it is very important that Wikipedia keeps a level head and does not overenthuse about the potential drug. If it does not pass through clinical trials in the coming years it is still likely these things will be on Wikipedia, and will then give a very poor impression. We shouldn't add things that are purely sensational when there is so much more that can be added. As part of a larger section a single sentence about teixobactin could be in order, but a whole section on a new unproven drug - I think not. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, first, thanks for finally using the edit summary to explain your reverts (x 2). Second: do you know how to ping? I didnt see the post above until now, which clearly addresses me. Its' a matter of courtesy/ netiquette, to let someone know you are replying.

I have real difficulties understanding what you are saying.

Re: "While interesting the way the addition on Teixobactin was made amounted to a trivia section"

I dont understand your English here. Did you mean: The way the addition of Teixobactin was made? And which way of an addition are you referring to? and whats interesting? the way the addition was made? ( how was it made? I dont get it) or are you referring to the connection between Lipid II and teixobactin?

Or do you mean "the way the addition to the Teixobactin page was made?" but that wouldnt make any sense either! Proper would be addition of.

And why was made (passive voice)? was made by me. So you should say: "...you added the Teixobactin link".

Re: "amounted to a trivia section." what does that mean? adding an internal link under the 'see also section' isnt a section, and wheres the trivia?

I think you are saying, the FACT that I added the term teixobactin to the 'see also section' rubs you the wrong way. correct? And the rest that follows is your reasoning. It is similarly confusing:

Re: "WP needs to keep a level head" Man, who is WP ? you and I and others are! We! I understand your concern theoretically, but not in this case, I am level headed- prove me wrong. It's like you're dishing out a 'right response' to the 'wrong problem', no, not this page.

Re: "overenthusing" - adding an internal link? That isnt overenthusing.

Re: "adding things that are purely sensational" - what? teixobactin in and by itself is sensational? Let me add vancomycin too then. Will you let this stand?

Re: "We shouldn't add things that are purely sensational when there is so much more that can be added." wrong. you are welcome to add "so much more that can be added" to lipid II. I look forward to it, honestly.

Re: "As part of a larger section a single sentence about teixobactin could be in order, but a whole section on a new unproven drug - I think not." wait : unproven drug? its a chemical compound and some basic things have been found out. I disagree to write a single sentence mentioning teixobactin in the body of the article. Its MOA is described on its own page, teixobactin. It is only indirectly related to the topic of Lipid II. "See also" however is the perfct place, because terms there enable a reader to explore a tangentially related topic, if they want to know more.

Re: "a whole section" - what do you mean by that? There is no section about teixobactin.

Re: "If it does not pass through clinical trials in the coming years it is still likely these things will be on Wikipedia, and will then give a very poor impression." This is plain wrong, incorrect. To me it is proof that you do not understand the connection between the 2, and maybe not even how WP works ("will be on WP" ).

I am not writing this to hurt or intimidate you. I am writing so you understand why I added the link as part of common sense when I wrote the stub, and why in my judgement I am defending it.

My humble impression is that you,ve not understood the biological connection between lipid II and teixobactin. It is there whatever happens to drug development, leave alone any potential clinical trials. It's simply basic science, nothing more. :Please immerse yourself in the matter. It looks to me like you havent, really- take it from an ID doc. I teach infectious diseases to other docs, fellows , residents, nurse practitioners, which involves teaching about antibiotics, and how they work. I go so basic, that I have given Grand Rounds about just one compound alone; There are many things to know about just one drug. So, will say: I know there's a lot to know.

Please ping me or use my username the way I did above with your reply, so I get notified.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I think I understand the issue CFCF has with the teixobactin reference. There are several major, clinically approved antibiotics that that target Lipid II with a well-understood mechanism, meanwhile teixobactin is new and poorly understood. Having a link to teixobactin in its own section gave it undue weight. Perhaps we could include a list of antibiotics that target Lipid II, and teixobactin could be one item on the list. Mythomane (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

fair enough, Mythomane. go for it.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the new additions. It now gives a well balanced overview of several antibiotics. I may have been slightly tired when I wrote my response and missed a comma here and there, but what I was going for was that we shouldn't give teixobactin undue weight. Sensationalist comments on teixobactin citing poor scientific sources have been plastered around other articles claiming the discovery of a new "miracle" antibiotic. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox trouble

Is there any way to auto-hide the IUPAC name in the same way the entries below are hidden by default? It currently takes up unnecessary space and is only useful for very few people. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lipid I and Undecaprenyl Phosphate/Undecaprenol articles

Hello all. I am new to Wikipedia as a student, and I noticed that Lipid I and undecaprenyl phosphate (referred to as "undecaprenol" in the article) were mentioned briefly in this article. I enjoy the article so far, and hope to see it become more interconnected with those two terms, as well as continually improved since it is of high importance for the Microbiology WikiProject (not to mention relevance in other WikiProjects).

In short, I am proposing that perhaps some efforts could be lent to developing an article for Lipid I, as has an integral and significant connection to Lipid II in the synthesis of the peptidoglycan cell wall of bacteria. Additionally, work on connecting or clarifying undecaprenyl phosphate and bactoprenol could be done, so that quality links to those pages can be added to this article.--ZS010270 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)