Talk:Thiamine pyrophosphate

Thiamine pyrophospahte is alos a keto carrier

Thiamine pyrophospahte is also a keto carrier in enzyme catalysis inmportant in sugar metabolism and dehydrogenase activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.255.99 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Stick to "TPP" rather "ThDP". Fuzzform (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree TPP should be the primary abbreviation (I've changed all references from ThDP to TPP in the cofactor article. However we should at least mention that ThDP is acceptable, as I've seen it in multiple places. The current state of the article seems acceptable. Pdcook (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Biosynthesis of TPP

Does anyone know anything about the biosynthesis of TPP? The article currently states TPP is produced by thiamine pyrophosphatase (I'm assuming in its reversed direction), but I know in bacteria that TPP is produced by Thiamine-phosphate kinase. Are these the same enzymes hiding under different (reverse reaction) names? Thiamine-phosphate kinase clearly requires ATP and I'm sure you can get the reaction to go backwards with enough ADP around. The thiamine pyrophosphatase reaction liberates inorganic phosphate, but does it operate in the back reaction (adding phosphate to thiamine monophosphate)? If not, then the article is wrong and we should state that TPP is produced by Thiamine-phosphate kinase. If it's correct, then we should merge the Thiamine-phosphate kinase and thiamine pyrophosphatase articles. Pdcook (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute 2012

User Drphliharmonic believes that "in essence" is clearer wording than "essentially", and I disagree. The same can be said of other adverbs in this article. For the phrase "in essence", I strongly disagree because of the chemical and alchemical historical usage of "essence", which presists in literature as recent as the 20th century. The adverb "essentially" avoids this problem. I would appreciate a variety of opinions from outside parties to resolve this dispute. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not believe that in essence is clearer wording than essentially, I do uphold that in essence in these contexts does more accurately convey the meaning intended by the writer:

"In what is essentially the reverse of step two

versus

In what is, in essence, the reverse of step two

and

In what is essentially the reverse of step one

versus

In what is, in essence, the reverse of step one.

I will concede to the consensus, of course, even if opposing my viewpoint, since essentially - though in this case not an adverb modifying is but a parenthetical modifier meaning in essence (as consequently in many contexts is improperly used for as a consequence) - has adopted an idiomatic usage and, therefore, is understood as such by many English speakers and readers. However, many is the operative word here, which is why I - without emotional bias but with logic and language history as my basis - choose phrasing that most precisely conveys the intended meaning of the speaker or writer.

What is disconcerting here, as in many other locations on Wikipedia in which I expend effort to rephrase documents in recognition of and respect for their authors, is that EncycloPetey continues to undo edits in the manner of an involuntary reflex if he is disapproving of one edit within the many, which, one must admit, is not only unscholarly but also very discourteous. Along with undoing the above-described edit, undone are edits involving:

• Thiamine pyrophosphate... is a derivative which is produced...

in which which is replaced with that, for that distinguishes this form of TPP from other forms, making the phrase

Thiamine pyrophosphate... is a derivative that is produced...

• Chemically, TPP consists of a pyrimidine ring...

in which Chemically, which here is nonsensical, either is altogether not needed - for we are in the midst of describing its chemistry - or can be clarified with

In chemical terms, TPP consists of a pyrimidine ring...

• Normally, reactions that form carbanions are highly unfavorable...

which can be stated

Under normal circumstances, reactions that form carbanions are highly unfavorable... Drphilharmonic (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that, of the above versions of "in essence" listed by Drphilharmonic, none of the options he has discussed actually matches the change he has been making to this article. You will need to look at the edit diffs to see what he has actually been doing. You can read his "logic" for his cadre of changes on his talk page, where an essay of original research has been composed on the subject, doused with much emotional bias against all who disagree with him. I recommend a quick look to see his opinons of editors on Wikipedia in his own words, and then judge who has been "discourteous".

Yes, I have also reverted the elimination of adverbs. Adverbs need not be replaced with a lengthy phrase to communicate exactly the same information. This systematic elimination of adverbs by Drphilharmonic on Wikipedia has never been justified, despite the several complaints against it on his talk page, to which he explicitly refuses to respond. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Poorly written article at this stage

I agree with the "start-stage" quality assessment of this article. It needs better text and mechanistic illustrations. Verytas (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)