Talk:Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Proposed merge of PNPO into Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge PNPO into Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase given unopposed MOS:MCB argument that both gene and protein should be discussed on the one page. Klbrain (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these articles appear to be about the same enzyme. Proposing merging the newer, sparser one into the older, more-detailed one. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be quite common that Wikipedia has articles on genes and the enzymes that they code for. Sometimes, as here, there is confusion: the PNPO article purports to about the enzyme while most of its references and discussion relate to the gene within the human chromosome, mutants of that gene and their consequence in relation to disease. I think that in most cases a human gene and the enzyme it codes for will both be notable and merit separate articles — as will the chemicals that are the enzyme products. The trick is to ensure that the gene article doesn't stray into discussing the enzyme structure or the chemistry catalysed, except perhaps if mutant genes lead to surprising difference in these aspects. Surely a general policy will already have been agreed whether or not genes and enzymes should be discussed separately or together? Incidentally, as an organic chemist, I prefer to discuss enzymes categorised by the reaction they catalyse rather than their detailed structure (so would focus on EC numbers rather than the gene that encodes them) but that's another story.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch about the two different potential topics; I was going by the lede of PNPO to identify that article's claimed topic, and that neither article links to the other. The molecular-biology WikiProject pointed me to their "gene and protein articles" style guide. So what's really needed here is to re-cast the PNPO lede to clearly define its scope to be the gene, and cross-link (in wiki terms:) them? DMacks (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of MOS:MCB is that both gene and protein should be combined in a single article unless that becomes too large, named as the protein. So based on that I support merger at the title here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyridoxine or Pyridoxamine?

On the OMIM page, it's pyridoxamine - why then the article uses pyridoxine? ---CopperKettle (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]