Talk:Cytochrome P450 reductase

Title

I think that the title of this article is unfortunate. I believe the most common name of this enzyme is "NADPH:cytochrome P450 reductase". NC-IUBMB page for EC 1.6.2.4] lists a number of synonyms, none of them is simply "P450 oxidoreductase". Also, "P450 oxidoreductase" can be confused with P450 itself becasue most of P450s are oxidoreductases. However, IUBMB-recommended common name and systematic name are also not widely used (for example, I even cannot find "NADPH—hemoprotein reductase" or "NADPH:hemoprotein oxidoreductase" in PubMed). Thus I suggest renaming this article to "NADPH:cytochrome P450 reductase". Metalloid 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"P450 oxidoreductase" is actually a fairly common name for it. If you do a google search for "P450 oxidoreductase", almost every result is about this protein, and not P450 reactions in general. It might not be the most accurate name, but it's the one people are most likely to search for. Kiral 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: I see consensus against moving the page to NADPH—cytochrome P450 reductase. I see no consensus for moving the page to cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase. I am closing this to not relist it a 4th time, with no prejudice towards someone speedily opening another RM proposing the latter title. (non-admin closure) Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cytochrome P450 reductase → NADPH--cytochrome P450 reductase – There has previously been some discussion about the name of this article. According to the style guide for gene and protein articles, the recommended UniProt protein name should be used as the article name. In this case the recommended name for this protein is "NADPH--cytochrome P450 reductase." Dh92 (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 04:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Molecular Biology has been notified of this discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per nom. Also, might be worth double-checking what the WP guidelines are on double hyphens. Side note: The naming of this protein seems weirdly vague to me since there are many different "cytochrome P450 reductase" proteins rather than just this specific eukaryotic one. Maybe its some holdover from the olden times, or maybe it can get away without renaming since the others are typically classed as some variation of "ferredoxin reductase" or "flavodoxin reductase". ― Synpath 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is the COMMONNAME. Appending NADPH, an abbreviation, jargon, specifying a ubiquitous molecule not unique to the cytochrome or being reduced, is a nod to a full technical name that belongs in the lede but not the title. “ Cytochrome P450 reductase” is a family of proteins, and appending NADPH implies a false specification, as if NADPH Cytochrome P450 reductase is a particular Cytochrome P450 reductase. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this article is about a specific protein - namely, the human enzyme which is the protein product of the POR gene (with references to its murine and bacterial homologs). A separate article about the general class to which this enzyme belongs can be found here: NADPH—hemoprotein reductase Dh92 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should this then be retitled Human cytochrome P450 reductase? I don’t think you’re right, that does not match the lede paragraph. Nor does it match the parent article, cytochrome P450. Even there, very little is human-specific.

The “UniProt protein name” sounds very analogous to
WP:OFFICIALNAMES
, which are always rejected when at odds with a COMMONNAME.

The worst thing about your proposal is the matter of style of beginning a title with an abbreviation, and of it being something that is NOT covered in the article.
NADPH
is not defined, nor is there a picture of it.

Now that you mention “POR”, what is it, used throughout, undefined. Jargon. Too much jargon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SmokeyJoe. Yes, using UniProt names is good, unless the common name for the protein is different. Basically,
WP:COMMON NAME overrides the local guideline here. Adding "human" is also not a good idea because the article needs to have a wider scope.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree that
WP:COMMON NAME trumps UniProt name, and also agree about not adding "human." If we are in agreement that common name is the standard we're using, I did a quick PubMed search and it seems to me that most recent papers are using "cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase" (emphasis mine). @My very best wishes, thoughts about using this name vs. leaving current title as-is? Dh92 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Research papers are not good example of quality secondary sources. I suggest review articles and textbooks. How do these introduce the topic? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted for discussion on the proposed title of "cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase" Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (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.