Talk:Ionophore

Ca⁺?

Hey, man, an ionophore for Ca⁺? Where did you ever see Ca⁺?? I doubt that this exists!

Best regards, Ueli

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.86.239 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And likewise Ba⁺ at the time of this comment. Fixed long ago. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

antibiotic properties

Can anyone add which ones are antibiotic and against what type of bacteria ? Rod57 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ionophore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071124025150/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iYfYJmjwYMb-6RiqjCbJ481k5xjgD8T16P5O0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYfYJmjwYMb-6RiqjCbJ481k5xjgD8T16P5O0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This new zinc/virus bit

It's fairly well-cited, so I don't want to delete it unilaterally - I don't know how true it is, read in a vacuum - but while I know we're supposed to assume good faith, it's hard not to think that the anon who added these did so to further an agenda, so I wanted to see what others' thoughts were, maybe someone familiar with the subject. Twin Bird (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's too much. I could support a few sentences about zinc ionophores in general. For example, how about prose (not just bullet-header) about key structural motifs, and the biochemical relevance of zinc ionophores. The cited review articles are a good start. I don't support a laundry-list of in-vitro targets/results at all...too preliminary even if not strictly in scope of WP:MEDRS It seems like there are many such chemicals that are bluelinks, so I think we need to avoid trying to list them all. Maybe instead (as I said before) the key structure-types as supported by secondary-refs, merged into the "List of representative biological ionophores" section? DMacks (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone got a hold of this article and twisted the definition. I got distracted from finding a def for ionophore that would allow the article to be revised back toward traditional lines, i.e. crown ethers and some antibiotics. As it stands, anything that binds Zn++ is an ionophore. Seems undue weight.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)