Talk:Prefoldin

	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).

Lab research/in vitro review edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A novice user^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - WP:TALK ("Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views"; "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.") and WP:NOTFORUM]} is attempting to apply this article as having significance for nanomedicine. The topic is 4 years out of date, and is not established beyond in vitro lab research. It does not have WP:WEIGHT in the nanomedicine field, does not meet WP:MEDASSESS (lowest level of evidence), and is premature to use as a topic or source for nanomedicine. Wait for a WP:BMI-WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m a user with almost 5000 edits and have registered for over 15 months. I don’t know what’s your definition of “novice user”. I hope you are not trying to downgrade other Wikipedian with those untrue claims. You may want to review this too.

For the record, this is the content removed by User Zefr:

As of 2024, the potential prospects of prefoldin in nanomedicine are being explored.^[1]

It is *not* the conclusion of any “Lab research/in vitro” experiments. It’s just stating the fact that “experiments are being conducted / efforts are being made” to explore the potential prospects. I don’t think your personal opinion about WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDASSESS are valid at all. Citing many WP:UPPERCASE won’t make one right.

As I said on your talk, I don't think you are right. Even if you are, please review WP:BRIE. Please comment on content *instead of* editors. I hope the untrue claims (disruptive, etc.) in edit summaries and talk pages that lasting for weeks (and without any striking / appologies) can stop.

BTW, in the source it reads “future … whether they become tumor markers or the application of nanotechnology to treat diseases will be of great significance…” Again, I urge you to be more open-minded to new knowledge, and don’t revert base on reasons such as Idontlikeit or Idontknowit ... Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Mo SJ, Zhao HC, Tian YZ, Zhao HL (2020). "The Role of Prefoldin and Its Subunits in Tumors and Their Application Prospects in Nanomedicine". Cancer Manag Res (review). 12: 8847–8856. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S270237. PMC 7520118. PMID 33061580.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

A search of PubMed for "prefoldin nanomedicine review" yields only the one 2020 publication in question, i.e., prefoldin is not a topic of active interest in nanomedicine. Further, the journal is not Medline-indexed, indicating it is an unestablished publication of questionable quality for the encyclopedia. There is no good reason to include a statement from an unreliable source about some future unconfirmed value of using prefoldin in nanomedicine, WP:CRYSTAL. Zefr (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe many editors have experienced this kind of frustration, and many might have left the project, especially when editing the medical related articles: When a source is provided, someone says: non-MEDRS. When a MEDRS-complaint source is provided per request, the response they get is: not enough “MEDRS-complaint sources” are found on the Pubmed search engine. I found this kind of response quite strange, especially when the content that being added is just factual truth. I may not be able to reply to you promptly due to issues in RL, and like many others, I'm not really interested in rewriting the article as I'm personally tired of the effort it takes to add just one sentence. As a senior editor, perhaps you (or others) can help us find better sources (from books, Gov bodies, Pubmed, etc.) to expand the article? Below are some keywords that I think maybe useful:

nano‐robots
nano robots
nanorobots
nano‐cargo
nano cargo
nanocargo
nano actuator
nanoactuator
nanoparticles
nanotechnology
biomaterials
nano systems
nanosystems
nano structure
nanostructure
nano formulations
nanoformulations
nano drug
bionanorobots
Bio molecular
Biomolecular
Nanoscale
bionanotechnological applications
biotechnological
drug delivery
nano devices
nano-devices
nanodevices
biomolecular machines
Bio-nanorobotics
nano materials
nano-materials
nanomaterials
nano-objects
nanoobjects
Filamenetous Chaperone Gamma-Prefoldin
biotemplate in the generation of platinum nanowires
biomolecule-nanomaterial hybrids
biocatalytically-generated
PFDN1
PFDN2
PFDN3
PFDN4
PFDN5
PFDN6
PFDNs
PFD1
PFD2
PFD2
PFD3
PFD4
PFD5
PFD6
PFDN-like complex (UPC)
protein γ-prefoldin (γPFD)
alpha

..., etc.

BTW, I don't think the source provided above is "unreliable" as you said.

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[Mo2020-1] Mo SJ, Zhao HC, Tian YZ, Zhao HL (2020). "The Role of Prefoldin and Its Subunits in Tumors and Their Application Prospects in Nanomedicine". Cancer Manag Res (review). 12: 8847–8856. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S270237. PMC 7520118. PMID 33061580.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[1]