@kevinpanini this will end up creating an āempty cardā error for basically everyone
Its been done before, if any users have issues, googling the issue should say
toolbar ā tools ā empty cards
for anyone that asks here we can suggest them to follow the same steps.
Itās for sure a thing that has been done, if rarely, though that doesnāt make it ideal or recommended. As the person who gets to deal with the onslaught of confused (and occasionally angry) users who voice their complaints there is hesitation in forcing that that issue, unprovoked, for the entirety of the user base unilaterally. It sort of falls in the same camp as adding, or deleting, cards, which is to say that itās quite rare.
Iām open to considering ways to adjust the card, or improve on it, but deleting an existing cloze outright seems likely to create more consternation than it solves (in this case, I see the card as not having had a proposed change to the text before).
Maybe thereās an adjustment that can be made to the content behind the cloze, or another solution that isnāt as immediately apparent.
Itās also worth pointing out that, for any user error, a strong contingent of users will not just google (for better or worse). Nor understand why it happened, or how to solve it. Itās like the truism about instruction manuals; (almost) nobody reads 'em.
while i agree, that it will cause issues, currently the card is all about what second messengers do. removing the uneccessary part about cAMP i thought kept that information while not needing to add more irrelevant info. I had throught about saying āIn an adrenergic GPCRā (or any of the many types of GPCR that use cAMP) to specify cAMP but i am not too sure about how important that information truly is to the average person studying and I thought it might be beyond the scope of the MCAT as well as a card asking about the effects of second messenger cascades.
Yeah, Iām not against improving on the card. The sense I get is that the original author hewed directly to the source material here (not a bad instinct, but it leaves out nuance). In this case, it seems to source from the linked KA video.
The problem, as I see it, seems to be that the sentence is overly vague, or insufficiently, cued, however you want to see it. cAMP certainly is āa second messengerā though itās obviously not the only one.
In this case, though, creating 10,000+ āempty cardā errors is the rough equivalent of burning down your house to meet the neighbors. Lots of issues downstream from that that arenāt necessarily worth the benefit yield of deleting a single cloze.
The shortest path between these two points would be to try to cue the phrase we want. Whatās a leading phrase that would indicate that cAMP is specifically the correct secondary messenger?
In other words, what makes cAMP unique that could function as a cueing anchor for the card phrasing?
thats what i debated, i googled specifically GPCR receptors that use cAMP (i have attached results below). Like i said though, i believe might be beyond the scope and just water down the true meaning behind the card, which is āwhat do second messengers doā.
In 49 BC Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, after doing so he commanded his troops to burn the bridges. It took out an exit strategy for his troops. There was no turning back, the bridges have been burned, we move forward.
GPCRās that have cAMP
- Ī²-adrenergic receptors: These receptors, activated by hormones like epinephrine and norepinephrine, stimulate the production of cAMP. This leads to increased heart rate, blood pressure, and the breakdown of glycogen for energy.
- Glucagon receptors: Glucagon, a hormone released by the pancreas, activates glucagon receptors, which in turn increase cAMP levels. This promotes the breakdown of glycogen in the liver, releasing glucose into the bloodstream.
- Dopamine receptors: Some dopamine receptors, particularly D1 and D5 receptors, stimulate cAMP production. This is involved in various functions, including reward, motivation, and movement.
- Histamine receptors: Certain histamine receptors, like H2 receptors, increase cAMP levels, leading to the stimulation of gastric acid secretion
Lmao, dropping a Rubicon reference. Iām here for it. 
I thought you were a man of the 21st century, lolol
The hard part is that cAMP is one of, if not the, most common second messengers (or at least commonly used as an example in textbooks)
What if we went the other way; cAMP is pretty directly a derivative of ATP, no? It is, by definition, a cyclic AMP.
Bro 
I saw the burning house thing, and it reminded me of it. Either way, the point is that our fear should not cripple us from making decisions. I just saw someone else suggest removing a C2 on another card. If we make this change, we will open the door for more changes that remove unnecessary information while keeping the quality. There is an inherent fear of adding/deleting cards as itās a big change, but doing it only leads to improvements for everyone other than minor inconveniences. It would be nice if Ankihub could auto-delete the empty cards from peopleās decks. Maybe thatās a feature that should be added.
I donāt know that itās fear, so much as cost-benefit analysis. Weāre driving an ocean liner, not a lamborghini. If our solution to a cloze involves 10,000 users waking up wondering what happened, why, how to fix it, and experiencing (and expressing) that frustration Iām hard-pressed to think thatās a worthwhile trade-off.
I canāt say itās never happened but I canāt remember the last time, if ever, Iāve seen a deletion-of-a-cloze get approved. If weāre going to delete things, itās almost easier to delete a note than a card.
Deleting a note makes that note just disappear. Deleting a card creates an error message for 10,000 users. If weāre going to do that, Iād hope weād get more backside benefit from the resulting card. Again, one of the perks of live-editing a living document.
Maybe Iām just chasing my tail, but I keep thinking that the similarity of cAMP and ATP could be an easy linchpin and buy-in for a cue that would resolve the card altogether:
Existing card:
In the GPCR sequence, {{c2::cAMP }} is a second messenger which {{c1::triggers a response inside the cell}}.
Concept:
In the GPCR sequence, {{c2::cAMP }} is an ATP derivative that functions as a second messenger which {{c1::triggers a response inside the cell}}.
Iām all out of war references. Dunkirk? The Alamo? Geronimo?
My suggested edit:
In the GPCR sequence, {{c2::cAMP::ATP derivative}} functions as a second messenger, which {{c1::triggers a response inside the cell}}.
You canāt retake France from the Nazis by launching little operations here and there; you need D Day. You canāt untie a Gordian knot by tugging a little on random bits of string; you need to identify and yank on the most important loops in just the right sequence.
Yesterdayās CARS practice:
God my dates are all backwards. I think D-Day was only possible because the Germans flubbed Dunkirk pretty heavily; otherwise we might all be speaking German.
But yeah, between the two I think Iām pretty agnostic. They both seem on par to me; neither seems obviously inferior or problematic in any imediately obvious way. I could be happy with either
-
In the GPCR sequence, {{c2::cAMP }} is an ATP derivative that functions as a second messenger which {{c1::triggers a response inside the cell}}.
-
In the GPCR sequence, {{c2::cAMP::ATP derivative}} functions as a second messenger, which {{c1::triggers a response inside the cell}}.
I wonder, if weāre going to mention that cAMP is an ATP derivative, which I presume that many folks may not immediately know (or remember), if we shouldnāt find an image to accompany this. I shared one above, though itās not open-source.
Less pretty, to be certain, but is open-source:
edit: so I donāt forget where I found the image: https://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Adenylate_cyclase
@Brian_BH i have made edit, and if all looks good now, merge