Talk:Cell (biology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Cell (biology):
  • 100 trillion cells in human body seems like a very high estimate, and I don't currently have access to the dead tree book source cited (Lodish, Molecular Cell Biology). Most text books seem to put this number below 50 trillion (and as low as 5 trillion, showing the range of estimation in textbooks.) A recent comprehensive study at the University of Bologna gave an estimation of 3.72 x 10^13, which I find agreeable with my personal calculations. Recommend changing this stat from 100T to 50T and citing the Univ Bologna study: [1] http://nanoimmondizia.ge.ibf.cnr.it/UserFiles/documenti/Bianconi_AHB_2013.pdf
  • restructure according to the structure recommended in Wikipedia:WikiProject Science.
  • Merge with text from NCBI Science Primer User:Lexor/Temp/Cell (NCBI) is complete. Text that was not used in the article is at Talk:Cell (biology)/NCBI leftover. It is still very useful and should be merged into more specialized articles. --Lexor|Talk
  • Add information comparing the different types of eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, protists) and prokaryotes
  • Add information on the diversity of cell types/shapes/functions/etc, both among unicellular and multicellular organisms.
  • Protista especially are poorly represented in the article.
  • In the Organelles section, add more information about organelles in general. (Maybe some of the details about specific organelles can be removed as well.)
  • Add information (perhaps in a separate section?) on cellular dysfunction, e.g. in cancer.
  • Add information on cells in the context of biological organization
  • Add information on cell biology, on the model systems used (e.g. E. coli, S. cerevisiae, HeLa cells), etc
  • Add information on other basic cellular processes (e.g. absorption/secretion, cell signalling, intracellular transport); also refer briefly to more specialized functions such as electrical conduction
  • Fact check these points:
  • multicellular organisms have cells that "do not generally survive" when separated. Can't most plants do that? Or sponges?
    • plants: as a rule, no. certain multicellular organisms are better characterized as a collection of unicellular organisms given their lesser degree of specialization. in general, multicellular organisms have specialized cells for a reason and cannot reproduce via budding.
  • in the "cytoplasm" section, it says that all eukaryotes have cytoskeletons and implies that no prokaryotes do. Can someone confirm this?
    • prokaryotes have a cell wall to lend structural support, so their version of the cytoskeleton is not the same.
  • Are the distinctions between prokaryotes and eukaryotes as clear as they should be? Is everything about the prokaryotes right?
    • short answer: no.
  • can the line about "prokaryotic cells have three architectural regions..." be improved?
  • Is the prokaryotic cytoplasm more "granular" than in eukaryotes? Both kinds have ribosomes floating around...
  • Is the typical cell size 10 micrometers diameter, or is it the radius?
    • number given is an order of magnitude observation estimation
  • The largest observed single undivided cell is NOT the ostrich egg, but a slime mold at approximately 30 square metres.
  • Clarification needed.
 Article on cells: "Humans contain about 10 trillion (10[superscript]13) cells."
 Article on Red Blood Cells: "Adult humans have roughly 2–3 × 10[superscript]13 (20-30 trillion) red blood cells at any given time,
comprising approximately one quarter of the total human body cell number."99.65.214.26 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Cell (biology) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Former good article Cell (biology) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Edit request on 23 January 2012[edit]

Another structure found outside the cell wall or cell membrane is the cilia. Cilia are fine, hair-like projections that enable free-living organisms such as protists to move around their environment. Cilia are also found in multicellular animals. They are found in the lining of the respiratory tract to move foreign materials away from the lungs and out to the external environment, acting like a brush or an escalator. They are also found lining the Fallopian tube of higher mammals. With a sweeping-like action, they maneuver the ovum (egg cell) towards the uterus.

Biologist88 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, same reason as above (Cilium)--Jac16888 Talk 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single theory for the rise of the first cell. Not in the formal use of the word[edit]

There is not a single theory for the rise of the first cell- Not in the formal use of the word, at least. There are nmany ideas (in the form of hypothesis) that are considered, but is not aresolved issue (and the different groups of scientist studying them haven't reached a concensus yet. The use of the word "theories" is a non-trivial mistake that should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.86.132 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

why cant they just have the ansers for this paper on a site o wait they do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.115 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012[edit]

Hooke from [[Micrograph]], which is the origin of the word "'''cell'''" being used to describe the smallest unit of a living organism]]

at the beginning of the article should be changed back to

[[Image:Cork Micrograph Hooke.png|thumb|Drawing of the structure of [[Cork cambium|cork]] as it appeared under the microscope to Robert Hooke from [[Micrograph]], which is the origin of the word "'''cell'''" being used to describe the smallest unit of a living organism]]

It seems like the beginning of the tag was cut in a previous edit. 72.132.147.117 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for letting us know as the error was there for several hours. Part of the caption was left behind as an image was deleted. Cadiomals (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Two mistakes[edit]

I visited this article only to see what was considered cell components and found this:

"All cells, whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic, have a membrane that envelops the cell, separates its interior from its environment, regulates what moves in and out (selectively permeable), and maintains the electric potential of the cell. Inside the membrane, a salty cytoplasm takes up most of the cell volume. All cells possess DNA, the hereditary material of genes, and RNA, containing the information necessary to build various proteins such as enzymes, the cell's primary machinery. There are also other kinds of biomolecules in cells. This article lists these primary components of the cell, then briefly describe their function."

Sentence #3 is incorrect (All cells possess DNA). Not true. Red blood cells do not have DNA.

The last sentence has a grammar mistake: "This article lists these primary components of the cell, then briefly describeS their function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.145.177 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

fix the reference of the definition[edit]

The first definition is broken or it's moved but a found it again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26863/ Please fix it. --181.14.147.137 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012[edit]

Humans contain about 100 trillion cells.(Reference: Text book of Medical Physiology, Eleventh Edition, Guyton & Hall, Elsevier Saunders SHANRUSHIA (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done True statement, but there's not really a good place for it to go in this article. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but wikipedia articles aren't random compilations of trivia. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View - Origins Section[edit]

This article definatly doesn't maintain an NPOV when it comes to the origin of life. It is based only on one of the atheistic theories, and those theories are highly controversial. Tagged. Randomizer3 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as there is no policy-based justification for it. There is no such thing as an "atheistic theory". Please review WP:FRINGE—in brief, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on reliable sources. You would need a couple of such sources that show a problem with the wording in the article to warrant {{POV-section}}. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

pokaryotes has a nucleas but lacs nuclear membrane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.134.36 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cell theory[edit]

The item on the history of cell theory repeats a very common but outdated view. A better and more recent account is:

"The work of the Czech Jan Purkyně (1787–1869) and his student and collaborator Gabriel Valentin (1810–1883) was unjustly denigrated by the nationalistic Germans. They have a claim to some priority in the cell theory. Johannes Müller (1801–1858) also made great contributions. It was, however, his student Theodor Schwann (1810–1882) and Matthias Schleiden (1804–1881) who got the credit for the cell theory, despite the fact that some of their observations were not correct, and their credits to previous workers were 'a travesty'."

The underlining is mine, to draw attention to the extent of the problem. The source for these remarks are: Harris H. 1999. The birth of the cell. Yale University Press, New Haven, Chapter 9 and especially p97. Harris is a leading cell biologist, and fluent in German, so his conclusions are quite significant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Completing WP:PTOPIC move of a move-protected article. I opened a talk section at Cell a couple of weeks ago (now at Cell (disambiguation)) and there was no objection. Sunrise (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Adding original rationale from the talk section linked above. I would like to move Cell (biology) to be the primary topic for this page. Based on WP:PTOPIC, it gets >50% of the article traffic (as long as Mobile phone is excluded which is far down the page and a less direct connection). Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Note for closer a few days into the discussion. The sequence of events relating to this RM was as follows: I tried to assess support for the move using a talk section at Cell (then a disambiguation page), and when nobody responded after a couple of weeks I decided the proposal was uncontroversial - so I moved the page to Cell (disambiguation) and put in a technical request for a move from Cell (biology) to Cell. The TR was declined, and this RM was opened using my TR comment (but not the original rationale, thus my comment under the previous bullet point). The dab page is still at Cell (disambiguation), since (without thinking) I had redirected Cell pending my request, so a G6 will be needed. At this point I'm agreeing with the comments that the discussion has been sidetracked, and particularly with Red Slash's comment that the move should be re-proposed. Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To many people, the meaning "prison cell" is as important. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - opening a discussion on a dab page gets no takers.. who watches dab pages. Cell has too many technical uses for the original use (if it even is original?) to automatically be primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The word "cell" came from Latin "cella", and its history is in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cell , and the word was around an age and an age before biological cells were discovered. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Neither etymology or the total number of uses should mean anything though, right? Unless I'm reading PTOPIC incorrectly, it should be sufficient if the page gets >50% of the total views. Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The move of the disambiguation page, "Cell" to "Cell (disambiguation)" should have been discussed through a WP:RM, not done unilaterally based on a talk page query added without proper notification. That said, I would agree that the biological term has the greatest long-term significance, biological cells having existed for billions of years. bd2412 T 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose why didn't you open a standard RM request for the disambiguation page move, if you wanted to gauge the primary topic? There are many many uses of "cell" and most people are not of the biology-field bent. If you like videogames, it's quite likely you might thing of the Cell processor. Then there's prison cells, for the common person. And if you're a technology person, the battery (electrochemical cell) is quite likely. Then, if you're a person with lots of friends, you might call them on your cell (mobile phone). The disambiguation page should be returned, as this is a multipart move. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • TBH, it seemed like a straightforward application of PTOPIC based on my reading of it (under both criteria, but I focused on the more quantifiable one in my original reasoning). So I went ahead and moved the dab page then put in a WP:RM/TR for the final step. Sunrise (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This discussion appears to be getting sidetracked; no one is debating that there are indeed many other uses of the word "cell" and all seem to recognise a proper RM should have been used prior to this move taking place. However, at this point we should be discussing whether this article on the biological use of cell meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—I'd argue that it does comfortably. benmoore 11:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Re-propose as a multi-page move hosted at Talk:Cell. And speedy return of Cell (disambiguation) to Cell pending that discussion, on which I wish to remain neutral for now. Red Slash 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that. I would actually have tagged Cell for speedy return of the dab page as soon as someone objected, but I didn't want to interrupt traffic to the page for however long it would take for someone to act on it. Sunrise (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A competing top association is the original meaning, a small room, which persists in Prison cell. "Cell" is ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose—best to leave cell as a disambig page for all uses of the word, and let Cell (biology) cover the specific biological use. N2e (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

The origin of the use of cell cites Micrographia, where the structure of cork is likened to the cells of a honeycomb, yet the text repeats the myth about cells in a monastery. There is no evidence that Hooke thought cells in cork looked like monastic cells, at the very least another source is required to justify the claim since the cited text contradicts it. Pete Kirkham (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pete, thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the text in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).