Talk:Cell nucleus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cell nucleus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 14, 2007.
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Error[edit]

There's an error in the article (bookmark 11). The article states there that import needs GTP and export too. This can't be true. Please would somebody correct it? I don't know how to do it.

If I understand correctly, one requires GTP to dissociate from its cargo, and the other to bind to its cargo. 128.250.5.248 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Steroids[edit]

Is anyone familiar with a steroid that can be used as an example, and which crosses across the nuclear envelope? This could be included, as a sentence under the "Nuclear envelope and pores" section, to illustrate alternative movement into the nucleus. ShaiM 09:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a short blurb on nuclear receptors and steroid hormones, but not too much detail since this is getting surprisingly long already.

There are several nuclear hormone receptors that are bound to DNA in their apo state (e.g., thyroid hormone receptor; TR). Thyroid hormone diffuses or is transported from the cytoplasm to the nucleus and then binds to TR. But I would agree this article is becoming too long.Boghog2 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subnuclear bodies section: I didn't notice this before, but the bodies in the table are different than the ones in the text. PIKA have a table entry but not their own section, and Gems are the opposite. (Also, do nemaline rods merit their own section, since they're not normal nuclear components?) Opabinia regalis 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't really know much about subnuclear bodies before I did this, and so information is available per what I was able to find. I couldn't find the size of Gems, and I couldn't find any info re. PIKA. However PIKA is mentioned in the introduction part of that section. As for the rods, I don't mind including them, especially since their inclusion doesn't imply that a whole hord of other quasi-subnuclear-bodies are about to be added.
I may be wrong about this, but aren't there steroids that once inside the cytoplasm, can diffuse accross the nuclear enveope?
We haven't received much feedback at the review. Do you think we could submit for FA and see how things go? ShaiM 14:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought there were some steroids that diffused into the nucleus also, but when I looked I couldn't find a specific example. Voet&Voet says that some can but doesn't give an example, and Lodish says only that they diffuse into the cytoplasm. I couldn't find any reference to direct diffusion in primary literature, though I admit I didn't put too much effort into sifting through the endless "treating cell type X with steroid Y localizes protein Z to the nucleus" papers. My general impression is that it may be possible but not the primary mechanism.
I think there's a couple of minor things left before sending this to FAC - the to-do list should probably be chucked, since a lot of the list elements are old and what's left is more like a to-do list for nuclear lamina. If Reo above did/can get an image of an actual nucleus in section, that would be perfect, though not critical. Also, I'm a bit concerned about Image:Metaphase-flourescent.JPG - it has an obsolete PD tag, but I question the reasoning; as far as I know works of the US federal government are inherently PD, but not works of individual state governments, which is the claimed source of this image. I'm doubtful it's really PD, but I'm not copyright clueful - is this something you'd know more about? Opabinia regalis 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the todo. Also asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Question_re._image_copyright) about the img copyright as I really don't know anything about how all that stuff works. :) ShaiM 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea; I couldn't think of where to put that question. I gave Reo a poke yesterday too. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum - I added a small micrograph that is definitely PD. It would still be nicer to have one where we know the cell type, but this one isn't bad. Opabinia regalis 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Just switched the questionable-copyright image with one I stumbled across on Commons. It's extremely similar, with a similar description, but is definitely from a US government source. I kind of suspect the original one might also have been originally from federal work and reused by the NY site, but I think both images get the same point across. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cell Nucleus-Therory.or.fact.[edit]

What.guidelines.are.in.place.for.information.published.this.or.in.text.books.etc. It.seem.like.this.article.has.been.proven.but.if.that.were.true.would.it.also.state..?.also.if.anyone.knows.how.to.do.a.look.up.on.proven.theories.thanks.

Mahw chtwayki 07:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

(1) citation from the text: The nucleus ... varies in diameter from 11 to 22 micrometers (μm) ... That's wrong. Even flat human fibroblast nuclei are only about 5 µm thick (and 20 µm long). But for non-vertebrate organisms, like Drosophila or yeast, the whole cell may be smaller than, let's say, 4 µm in diameter. (2) In my firefox 2.0 browser the thumbnail for the scheme "The eukaryotic cell nucleus" doesn't show, just a white area is visible. Is that a more general problem or just my configuration? Best regards --Dietzel65 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

image invisible[edit]

The image labelled "The eukaryotic cell nucleus ..." is not visible in my Browser (Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3). When I click at the image, I do see it (in the wikimedia realm). I don't know if this is reproducable on other user's systems. Jakob.scholbach 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that another person had the same problem. Please fix it... Jakob.scholbach 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that better? TimVickers 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks better to me.--71.201.226.112 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now I can see it. Thanks. Jakob.scholbach 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

cystolic face of the envelope -> cytosolic face of the envelope[edit]

I've made a change, thought it was a typo. If I'm wrong, reverse. CopperKettle 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest organelle?[edit]

An IP changed this to "The largest cellular organelle in animals" I'm wondering if this is correct, as the cell vacuole in plants is huge. Tim Vickers 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In many plant cells it can be hard to find the nucleus, as it can be lost among the largest chloroplasts. And you are correct that the plant vacuole is huge; it typically fills most of the cellular volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

reflist[edit]

I put in the {{reflist}} template to avoid confusion. In particular, scrollbars have been disallowed in the list of references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates.--Francine3 08:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Franz Bauer[edit]

"Franz Bauer" in history section / Franz Bauer

are they same person? --Luuva (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation in the nucleus[edit]

Since it has been shown that some kind of protein translation takes place in the nucleus ( Ref: Francisco J. Iborra, Dean A. Jackson, Peter R. Cook: Coupled Transcription and Translation Within Nuclei of Mammalian Cells ) I suggest that it should be included in this article. --Gustavocarra (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic is still pretty controversial, see PMID 15145360 and PMID 12554869 for recent reviews. However, I think it could be mentioned, but we would need to make it clear that it is still an open question. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend splitting off a subnuclear organelles article[edit]

Have a look at this review:

Handwerger KE, Gall JG. 2006. Subnuclear organelles: new insights into form and function. TRENDS in Cell Biology 16 (1), pp 19-26.

There are tons and tons of subnuclear organelles, and there's a lot of research that hasn't been incorporated into this article. Furthermore, the presence of a few select organelles in this article places undue emphasis on those--when we really know very little about which are the most important, etc. I propose creating a new article, either subnuclear organelles or list of subnuclear organelles containing links to a page for each.

I'm also concerned that many of the structures specifically mentioned in this article are not described with the standard vocabulary. Right now, searching for "nuclear speckles," it's not very easy to find this page. I've added redirects for both that term and splicing speckles. Thanks! --aciel (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

With the caveat that many of these organelles have several different names, this sounds a good idea. If you write the article we can then summarise it in a section of this article and give a link to Subnuclear organelles as the main article on this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

manos de el humano[edit]

las manos del humano contienen dedos y en los dedos unas y en las unas mugre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.80.3.168 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Creation Theory[edit]

Four different theories of cell evolution are presented. A large percentage of the scientific community also holds to the theory of creation. This would be a very short section giving the central idea that the human cell and it's complex machinery is the product of one designer who most simply title as "God." References would be from Genesis chapter 1 and 2 where the creation of humans is described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman5 (talkcontribs) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ms price knows it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.191.79 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A large percentage of the scientific community? I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's way, way off. The current best estimate is that less than 0.15% of scientists working in relevant fields are creationists. Second, creationism isn't a scientific theory in any sense: it makes no testable predictions, and isn't even close to being falsifiable. – ClockworkSoul 03:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Size?[edit]

I can find several bits about the size of microstructures composing the nucleus, but nowhere can I find anything about the size of the nucleus. I'm sure this varies to some extent, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said of it. I feel like this article is seriously lacking for not having such information in the opening paragraph. Please correct me if I'm being an idiot and the information actually is there and I simply have failed to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.70.8 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vesicular transport into nucleus?[edit]

The article includes a picture that captures the transport of some molecules into nucleus via phagosomes. This probably comes from a article by Gavin and Hosein (Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2007 Dec;64(12):926-35., see [1] or nsf.gov). I am wondering if this is a widely accepted concept or just a hypothesis. In the latter case, It may be inappropriate to include the picture in such an important article.--Vojtech.dostal (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the image as nobody cared. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Diagram[edit]

Can we replace the diagram in {{Organelle diagram}} with one that is clearer? George8211what did I break now? 19:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dimple not Nucleus[edit]

I think the caption "Oldest known depiction of cells and their nuclei" is misplaced because the figure appears to show red blood cells, which don't posses a nuclei, although the have a dimple in the middle. Any thoughts? Can somebody take the image down?--Frozenport (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)