Talk:Neurulation

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Neurulation 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.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Embryology C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to embryology.

Does anybody have a better image to display Neurulation? A picture that does not have all the extra material in the current pic.--Eubanks718 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pictures here and here may be of use. --Arcadian 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Eubanks718 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some odd text in the middle of this article that needs removing, but I don't know how because it doesn't show up in the editing box. Can anyone else sort that out?

The article says that the notocord is crucial in the formation of the neural plate, but this is wrong. The notocord isnt in place itself until *after* the nural plate forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "notochord is crucial" is indeed incorrect A discussion of primary neural induction as a signal moving from Speman's organizer across the presumptive neural epithelium and what the nature of that signal is should be added. There are several models as to the nature of the signal and they should be here and properly referenced.Bjorklund21 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early Brain Development

This section of the article mainly includes the development of the anterior-posterior axis, but I suggest that information about the development of the dorsal-ventral axis be added as well. This information might include addition of the paracrine factors involved for specification, and the steps of development they're involved in.

Also, it might be a good idea to add information about the differentiation of neurons during development. Akhan50699 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Tube Defects

I think this entire section should be removed and a reference to the page on neural tube defects should be inserted instead. This section is hopelessly incomplete and the appropriate separate section in the Wikipedia is very well done.Bjorklund21 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a go at making this article more balanced and detailed as well are providing some much needed referencing. I think several parts could be removed or reduced by referring to other articles that already exist and are in much better shape. I have done this in the neural tube closure section. Bjorklund21 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain aspects of this article are highly problematic. A statement like "After sonic hedgehog (SHH) signalling from the notochord induces its formation," are just handwaving nonsense, especially given the long and colourful history of the search for _the_ chemical inducer. This week it is Sonic hedgehog that is inducing, next week it might be something else. When invoking these specific proteins and gene products specific information should be provided such as "Sonic hedgehog is expressed in these cells at this stage and binds to this protein". We can describe why a particular experiment appears to prove induction of course but we should leave out the speculative or unproven statements that are essentially meaningless like this "induces" or "mediates" that. Such sweeping statements also preclude the presentation of alternative models and theories. We can and should be more precise. Bjorklund21 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medullary cord != Medulla oblongata

The section on secondary neurulation mentions formation of medullary cord. Unfortunately, the link ends up redirecting to the article on medulla oblongata, which (a) has nothing to do with secondary neurulation and (b) is located on the other end of the neural tube. 108.7.72.105 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]