Talk:Neutrophil

References

Can the comment at the start of the article now be removed? The article seems well referenced. JustAnotherKinase (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on article body

Perhaps there should be a note that Neutrophil granulocyte sounds redundantly redundant to (at least some) ears, as there are no neutrophils that are not granulocytes. And in at least American English, the adjectival form of neutrophil is neutrophilic so the expression neutrophil granulocyte sounds ill-formed: one expects neutrophilic granulocyte, not neutrophil granulocyte. Is this really how they say it elsewhere? - Nunh-huh 22:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've always heard just neutrophil, the other expression sounds archaic, almost like something Mr. Burns off The Simpsons would say (if he were into haematology).

You do rarely hear about basophils when not talking about the blood cells, such as seen in the ant. pituitary. And to be pedantic you could say that the *phil bit just refers to the staining characteristics of any cell. But it's just confusing for the non-histologists who are reading about their kid's asthma or their blood condition to see granulocyte after everything. 202.180.83.6 04:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) (User:Tristanb)

Please see the discussion of my talk page and that of Nunh-huh. As stated in my replies, the terms are used interchangably, but for reasons of completeness and correctness, neutrophil granulocyte is much to be preferable. Indeed, Tristan reminds us, the "neutrophil" and "eosinophil" are basically just staining characteristics and could refer to other cells in the body (the mast cell is just as basophil as the basophil granulocyte).
I've taken quite an effort to make sure there are no links to the redirect pages of the different granulocytes. Therefore, the only real change is the piping effort. I'd be delighted if everything could stay as it is now.
Blame it on my training and personality. Jfdwolff 14:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tristan reminds us, the "neutrophil" and "eosinophil" are basically just staining characteristics

Hahaha, I also said it was being pedantic :-D T 23:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pedantic or not, I think proper terminology is key in scientific context. Too many misunderstandings are generated from scientific and medical colloquialisms (e.g. the appalling abuse of the word schizophrenic whenever things don't add up on both sides, heart failure for vasovagal reaction etc etc etc). Nobody has ever died from being redirected. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with redirects, they can be very useful. The problem is the cluttering up of other articles with two long words, neutrophil granulocyte when one would suffice.

There's no point writing neutrophil granulocyte in every article that mentions neutrophil briefly, especially when it's obviously talking about the blood cell! You could have changed the title of this page without modifying every page that links here, letting neutrophil redirect to neut gran.

Red cell refers to any cell that is red, but there's nothing wrong if in an article it's obvious that it means red blood cell.

Unambiguity is important, but it's only one aspect of clarity.

That said, i'm not fussed enough to change it. Just stating my opinion. :-) T 05:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Tristan. I've taken to [[neutrophil granulocyte|neutrophil]]. Perhaps this is the best solution. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

this article needs to be rewritten in English.

Seconded. These articles composed entirely of scientific mumbo-jumbo are no use to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.133.211 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the content is correct, so I would recommend some more explanatory brackets rather than rewriting it in lay gobbledygook, which tends to be imprecise. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I'm working on an illustration of a neutrophil, hopefully it will be up by the end of the day! Mrestko 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A note about the videos

There appears to be a bug (reported) in the Wikimedia Player that returns an error when "Watch in browser" is attempted from the link in the article. However, the Watch-in-browser (Play-in-browser) feature does appear to work from the link provided on the image description page (i.e. the "(file info)" link).--DO11.10 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Amount

A figure bears the following caption, but within the figure is a box stating that it shows counts, not amounts.

"Reference ranges for blood tests of white blood cells, comparing neutrophil amount (shown in pink) with other cells." Unfree (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Respiration

I don't see how the following is justifiable or useful: "unrelated to respiration or energy production". Unfree (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Response: The term "respiratory burst" has long been used to describe the generation of superoxide by the neutrophil NADPH oxidase, since this process consumes large amounts of oxygen. Although we now know that the term is inaccurate (and can lead to confusion), it remains widely used among immunologists. I suppose that "unrelated to respiration or energy production" is there to explain this point. JustAnotherKinase (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Microphagy

Hello, why microphagy redirects here? The term does not show into this article. Pamputt (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Any ways to boost their production?

The article is great about describing how they work - but fails to mention how their production levels can be altered, except for a vague reference to genetics. Anybody? Anything? Aadieu (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)