Talk:Apoptosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Apoptosis:
  • Apoptosis DNA Fragmentation page needs more information, please do not move it to the Apoptosis page. Apoptosis DNA Fragmentation needs its own page as it is a very important feature of apoptosis. There is another page called DNA Fragmentation which confuses people with Apoptosis DNA Fragmentation. They are different.
  • Make outline of apoptotic pathways clearer
  • Convert bullet points to prose when necessary
  • Images of pathways
  • FAC-worthy article - organise it!
  • Integrate references into text using <ref></ref> tags
  • Needs to be less confusing

link up the Caspase paragraph to the Caspase stub elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Herceptin, Iressa or Gleevec[edit]

Could this article please ellaborate on Herceptin, Iressa and Gleevec. What are they? Are they registered trademarks or known pharmaceutical drugs? I want to know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.64.17.242 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

"Deliberate life relinquishment" is an awkward wording.

I thought it was quite elegant actually... but any suggestions are always welcomed. "Cell suicide" has too many connotations to be used. -- Serephine talk - 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I also thought it was a little awkward. How about "Apoptosis is the main type of programmed cell death in a multicellular organism, and involves an orchestrated series of biochemical events leading to a characteristic cell morphology and death." 128.111.209.143 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Mike

Nine syllables across 3 words is always going to be awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.147 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The current first sentence is "Apoptosis is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms". The "may" is a bit vague here. Is this saying that that apoptosis is the multi-cellular organism form of PCD? This would not be correct as there are other forms of PCD that may occur in the cells of a multi-cellular organism. Is it saying that apoptosis only occurs in multi-cellular organisms? There is strong evidence for apoptosis in yeast (e.g. http://jcb.rupress.org/content/166/7/938.1, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555920/). The Gene Ontology differentiates apoptosis from PCD in general via characteristics such as "...lead to rounding-up of the cell, retraction of pseudopodes, reduction of cellular volume (pyknosis), chromatin condensation, nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), plasma membrane blebbing and fragmentation of the cell into apoptotic bodies." (citations: GO:0006915, ISBN:0198506732, PMID:18846107, PMID:21494263). I'm not sure how best to condense this. I prefer Mike's suggestion from 2007 above to the current wording. Cmungall (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

About the mitochondrial apoptosis signalling pathway[edit]

The VDAC interacts with Bak to inhibit its own mitochondrial outermembrane permeablisation (MOMP) activity? I thought Bak or Bax can interact with VDAC to directly induce permeablisation (when they multimerise), and it's the binding of these pro-apoptotic proteins to the anti-apoptotic Bcl-2/Bcl-Xl that inhibits MOMP? Can someone clarify? -Unsigned

  • Actually the role of VDAC, if any, might be to assist Bax on membrane permeabilization. I think the issue is not sufficiently clear among scientists, so I would remove all mentions to VDAC until it is clarified. We should cite recent articles, not reviews from the nineties, which are obsolete - --85.50.70.8 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Cristina Muñoz-Pinedo
  • Moreover, there is no evidence that Bcl-2 proteins control death downstream of mitochondrial permeabilization. I will remove this sentence and its reference, really old. --85.50.70.8 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Muñoz-Pinedo

Statistics on cells developing into cancerous cells[edit]

I know I read somewhere that (statistically) each day, every human has two cells developing into cancer cells, but are stopped by the immune system via apoptosis. If someone can back this up, it should be included in the article. --Magnus Manske

The statistics mentioned by Magnus are quite relevant: I will add mention to this as soon as I find corroboration in a trusted publication. Of course, if someone corroborates this before I do, please add it. -- jaimeglz

Philosophical implications[edit]

What the article doesn't seem to discuss much is the philosophical implication of having a cell programmed to kill itself on purpose. Which is all fine and well, since its mostly a scientific article, but I have read many many articles in magazines that discuss apoptosis and cite it as the fact that being a kamikaze or a suicide bomber, or suicide itself isn't as "unnatural" as everyone makes it out to be, whether this is true/NPOV or not. But would there be a place for this in the article?

And on a different note, I think this article can make it for WP:FAC if there were some neat diagrams and images - I have already emailed a webmaster for permission to use one (which happens to be 300 KB large), but of course to be an FA you have to have more images. -- Natalinasmpf 06:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response: Sorry for taking so long to answer. There is no doubt on the importance of the implications of this topic for the philosophy of science. As Lowe et al. mention in their 18 Nov. 2004 Nature article, "Intrinsic tumour suppression": "Cell proliferation and cell death are such diametrically opposed cellular fates that the discovery that the two are linked and interdependent processes was a great surprise." However, the only way I foresee to legitimately introduce wider philosophical questions into a Wikipedia article like "apoptosis" would be to quote or paraphrase highly recognized authors' opinions. And there is an additional difficulty involved, because it has already been suggested that the article is too long (see discussion above). Suggestions are welcome, but probably the best solution will be to place material on the wider implications (when found) into articles dealing with the philosophy of science.
jaimeglz, 5 Mar. 2006.

Intercellular signals for apoptosis[edit]

This article doesn't appear to elaborate on this too much, especially, how do immune cells recognise cells that have been infected by viruses? Do their cell membranes change, or something? Do they withdraw signals? And of other things, for example, a lack of a cell stimuli as much as presence of stimuli can also cause apoptosis (I have read) - ie. if there's a cell without an "anchor" tying it to other cells at a cer Would the article explain more on this programming? Can more be elaborated on this? If we don't know (we probably don't know a lot), can the article clarify? -- Natalinasmpf 19:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: There is abundant reference material on cell signalling at the end of the article. Follow the links and take a look: many of the papers are quite readable for the non-specialist. Would you really like to dig into the subject? Alberts et al. monumental Molecular Biology of the Cell (with its step-by-step explanation) can be read for free on the web. jaimeglz 5 Mar. 2006

Apoptosis pronunciation[edit]

The article only mentions one pronunciation, and the reference link provided says that it's controversial. I've heard the word said by professionals in any of 4 different ways, and don't like the idea that the article only mentions one. While I pronounce it with a silent second-p, I don't accept that as standard because I also don't pronounce "helicopter" as "helicotter," nor do I use Greek and Latin plurals when an English one is acceptable. To me, the pronunciation as indicated is derived from pretentiousness rather than accuracy, because if accuracy was the issue, ptosis wouldn't be the most accurate Greek suffix.--Trypsin 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always pronounced it as A-POP-TOW-SIS, I have only ever heard this pronounciation. I would like to see some mention in the article that the pronounciation is disputed (just like the linked to article). Adenosine | Talk 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I do the same, mainly because I read the word before I heard it and the phonetic pronunciation stuck. -- Serephine talk - 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I got yelled at by an old boss for doing that... so it's been ingrained in me to silence the 'p' (as in "pterosaur"). – ClockworkSoul 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well from one of my lectures with Professor Wyllie, he himself said that the correct pronunciation is with A-POP-TOW-SIS (pronouncing the "p"). He explained that, in Greek, when the "pt" is in the middle of the word, the "p" should be pronounced. 128.232.249.94 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Greece, and speaking fluent Demotic Greek, I can say that the Greeks do pronounce both the 'p' and the 't'.

but it is commonly pronounced exactly as written despite the fact that in Greek it would be pronounced with a silent second p: The linked reference did not say which pronunciation was more common and in fact leaned on the silent-p side. So I changed this to with opinion divided between a pronunciation with a silent p (a-PO-tosis), and the p spelt out (a-POP-tosis). - TwoOars 19:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly spelled out phonetically in Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary as being pronounced as both ă-pŏp-tŏ’sĭs and apo tō' sis. I find it to be regional on which pronunciation is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.57.194 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "apo-PTO-sis"? This would be etymologically the most "correct;" that is, most in line with classical Greek as it is pronounced by modern English-speaking Classicists. I'm not sure that's totally relevant- perhaps the pronunciation of modern English-speaking bilogists is more important; but if there are going to be claims of historical correctness, this is the one that should take it. Just a suggestion. Helikophis (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


There has never been a "silent p" in Greek; the p is always articulated regardless of its position in the word. It is only silent in English, and only word-initially. I have tweaked the text to reflect that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


The following should put the debate to rest.

Has anyone ever tried finding the original source of the word? If you did, you would have found the original article (here is a pubmed link without the text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4561027).

In the article, it clearly states in a footnote how the original authors wanted the word pronounced. The following is a direct quotation of this footnote:

We are most grateful to Professor James Cormack of the Department of Greek, University of Aberdeen, for suggesting this term. The word "apoptosis" (Greek spelling of apoptosis) is used in Greek to describe the "dropping off" or "falling off" of petals from flowers, or leaves from trees. To show the derivation clearly, we propose that the stress should be on the penultimate syllable, the second half of the word being pronounced like "ptosis" (with the "p" silent), which comes from the same root "to fall", and is already used to describe the drooping of the upper eyelid.


There is still a problem with the IPA form, there's no such thing as a 'soft p' in English. Either the 'p' is pronounced, and then it is /ptosis/, or it is not pronounced, and then it is /tosis/. The whole point of the IPA is to reflect what is actually pronounced... Besides isn't it awkward to give one pronouciation and refer to a dictionary which recommends another ? I'd say that the word doesn't belong to the person who introduces it. The pronounciation without 'p' seems contrary to English usage.

Prof. James Cormack is correct. The p is silent. And it is wrong and misleading to say "A-poptosis" as one so often hears. Doctors are used to words like apraxia, aphasia etc, which indicates a negative condition. But there is no such thing as a "Poptosis", so you cannot have a lack of it. The correct pronounciation is "Apo-(p)tosis", withg equal stress on both syllables and a silent "P" Historygypsy (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of NO[edit]

Hi, I am a little puzzled that the role of nitric oxide in regulating apoptosis has not been given due importance in this article. I would be enlightened if someone could include the significance of NO given that this topic of research is being pursued greatly in scientific circles. Thanks. Sriram sh 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing this out, I've included a small reference to this in the text. -- Serephine talk - 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks Serephine for that little bit of information. I really appreciate that very much especially since I have been scouring all over the place for relevant and useful info. Sriram sh 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Much was lost in the rewriting of the article[edit]

Citation and recognition of articles by women and young researchers is gone. Citations and recognition of articles by both a variety of US, European and other nationality researchers is gone. The history of how apoptosis was researched, discovered and brought to the forefront of international science by both collaboration and competition by many different people has been removed from the article and placed somewhere else, despite that it was explicitly asked in this discussion section not to do so.

I perfectly understand that any article can be subjected to changes by any contributor, and that the order or the wording could have benefited a lot from good editing. However, great care had been taken to make the article acurate and founded on the best scientific literature available.

Sorry for the tone of the note I left yesterday. I take it back, and recognize it was totally inapproprite. Although it is not a justification, I did get irked at the fact that I had explicitly requested the article not to be broken into several pieces, and I still don't understand why there has been so much insistence. -jaimeglz
OK, well I'm assuming that this is directed at me as I rewrote this article a few weeks ago. I'd like to address a couple of issues you raised here:
  1. I'm Australian and have no interest in promoting a US-centric point of view. If anything, the Americanisation of Wikipedia irks me. I maintain the British English spelling of the Golgi apparatus article in silent protest against this fact, so please don't accuse me of something so unfounded. I moved all citations, at great trouble (every one was checked against the sentence I included it in), to the in-line style of referencing, as you noticed. I even added a few new ones. I removed any reference not contributing to the article after I edited it, these were references dealing with extremely complicated topics which, in all honesty, would interest no-one but an expert in the field. Said expert doesn't need the help of an online encyclopaedia to find these articles, hence my justification in removing all of 3 articles.
  2. The history of apoptosis has been removed to its own page, and linked from the main article. This, I believe, was a good move on my behalf to centre the article more on the process and function of apoptosis, which the majority of the visitors would want from the page. Should you wish to include an outline of the major points along with the link, please feel free, indeed this would only improve the article.
Your passive-aggressive tone in denouncing my changes comes as somewhat of a disappointment considering that part of your spiel was directed at how I've degraded the article, somewhat ironic since you have broken a Wikipedian tenet and haven't assumed good faith. I think that the elucidation of the article, the inclusion of diagrams, cleaned up references, improved readability and the promotion of the article from a "B" to an "A" class article would actually contradict your entire basis for your attack. I would hope that you would consider simply listing your grievances in the future rather than launching into a sarcastic attack on both my personal inclinations and the tenets of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I'm offended and insulted. -- Serephine talk - 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Justification[edit]

Your note had all the hallmarks of being written more with passion than calculated thoughtfulness, so it's ok :) It's natural to feel very protective of something you've worked very hard upon - as I saw with the level of references included in the article. I was very impressed with this, and this was in part the reason I initiated my large clean-up. Plus you re-worded the tone of your note and effectively apologised, for that I can easily forgive you - although I hope you mean that it was inappropriate because it was unprofessional rather than because I am not American ;) To address your points and hopefully reach a conclusion:

  1. When removing references, I did not remove them on the basis of whether they were by PhD students or women. I removed them because they no longer had any relevance to the text. There is no need to "fill-up" references to make sure all demographics are equally represented, therefore your point, to me, makes no sense. I myself am female and not a researcher, therefore I can't be accused of bias.
  2. On the topic of removing references, my justification for removing them stemmed from the fact that referencing was not in-line: i.e. not linked from the end of the sentence/paragraph it supports. Therefore, when placing the references I had to check each (both the abstract and full text thanks to a university proxy) to see what exactly they supported. Hence when cleaning up the article from reading like a journal review to reading like an encyclopaedia ("Thibert et al. showed that..." -> "It has been shown that<ref=Thibert>") there were inevitably references which had to be removed, as they had no relevance in the text.
  3. On the topic of cleaning up: when I first came to this article I recoiled in horror at the unfriendly and unreadable layout; big, unbroken paragraphs, a review-like format, needlessly detailed explanations, sections referring back to previous sections, a big clunky list of references at the end (though I noticed the effort on the discussion page to neaten these up, most impressive). I re-did the headings and systematically rewrote the article to be readable by at least a university student (which I am). The problem at hand was prose: there was no flow in idea progression or sentence - hence when reading a paragraph you would need to recheck it a couple of times to understand what was being said, and even then you might come across the dastardly "See also above ...". There were sections also that made no sense as context was not provided.
  4. I tried not to eliminate detail where possible, and rewrote much of it to be relevant to the article. I apologise for removing it, I know the feeling of having a large chunk of work removed, but I was being brutal to mould the page into a useful one for anyone who came across it. I shouldn't have to say that Wikipedia isn't a scientific encyclopaedia - it's open to anyone and therefore the information should be written for anyone interested in that topic. Detail like what I removed would be better used in an article more specific for the processes, where the hardcore enthusiasts and scientifically literate would be more inclined to go for that calibre of information.
  5. Finally, the history move. Another aplology on my behalf - I didn't not see the discussion on this page. I was being a bold editor, though I think it was for the better. I do not think the article in it's entirety should be moved back to this page - it is big enough as a separate entity to exist on its own. However, as I mentioned above, a short summary of the main points would flesh out the heading in the main article and encourage people to visit the history article.

Should you have any concerns over my justifications and still do not agree with the direction the article has taken, please let me know and we can get a couple of people from Wikiproject MCB to arbitrate and input into any issues. I realise that you've said "much was lost in the rewriting of this article", but look at how much has been gained: readability, context, diagrams, easy references, appropriate headings, and of course it scraped up an "A" and paved the way for further contribution. Thanks for your understanding -- Serephine talk - 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mispronounciation[edit]

Letters that appear in words derived from Latin roots that are not pronounced (such as the p in pneumonia or pteradactyl are in fact pronounced when the letter from the same root appears within the middle of a word, as in the case of the second p in the word apoptosis (the second Latin root being ptosis, in which the p is not pronounced when it begins the word) or the c in the word gastrocnemius. Thus there is no legitimate pronunciation of this word without the second letter p. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Greek and pterodactyl. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the pronunciation guide and the explanation of the guide are contradictory. I'm not up on my IPA, but isn't the second "p" supposed to be absent from the guide if it's silent? -Bobsagat 21:19 CST, Feb 13 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Reply[edit]

Apoptosis is not a common word, but a fusion, a word made up by medical people to explain a phenomenon. The word was (clumsily) constructed to describe programmed cell death, where defective or damaged or aged cells literally "close up and fall away" of their own accord, a sort of cell suicide due to innate cell programming which quietly does away with unwanted cells. Apo refers to from, away from, off, asunder or separate. Ptosis originally referred to autumn leaves which shrivel up and fall away, hence "apo-tosis". The word should be pronounced "Apo-tosis", never "apop-tosis" nor "a-poptosis, since cells do not "poptose" nor to they "tose" (even without a "p"). One consequence of failure of the apoptosis mechanism allows cancer cells to survive and multiply instead of performing "seppuku" (The correct term for harakiri, the later is vulgar "Cut Belly") Historygypsy (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Caspases[edit]

In Execution it talks about the process happening in finality through proteolytic caspases. I am wondering if this is being excessively descriptive? When I looked up what a caspase was, it says they are a family of proteases. Since all proteases engage in proteolysis, it leads me to presume there is no such thing as a non-proteolytic caspase, and as such, the adjective is unnecessary? Sort of like saying a mammally dolphin or something (I apologize for my lack of ability to compose a good analogy). Tyciol (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

a fair point but English frequently uses mild repetition/redundancy for emphasis. "very unique" for example or "proteolytic degradation" or even to quote your own comment, "process happening". They aren't purely redundant. I think people find them reassuring or maybe they just save you the mental effort of extracting the meaning of a statement that is overly concise. Wikipedia usually is not written in the tight style of a journal article since the audience is broader. Oh, another favorite of these phrases is "radiating outward" or even (I actually heard this in a lecture) "radiating radially outward". 71.237.182.219 (talk)jawshoeaw —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

mouse foot picture[edit]

That picture is not very clear - a skeptic (no, I've never heard of apoptosis doubters but good little scientist larvae rightfully ask these questions) might say for example that the digits just grow longer - a second photo would be nice, or arrows demonstrating unambiguously that apoptosis is necessary for interdigital separation. The second photo of the mature rat or mouse foot was too funny. Too many pictures on wikipedia are like this - essentially just stock photos that do not support the articles or support them weakly. There was a science journal parody years ago with an article about the flexibility of stock photos to meet the needs of many scientific disciplines - only the captions needed to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.182.219 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the mouse foot picture caption reads "(Compare this image with image of leg of mouse.)". Where is the picture of the mouse leg to compare with? SpencerCollins (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that, too. David Spector (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondria?[edit]

Does it all mean if mitochondria are destroyed in a cell it will self destruct due to released factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.166.36 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

doesn't add up[edit]

For an average child between the ages of 8 and 14, approximately 20 billion to 30 billion cells die a day. In a year, this amounts to the proliferation and subsequent destruction of a mass of cells equal to an individual's body weight. [1]

The cell article claims we have about 10^14 cells, so something's wrong somewhere, probably the sentence with the challenge tag, which I removed. Please undo/correct/whatever if you know better. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah by my upper limit estimates this would be around 5kg assuming average cell volume of 450fl and approx density of water 147.252.112.85 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution?[edit]

I can't find any mention in the article of how apoptotic processes might have evolved. This is, I think, rather important information and it could be of interest to other readers.24.245.92.178 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Image showing ossification should be replaced[edit]

Hi! I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I have relevant expertise for this article. The image now accompanying the article shows bone formation from cartilage. Although cartilage cells are said to degenerate in this process, their morphology is quite far from that which is typical for apoptosis. In my opinion, the image should be removed until a more suitable new image can be located. A suggestion for a new image is figure 2 from the following scientific article: http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/4/R86. This image may be freely used provided a proper reference to the original work is made, according to the journal's copyright policy. As I am so new to this I don't really dare to make these changes myself. /GN 130.229.40.79 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Control Of The Apoptotic Mechanisms picture[edit]

Does anyone know how to contact the author of picture to get him to correct the misspelling "mecanism"? Thanks /Carl.moxey (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Induce apoptosis in cancer cell lines is based entirely on primary sources (see WP:MEDRS). If there is any content that can be sourced to secondary reviews, it can be added here. I propose that article be merged and redirected to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And another one, created same day; although this one is sourced mostly to a secondary review compliant with WP:MEDRS, it doesn't seem to cover any territory that doesn't belong here? Viral induction of apoptosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The article by Acrani has been cited in three other articles. I found these citations in Google scholar. I am new to this program so any information on the next step which I should take is very helpful to me. Below is a link of one of the articles where Acrani has been cited.
http://www.jbc.org/content/286/5/3227.full#xref-ref-9-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcca (talkcontribs) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – the new articles are very specialized and can easily fit within the scope of the parent article. In addition, I agree that secondary sources are preferable. However WP:MEDRS applies to articles that are "sources of health information". These articles concern more basic science that may eventually have health implications, but the subject matter is currently restricted to the lab and not the clinic. Please also note that according to Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine "A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary". So we will make a good faith effort to find relevant secondary sources, but I think it is going overboard to insist that all of the sources are secondary. Boghog (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with merging the article to the parent article. Do I do this myself or do you slot it in where you find it most appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcca (talkcontribs) 22:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have merged my content with the apoptosis page as you recommended. I have also added my info to the HeLa cell page, however when I click on the link "induce apoptosis in cancer cell lines " it takes me to the page I created. I would like to know if you can assist me in changing this so that the link goes to the apoptosis page instead. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eottergonzalez (talkcontribs) 02:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The links in the merge proposal explained how to do a merge in a way that respects Wikipedia licensing ... that wasn't done, so I redid it all. I believe everything is done now, but most of the article Induce apoptosis in cancer cell lines relied on primary sources, so that text here should be reviewed with the aim of either upgrading it to secondary reviews or deleting that text if necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading acronym: File:TFN-signalling.png[edit]

Hi, just wanted to note a small error but an error non the less. The text speaks about tumor necrosis factor TNF but the image at "Process->TNF path" speaks of TFN or tumor factor necrosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.108.22 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Blebbishield emergency program, etc[edit]

I'm moving the content of this edit from the lead to the talk page, per WP:UNDUE (I think). Although the information appears interesting and might fit somewhere deeper into the page I think it is inappropriately weighted in the lead (as a search term, "blebbishield" currently gets just 8 hits on Google Scholar).

For example, cancer stem cells can resurrect after apoptosis using recently discovered blebbishield emergency program.[1]

  1. ^ Jinesh GG, Choi W, Shah JB, Lee EK, Willis DL, Kamat AM. Blebbishields, the emergency program for cancer stem cells: sphere formation and tumorigenesis after apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2013 Mar;20(3):382-95.

Figure: Overview of TNF (left) signalling in apoptosis[edit]

The abbreviation of tumor necrosis factor is TNF as stated in the description of the figure. Why does the author use TFN instead of TNF two times within the figure? First for the receptor (upper left corner) and also for the ligand (green triangle)? Giseler146 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apoptosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)