Talk:Cluster of differentiation
|WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
A lot of the information on the sample cd molecules was simply wrong. Suggest checking out the other ones.
Yippee, finally some expansions, including common-sense explanations about some CD molecules. Will there ever be a page on CD117 (c-kit)? For now, most material is on gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
JFW | T@lk 12:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. But for now, a link/redirect to Tyrosine kinase would do. The last paragraph there on c-kit/CD117 looks pretty good. ;-)
- PFHLai 03:02, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Some important info is missing
The info about CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8 is missing. Important because this relates to T cell development and function. Just wanted to remind. --Eleassar777 08:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- They were deliberately left out to not give the false impression that CD molecules are all about white cells. Only CD4 & CD8 were briefly mentioned. The short list that followed is intended to show the diversity. However, a complete list with the names (& mostly red-links for a while ...) of all two hundred or so CD molecules may be useful. It can be a new page List of clusters of differentiation, and linked from a yet-to-exist 'See also' section in the page Cluster of differentiation. IMO, T cell development & function deserve their own pages. Please consider 'beefing up' the page on T cells. -- PFHLai 21:24, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
- I think at this point that the list of CD molecules has gotten beyond "prominent examples" and is beginning to constitute a list on its own. Should a new article List of clusters of differentiation be created? I think so and may go ahead and do this. People can revert my changes if they'd like. I would be happen to leave a few "prominent" examples though. JeffreyN 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Boys and girls, the Blood this week lists all CD molecules. See here. Sadly, this important document is not available for free. I'm considering mailing the editor. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The article in Blood only lists the newly classified CD factors (primarly those numberd 190 and above). Also, while it doesn't help now, it looks like Stanford University's Highwire will be making it available for free in October '06. MarcoTolo 17:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
List Name Change
Please note the change of the list from List of clusters of differentiation to List of human clusters of differentiation at the request of an anonymous user (see the history of the article). The original list however still links to the new article. Maybe someone would like to change this to a disambiguous page? Create a list with mouse and other organismal CD linked off the original page? JeffreyN 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this article is completely fine for anybody who would actually be interested in cluster of differentiation molecules, as this is really an artificial distinction of cell surface molecules that applies only to biologists. I'm going to delete the warning, and if you want to reinstate it, give reasons why.22.214.171.124 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What are they?
The article doesn't tell us what CDs actually do! What is their role in the immune system?!
- You should forward that complaint to the CD comitee because these names do in fact not say anything about the function of each molecule. I suspect that the comitee is populated by the same kind of people that likes to memorize telephone numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassefolkersen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article, CDs have a wide variety of functions, the only thing they all have in common is that they are on the surface of cells allowing for labelling by antibodies. The CD nomenclature is just a method of naming and numbering.Philman132 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Mistake on Diagram
In the diagram on the right of the page, a CD3+CD8+ cell is mis-labelled as a "Suppressor T-lymphocyte" when it should be a "Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte." Besides being incorrect (or am I missing something?), it also clashes with the table on the left of the article.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. Photoshop and re-upload?
- Suppressor T cells are also CD8+. I have asked the image creator to review the image. Revising the original, if deemed necessary, is generally superior to photoshopping. I have taken the liberty of removing the "tag" on this section because it is not wrong, it is cumbersome, and changing section titles can defeat links to sections. (I linked the section when I contacted the image creator.)Novangelis (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a modified version and credited the original author, though the diagram is now smaller. I understand that certain sub-populations of regulatory T-cells are indeed CD8 positive, but if you have a CD3+CD8+ cell, typically it's cytotoxic (or at least assumed to be initially). There are a couple of weird populations of suppressor T-cells, but including one in the diagram for the "Cluster of Differentiation" page seems confusing and potentially mis-informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm logged in now. I guess my primary concern is that the previous diagram presented three ultimate populations: Suppressor T-lymphocytes, Helper T-lymphocytes, and Activated T-lymphocytes. This seems misleading not because it is "wrong" per se, but because that is not generally how you would categorize T-cells (ie are T-cells primarily divided between CD4+ Helper T-cells and CD8+ Suppressor T-cells? What about to Cytotoxic T-cells? Why is one of the two primary categorizes of T-cells excluded?) As someone who's new to immunology, the diagram was confusing. I showed the diagram to members of my lab and all of them had the same initial reaction: this picture is wrong. For those reasons, I feel the image warranted changing. Tretcher (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
it seems the CD15 data may be outdated in the image. The Uniprot CD list http://www.uniprot.org/docs/cdlist does not show CD15 to be a valid protein.