Talk:Endoplasmic reticulum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Glycosylation[edit]

...does not occur only if the protein is folded properly. It can occur in misfolded proteins, however, the ERAD system / calnexin will recognize the misfolded protein and decide to utilize ERAD to degrade the protein. See: Molinari, M. (2007). N-glycan structure dictates extension of protein folding or onset of disposal. Nature Chemical Biology, 3(6), 313-320. doi:10.1038/nchembio880\

Organization and Elaboration[edit]

Hello, I am yet another student editor that has reviewed this article as a Wiki supported course assignment. I wanted a chance to consult with everyone on the talk page about some improvements we can make to the article. I agree with the wikipedia B-class evaluation, high importance level, and over technical label. On a positive note the references seem extensive, and I see that wiki editors have done an accuracy check. However, my two main comments are on the elaboration and organization of certain sections. The parts that appear particularly incomplete are the history and clinical sections. I agree with a previous comment stating that the SER and RER are extremely different, however instead of an entirely new page for each type, maybe a more detailed distinction would be sufficient. However, in light of any future edits we might be able to make the article more digestible for the non science community with extensive elaboration on technical terms. For example, 17 hyperlinked words in the first paragraph alone might be frustrating for students to read. Next, the organization can be improved to help a non science reader follow the flow of ideas. One way to achieve this might be to reorganize the pictures. Maybe moving the TEM photo to the top so that it is the first thing they see. Also, describing the photos better in the text. The other way of organizing would be through text. Having more of an outline with headings and subsections could help. For example in the Function section having different sub-subsections for SER and RER as well as for plant and animal cells, because the details of the roles can differ. Let me know your thoughts!Nmenk (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

the SR is in cardiac muscle also, not just smooth and skeletal. some loser sort it out[edit]

Comments from BEFORE 2008[edit]

Include ERAD?[edit]

One should also include ERAD, the Endoplasmic Reticulum Associated Protein Degradation, and link to the short article explaining it. Since English is not my native language, it would be nice of someone could write a few sentences about it in this artice.

—Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 28 February 2007 .

   why should you?--([User:KaneaLeyased|Kanea Leyased]) 16:00, 6 December 2009

B-class[edit]

It seems the page has improved and you think can now be considered B class. What say you? - IlyaV

i for one think this is a very good website. children might not understand but adults and teen agers will find this a great place to learn about the E.R!!!-BS47

this is total BS dont listen to this.

Smooth ER & Rough ER[edit]

i think SER and RER are so incredibly different they really should have different pages --sovbeos —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 22 September 2007 .

Old comments[edit]

Magnus, did you make that image yourself? That is incredible. --LMS

Yup, from my "Nupedia evacuation". There are more like this :) --Magnus Manske

Image problem[edit]

Suddenly your images are no longer in the page. (In the ribosome article this changed in the last couple of hours.) When I click on the hyperlink the image appears in its own page. Then I have to click the back and forward arrows to compare the image to the caption. Inconvenient. (Even if I could set my browser to display the image in its own window, or if you could program it into a pop up window, there will always be cases where, due to the size of the image and the location of the caption in page, I would have to click on the windows to compare the image to its caption.'

In this case, the text does not flow properly around the hyperlink to the image, unless I maximize the window. I see the text and the caption printed on top of each other.

    The Solo Owl 03:43 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
I think it's just a temporary glitch while the rules about what images can and cannot be shown are changed - somebody will sort it out in time. By the way, four or more hyphens, thus: ---- will make a horizonal rule, and a colon at the start of a line will indent it. --Camembert

Thanks for the tip, I'm new here. I'll try it now.


Manske, thank you so much for the articles and illustrations. Made for a very entertaining and educational weekend. Let us know when your textbooks come out! The Solo Owl 04:23 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)


I was surprised to see the expletives in sentence 2. It is not too clear what is meant by them, either. The Solo Owl 06:33 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Unused Image[edit]

The image at Image:Nucleus_ER.png (below) isn't currently used in this article (or elsewhere), it would be good to use, if somebody could identify all the numbers for the caption. --Lexor|Talk 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nucleus ER.png


Even I wouldn't know what are its labels...Student school09 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

well good for u because im 15 and i have no idea what it even is.--70.20.118.119 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)brooke--70.20.118.119 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


   That isn't such a great picture. It was obviously created with MS paint. Can't anyone do better?

YoungRebel

  YoungRebel (talk)

sorry[edit]

sorry for deleting the info!

i didnt mean to!

Identification of the numbers from the image[edit]

These are the identifications needed:

  • (1) Nucleus
  • (2) Ribosomes
  • (3) Pores (of the nucleus)
  • (4) Nucleolus
  • (5) Chromatin
  • (6) Nucleo membrane
  • (7) Endoplasmic reticulum
  • (8) Nucleoplasma

NOTE: Because for numbers 5 and 8 it is not shown clearly (on the image) what are they pointing at, it can be vice-versa for the explanation.

Regards.

Those identifications aren't completely correct.
  • (1) dest
  • (2) Rib*

(3) Nuclear pore

  • (4) Nucl*

(5) Chrmatin

  • (6) Cell*

(7) Rugh eic retic* 8) Nucllasma

To be honest its quite an unclear, poor drawing and not really worth adding anyway. 80.42.107.101 13:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Graffiti.[edit]

Can someone fix the graffiti at the bottom? It isn't showing up on the edit page for me.

what grafiti u know thats illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.118.119 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

plural[edit]

Shouldn't words like reticulum that have irregular plurals have their plurals indicated. I would have doen it, but with the 'ER' stuff, I didn't know where it would best be placed. Kdammers 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected[edit]

I've decided to try sprotecting this for a while. It's been vandalised many times per day since the beginning of September, mostly with (individually trivial) additions of hoax info or graffiti. I really can't figure out why it's getting such attention - articles covered in school classes get a degree of the usual "Kevin is Kewl" type vandalism, but rarely this much. Blocking the anons is useless (it's rarely the same one twice) and we've not been succesful in detecting and removing all the vandalism (I just removed a couple of pieces that have been there for days, unnoticed). I'm guessing that maybe some website or noticeboard somewhere has a "wouldn't it be cool to put junk into the Wikipedia ER article"; on that theory I think we should sprotect it for a couple of weeks and see if the nonsense dies down. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

11 days later and no vandalism at all (but very few other edits too). I've unprotected - let's see how we get on. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

SER Functions[edit]

I'm not exactly sure about all of this but according to my teacher, the SER also detoxifies drugs and breaks down glycogen into glucose(in liver cells). If the info is there, I'm just not seeing it but I don't even know if its correct. Also, why do you list many of the SER's functions under the structure heading? Arizonabass 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SR[edit]

I have checked quite a few secondary literatures, and am pretty sure that the SR is not only found in STRIATED MUSCLES but also SMOOTH MUSCLES. Please revise this bit of info in the article, LOL. Cheers128.250.6.246

Does "SR" refer to smooth endoplasmic reticulum or sarcoplasmic reticulum? What exactly is the discrepancy in the article? --David Iberri (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SER and RER are in all cells, it's just an issue of how much and is it actually visible.

I like narwhals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.186.198 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this article really needs to expand on the role of the Sarcoplasmic reticulum and its role on EC coupling--this could be dedicated to its own article (i.e. the microanatomy of the SR and its role in muscle cells). Its name (in distinction to the ER, or the Smooth ER) reflects its specialized role in muscle compared to all other cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.130.15.67 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 2008 and after[edit]

The SER does metabolize lipids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.253 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Layperson request for info[edit]

I read on some page in wikipedia this: "The endoplasmic reticulum is a synthesis and transport organelle that is an extension of the nuclear envelope." This refers to the ER's relationship to the nuclear envelope, and in general the nucleus. Could this relationship be put somewhere in the actual ER article, if this is factual? Thanks, Rhetth (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect article[edit]

"Insertion of proteins into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane: Integral proteins must be inserted into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane after they are synthesized. Insertion into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane requires the correct topogenic sequences."

This is incorrect. Co-translocational translocation occurs to integrate the proteins WHILE they are synthesised. Complete proteins are too large, folded and have insufficient hydrophobic access to the lipid bilayer, making it virtually impossible to insert them.

Also, it is unclear where the "topogenic sequences" exist. They are found in the nascent protein, not the ER membrane.

A revision is proposed:

Insertion of proteins into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane: Integral proteins must be inserted into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane while simultaneously being synthesized (co-translational translocation). Insertion into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane requires the correct topogenic signal sequences in the protein.


Glyn1wood (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made that change. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

calcium storage?[edit]

I think it is confusing that calcium storage in muscle cells is attributed to the smooth ER ("The smooth endoplasmic reticulum is known for its storage of calcium ions in muscle cells.") and than again in the next session to the sarcoplasmic ER. If somebody please help clarify this... -- xy (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


initial glycosylation as assembly continues. This is either N-linked (O-linking occur in the golgi).

This is not grammatically correct. It should read as:

Initial glycosylation occurs as assembly continues. This is N-linked (O-linking occurs in the golgi apparatus).

I cleaned it up some, but it is still confusing. Can anyone make it more clear? I know next to nothing about molecular biology, or for that matter, how to use wikipedia.

YoungRebel YoungRebel (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its role in excitation-contraction coupling[edit]

link to Excitation-contraction coupling when talking about muscle contraction at the end of 'sarcoplasmic reticulum' - this would have saved a lot of my research time had it been included.

Done, thank you for the suggestion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


RER[edit]

The RER is not always studded with these ribosomes, however; initially, the RER appears smooth due to a lack of resident ribosomes

Shouldn't it be that the SER appears smooth due to the lack of Resident ribosomes not the RER? 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)~ Person looking up RER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.86.36 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, hopefully it will now be clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling problem?[edit]

Isn't it called endoplastic reticulum, not endoplasmic? That's what it's been called in all the biology textbooks we use in high school. I've never seen the word "endoplasmic" before. NoriMori (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It is spelled "endoplasmic". Tim Vickers (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
no it is spelled endoplasmic but with reticulum at the end.

Identification of number 6 in the image[edit]

Currently the picture shows label 6 as "Proteins", but SER does not make proteins according to the page. I'm no expert, but this seems contradictory. Would it be more accurate to say "Hormones/lipids" or maybe "SER metabolic products"? 24.243.7.104 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar[edit]

"an eukaryotic" should be "a eukaryotic"


Shouldn't the pluralized spelling be "reticula?" 129.98.125.180 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY agree. It is bizarre and off-putting to keep referring to "the endoplasmic reticulum" as if there were a single such object per organism (like "the heart" or "the cranium"). This article ought to have non-specific plurals throughout: " Smooth endoplasmic reticula are abundantly found in mammalian liver and gonad cells. The lacey membranes of endoplasmic reticula were first seen by Keith R. Porter, Albert Claude, and Ernest F. Fullam in the year 1945."Sebum-n-soda (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Smooth ER[edit]

I don't think the smooth ER is connected to the nuclear envelope. If anything, the rough ER should be connected to it. Why is this written? On all of the other sites I researched, the smooth ER isn't connected. Could anybody verify this for me?

WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does "ergastoplasm" redirect here?[edit]

Not mentioned in article. 86.130.41.222 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Role in antigen processing / MHC pathway[edit]

If anyone has the time or interest, it may be useful to include a section on the ER's role in the class I & II MHC pathways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughitt1 (talkcontribs) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FIGURE: Animal Cell[edit]

"Components of a typical animal cell: " And it says "vacuole". 93.197.185.179 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem or issue you are seeing?--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Some biology textbooks may give the impression that the vacuole is a plant organelle. Although animal cells have nothing like the large and conspicuous vacuoles in plants, the term "vacuole" is nevertheless used for certain animal cell organelles, such as phagosomes and secondary endosomes. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cell Biology 322[edit]

The article provides very brief understanding of both the Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum and the Smooth Endoplasmic reticulum. Under the portion of Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum section there were bullet point that were provided to understand the multiple key functions of the RER; however, the terms were much more higher level then they needed to be omitting clathrin, SNAP, and SNARE which are all terms that are unfamiliar will make this article more understanding. I believe taking out the bullet points would be beneficial to this article as well, this information can be provided in sentence form to help the reader better understand its importance.

Smooth ER could use additional information on its functions adding how the smooth ER lack ribosoms and why. This would be a good addition to the article. Also, Sarcoplasmic Reticulum was mentioned, which is undrelated to the organelle that is discussed in the opening paragraph. Omit this part of the article and draw more of a focus to that of the RER and SER which are the two key reticulums that are talked about in the opening paragraph.

Underneath the Functions portion of the article "Protein Transport" was all that was in bold. There are many more functions that occur within the ER that should be addressed such as: lipid metabolism in the membrane or even calcium storage.

Citations are also seemingly very limited in places throughout the article; the use of scholarly sources to help bring more and informing evidence to this article would be of great use. Truman15 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cell Biology Review[edit]

The introduction of this article contains very useful information but there is also a lot of extraneous information that could be left out such as the sentence that says "Endoplasmic reticulum occurs in most types of eukaryotic cells, including Giardia,[1] but is absent from red blood cells and spermatozoa". Also there should be a citation at the end of the introduction. I thought the history section of the article was very vague and could use some more information to help give a better background. The history section should also answer questions like when the discovery was published and accepted by the scientific community, and what type of eukaryotic cell the organelle was discovered in.

The function section of the article was well written and gave a good explanation of what the endoplasmic reticulum's main jobs are. There were some places that were very hard to follow and understand such as when it mentions the many different chaperone proteins. The rest of the information is very useful and easier to understand.

The citations for the article were very good sources and contained a lot of information for each section. Meaige4 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cell Biology 322 Review[edit]

Although the article is brief, it assumes the reader has a higher understanding of biology—specifically intracellular mechanisms/processes—than most. For example, at the end of the "Structure of rough ER" section, the bullet points need attention. They are short and advanced. The average reader is not going to able to differentiate SNAP and SNARE proteins, as well as know the role they play. Either the information should be elaborated and/or should be placed in the "Function" section. Especially since the sentence preluding these bullet points states, "The rough endoplasmic reticulum is key in multiple functions..." I understand this is not ER functions, but bullet points will not do these processes justice if they are to stay in the article. In addition, the Function section should be revised and dumbed-down. For example, when the article references chaperone proteins it lists multiple proteins "including protein disulfide isomerase (PDI), ERp29, the Hsp70 family member BiP/Grp78, calnexin, calreticulin, and the peptidylpropyl isomerase family." This is not necessary. If the reader should want to know more about these proteins, an attached clickable link will suffice.

Regarding structure of the article, I noticed the ending sentence of the Introduction and the starting sentence of the History section are identical. Either the History section needs more data or the whole section should be added to the end of the Introduction. Also, the Sarcoplasmic reticulum subsection should be cut entirely, as there is little to no relevance, or perhaps shortened and mentioned in the Function section as an example. Tannerway (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cell Biology Class Review[edit]

I like that the history section includes the person that discovered the organelle and explains that the ER is considered to be a network. However, I feel that the section needs to be extended and that it should be elaborated to include the entire history from its discovery to present day. The remaining sections of the article pertaining to the function and types of ER contain a lot of jargon that isn't helpful to members of the community that are not studying science and can be stressful for one that would like to learn about this organelle. The article also discusses the organelle's significance in the animal cell, but does not elaborate very much on the minor differences in roles for plant cells. I enjoy the animation photo included in the article showcasing secretory pathways, but the image is not captioned properly and doesn't tell a person who is unfamiliar with the process what is going on. Finally, the 8th reference used in the article is not from a credible source, as anyone can post a response to answers.com and the answers are technically reviewed for accuracy. Riggs73 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Biology 322 Article Review[edit]

While this article is brief, it assumes that the reader has previous knowledge of intracellular biology, using overly complicated vocabulary that should be simplified into terms easier for the average reader to understand. A few sections where this complex terminology is shown would be the functions section where it discusses chaperone proteins and the protein transport section where it discussed KDEL and KKXX. I would recommend discussing these things further to provide better understanding and maybe adding links to other wikipedia pages to things such as hypoxia, ischemia, and insulin resistance, so if someone wants to read more about these things the information is readily available. Another issue I noticed was a lack in citations in many areas of the article where it was full of facts. Sources need to be cited so facts can be compared to the original works where they were found. Also, the format of the rough endoplasmic reticulum section seems a bit distracting. The bullet points are unnecessary and pulls the readers attention away from the article itself. Other than these things, I really enjoyed the article and was quite pleased with it, though I also would have liked to see more information in the sarcoplasmic and clinical significance sections of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshort97 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Biology 322 Review[edit]

When reviewing the introduction to the Endoplasmic Reticulum article, I found some of the information to be unnecessary or out of place. For instance, I don’t think that it was necessary to name specific cells (i.e. Giardia) as having an Endoplasmic Reticulum. I think that those details would be best placed elsewhere. Along with out of place details, some of the jargon used seems to be a little advanced for the average person. The paragraphs in the “Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum” are well explained. However, the bullet points underneath are filled with a lot of advanced terminology that is not further explained. The structure section is lacking the proper citation needed in order to justify the information provided. The eighth citation, which is in the “Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum” section, seems to be unreliable. The information is attributed to McGraw-Hill, however it says that it was retrieved from “answers.com.” There is also a citation missing from the first bullet point within the same section. Other than this, all of the provided citations seem to have functioning links.

Chambers76 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Chambers76

suggested improvements for biology 662 review[edit]

1. There are parts including the structure section that need citations. 2. Sections such as history and clinical significance could be expanded upon 3. The article as a whole is very technical and some sections need to be simplified. Boyles24 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017[edit]

For the section that titled structure it needs citations. I found two citations that cover most of what is already said in that section. [1] [2] Boyles24 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)



References

  1. ^ Cooper, Geoffrey M. (2000). The cell : a molecular approach (2nd ed. ed.). Washington (DC): ASM Press. ISBN 0-87893-106-6. Retrieved February 1, 2017. 
  2. ^ Alberts, Bruce; Johnson, Alexander; Lewis, Julian; Raff, Martin; Roberts, Keith; Walter, Peter (2002). Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.). New York: Garland Science. ISBN 0815332181. Retrieved February 1, 2017. 
Already done — Train2104 (t • c) 16:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017[edit]

George Emil Palade

The first relied exclusively on cell fractionation, and was developed of George Emil Palade in collaboration with Philip Siekevitz, Lewis Joel Greene, Colvin Redman, David Sabatini and Yutaka Tashiro; it led to the characterization of the zymogen granules and to the discovery of the segregation of secretory products in the cisternal space of the endoplasmic reticulum. 83.248.201.181 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)