Talk:Glia limitans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Major editing was done on this topic on march 25, 2011 for a neuroscience wikipedia improvement project of the Introduction to Neuroscience course BI481 at Boston College. The participants in this project were Daniel O'Connell, Katie Ahlers and Christian O'Rourke. The link to the page explaining our project is User:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Any input or suggestions that could help us improve this page even more would be greatly appreciated. Oconnedp (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --CopperKettle 21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed major edit[edit]

I am proposing to expand this article by adding additional detail about the structure of the glia limitans, mostly based on information from Peters, Palay and Webster's book The Fine Structure of the Nervous System, and on function referenced by John Nolte's neuroscience text The Human Brain. I would add those two sources as references. I also think it would be good to move the information on function to a separate section to further emphasize the fact that the glia limitans is not the blood-brain barrier, but still has a relationship to it. The previous edit did correct that misconception that was previously present in the article. My proposed major edit is here: [[1]]. Graypath (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Radial glia and its role in Glia Limitans[edit]

Here it is said that

..Each radial glial cell has only one basal endfoot at the ventricular surface, whereas at the pial side the radial fibers, particularly during the later stages of development, often form several branches that terminate with multiple endfeet that form the outer cerebral surface (glia limitans) and are coated with a basement membrane (Rakic, 1972, 1995b). ..

I think to add this fact somehow into the artcle. Best regards, CopperKettle (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Radial glia and its role in Glia Limitans[edit]

Don't know why I didn't notice this comment earier. I agree that this is an important concept and a good reference to include. I wonder though if this (radial glia contribution to glia limitans) is of more important developmentally than in adult brain. I have the impression that the radial glia processes may be lost in many regions of fully developed adult brains (perhaps not in cerebellar cortex!)and the processes of subpial astrocytes may predominate later on. I need to look a bit to see if there is any support for that idea in the literature.

I really like the picture that was added. I also have a fluorescence image that we made just using antiboby to GFAP that shows the astrocytic processes in the surface and around invaginating vessels. When I figure out how to upload it into Creative Commons I'll ask for opinions whether it might also add something to the article.

Graypath (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've stumbled upon the picture while reading on SOD role in CNS. --CopperKettle 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fast comments[edit]

I have made some general comments to the class at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Take a look at them since some are applyable to this article. See below for some examples

  • No Caps on titles. Instead of "Motorcycle Accident and Neurological Profile" should be "Motorcycle accident and neurological profile"
  • In see also section there should not be articles that have already appeared and linked in the article: Policy is that when a link already appears in the article it should not appear also in the see also section. In this sense "see also" is the place for connected links not mentioned in text.
  • In section "clinical significance" article talks about 2 disease without anykind of introduction: with such structure it may appear that these 2 diseases are the only ones in which the glia limitans functioning is altered (which I doubt it is the case). Such examples should be put into a more general context with some short of introduction.
  • Section "Relationship with BBB" is very short and looks somewhat unconnected to the article. Maybe it could be combined with other sections? Eliminated?
  • The "comparative anatomy" section seems somewhat a random collection of data since it only touches some minor info on insects and mollusc. If this section is going to exist a full description of the evolution of the glia limitans in the animal realm is a must.
  • I have edited place of images since infoboxes should appear at the lead.

More to come as I have time.--Garrondo (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Response[edit]

Thank you for your comments. We greatly appreciate your input and are working to fix the problems you outlined. Katie44gb (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Overall, you have done an excellent job on your article so far. Your introduction is informative, yet concise, and you did a great job on focusing on the aspects of the glia limitans that are affected in the diseases you mention, without talking too much about the diseases themselves. I also thought the pictures you included add to your article and are very well placed, helping readers to actually visualize what you discuss. The comparative anatomy section was very interesting and good to include as well. Here are a few suggestions, however. First, I noticed a few spelling and punctuation errors. For example, in the immunological barrier section, you missed the “e” on “secrete,” and I think you were also missing a period somewhere in there as well. I am also unsure of if you should include the relationship to the BBB section as an entire section on its on, as it is so short. Perhaps you could include that information under the location and structure section? Also, I would consider changing the order of the sections, putting development before clinical relevance. Also, although you included the link to page on glial cells, perhaps you could explain exactly what they are more in depth in your article because they are, essentially, the topic of your article. Lastly, I noticed a few areas where there could have been more hyperlinks. Overall, however, you’ve done a great job.

LWestover (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


I thought this article included some interesting information and was well written and organized. I found it easy to follow and I thought the pictures were a great supplement. I have a few minor suggestions. Particularly in the first few sections there seemed to be a lot of references to anatomical structures or areas. Of course it is important that that information is included and you did link most of the terms to other articles, which was helpful. However, if there is a way to simplify or generalize some of the terminology that might be better for the typical reader. If you feel like you can't slim down the terminology another option might be to try and find a picture the glia limitans in a larger anatomical context that would show its relation to some of the terms you are referencing. Secondly, I thought the second paragraph in the Development section seemed unimportant to the topic of the article. I don't think you need to explain the details of the experiment. You could expand slightly on the first sentence to give it some context but other than that most of the other information in that paragraph seems like it can go. My last suggestion is similar to some of the other comments on this page about organization of headings. I agree that the BBB section seems small and I felt that if possible, the Comparative anatomy section could be worked into some other section and made more relevant to the article. (I thought the information was interesting just maybe shouldn't have its own section since it doesn't deal much with the glia limitans) As far as organization goes it seems like Clinical relevance should be near Current research whereas Development should be near Location and structure and Function. Other than that, things look great! MKMurphy (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello. The first thing that stands out to me about this article is its phenomenal use of images. I think the images truly add a great deal to the article and make it much more in depth. I would recommend perhaps incorporating the specific images used in with the text of the article, though. I think they are very helpful, and it would be great to provide a link between what is being said and what is being shown. Beyond that, I also feel that the general organization of the article is very appealing. Breaking down the Function and Clinical Relevance sections definitely make the article clearer. However, I noted that the Clinical relevance section seems somewhat out of place. I think it may be better suited towards the bottom of the article after the Development, Anatomy, etc. have all been discussed. I think this will give readers a better understanding of the glial limitans and make the article flow nicer. I really like the comparative anatomy section of the article. It offers a very interesting perspective with respect to this structure in various organisms. I think that increasing this section would further improve the article. Possibilities include having some section introduction so that the comparative anatomy of the insect does not seem so abrupt. Including other organisms would also be a welcomed addition. Also within this section, I think that the section about insects should be cited using a reference. For the references section, I noticed that Reference 11 and 12 and Reference 4 and 15 are the same. It should be very easy for you correct this. Other than that, the reference section looks rather thorough. I would recommend trying to find some more secondary articles, although I think I noticed a few. Well done.

Sean J. Dikdan (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m happy to say that this article has made great progress since its first few revisions. I must applaud you on the extensive research concerning the topic at hand. I even found it very interesting how you tied in the comparative anatomy of the glia limitans in other animals and insects. The first suggestion I would make is to maybe improve how the article flows from topic to topic. For example, you have a smooth procession of information from the introduction, all the way down to the section entitled ‘development’. The following sections after that seem to cover distinctly different aspects concerning the glia limitans. Maybe work in a way to tie together the last four sections of ‘development’, ‘comparative anatomy’, ‘relationship with the Blood Brain Barrier’, and ‘current research’. Another good way to improve this article is to explain how the glia limitans research has an important impact on the field of medicine. What implications does this further research have as far as developing new clinical drugs to combat diseases associated with glia limitans damage? In the last section (‘current research’) you explain that the process for ATP, glutamate, and other chemical messenger release from glia cell is a debated area for future research. Maybe explain briefly why this is important and provide one example of research concerning this topic? Remember, the main goal of this wikipedia project is to make people realize the importance and relevance of this topic to their own lives. Other than that you all seem to be well on your way. Good luck editing! Kevin Pádraic (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


You guys did a great job with the introduction: clear and concise. The information in the Location and Structure seems very technical and may be difficult to follow. If you could explain the vocab and where the parts are located, this section would be much more clear. When describing FCMD, you might want to elaborate on what happens with accumulation of neural tissue in the subarachnoid space. Also, it may be helpful to describe in the captions for the pictures how each image has to do with glia limitans. For example, you could say in the Brain layers image that the glia limitans lies between the Pia mater and the cerebral cortex and acts as a physical and immunological barrier. I thought the Comparative Anatomy section was really interesting, but the first two sentences are missing punctuation between them. In Relationship to Blood Brain Barrier, I'm not exactly sure what you mean about the endfeet forming a complete layer. Does this layer surround the BBB? Overall, though, I think you guys did a very good job with keeping the language sounding encyclopedia-esque.

Chouda (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job guys! I enjoyed reading the article, especially because your explanations were clear, direct and not excessively wordy, so keep that up with any further revisions. I have just a few small suggestsions. Under the Location and Structure heading, you wrote "This membrane lies deep to the pia mater..." and I think you may have wanted to say "deep into", but you could even say "deep within" and it would flow better with the sentence. Also, the first sentence under Function is a little redundant. Perhaps you could phrase it something like this: "The major function of the glial limitans is structural, for it acts primarily as a physical barrier." Under Clinical Relevance, you may be able to eliminate the first sentence all together, because the second sentence sums up nicely the following descriptions. You may also want to include the Clinical relevance section later in your article, after Development and Relationship with the BBB, so that all of the information about the glial limitans is presented before you discuss the what happens when they do not function correctly. I would be careful to avoid large sections that are heavy in scientific terminology, like the second paragraph under Location and Structure. Though your conciseness is great, it wouldn't hurt to break up some of the more dense sentences and sprinkle in either some common language or additional hyperlinks. Overall, I think the article is very well written, so my critiques are really just small points--I don't think you have much more to do! Stempera (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you did a great job writing about glia limitans! This is a very well-organized and clearly written article. I think your use of pictures is especially beneficial in supplementing the body of the article; the pictures correlate appropriately with the article paragraphs and make the article visually appealing. In the Physical Barriers section, consider providing an internal link to the idea of chemical messengers. Since this is for a general audience, at times the language of the article gets scientific. In the Immunological Barriers section, I was not sure what you meant when you referred to the "microenviroment." Additionally in this section you may consider providing a brief explanation of the inflammatory response of the astrocytes; consider elaborating on the line "Therefore, the glia limitans is not only a tissue barrier because the astrocytes associated with it secrete pro- and anti-inflammatory factors." Finally, the Comparative Anatomy section could use a brief introductory sentence. A period is also missing after "tight-junctions" in the first sentence, and you could explain what "zonular intercellular junctions" means, as this is technical language. I echo previous comments that you did a great job explaining this topic thoroughly and succinctly. --Smguro (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Great job on the article guys. Just a few things here that I noticed here. First of all great intro. The topic seems to be a bit complicated to explain but I think if the brain layers diagram was moved up so that it were closer to the intro it may better compliment the introduction and location and structure sections, helping the reader to better visualize where the glia limitans is as well as its proximity to other brain layers. The second (lower) "Brain: Glial Limiting Membrane" photo was a bit confusing as to what exactly it was supposed to be representing. Maybe just a little clarification here in the caption if possible? Also I don't know if this is important or not but the "notes" section header vs. "references". I don't know if it matters what the heading for the citations is named but in most of the other articles I've read the citations have been inserted under "references". One thing that I caught in the references themselves was a couple of repeats. I believe the "Brightman" reference is included twice as well as the "Fields, Douglas" reference. Other than these few things I thought the article read well and smoothly. Keep up the good work. Migliozzi88 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw this article before the editing and this has definitely been a major improvement. The article was a wealth of information, and the tone and wording was straightforward and easy to follow. There could be more hyperlinks added, and there are some minor grammatical and syntax errors, nothing a read-through won't fix. The information was organized and presented in a simple way, the heading titles were not too scientific and intimidating. Good luck on your edits! Micahsy (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Peer Reviews[edit]

Thank you everyone for you reviews. We took everything into consideration and made many of the changes that you suggested. Anything that we disagreed with and decided not to change we addressed directly in the following comments. If your comment is not addressed below, you can assume that we took your advice and made a change on the page. Once again thank you for your contributions and good luck with your own projects. Oconnedp (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Stempara’s comment about the wording of the sentence that begins “This membrane lies deep to the pia mater …”. Deep is an anatomical term that simply means that the one item is “below” or “underneath” another. In this case we are saying that the glia limitans is beneath the pia mater … it is not part of or directly associated with the pia mater, so we would not use “within” or “into”. Oconnedp (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Migliozzi88’s comment about the picture containing the brain layers being moved up. We originally had that image opening our article, however, we were informed by a more experienced editor, that any info-boxes we have should be placed at the top. I guess it is just Wikipedia style. Oconnedp (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to LWestover's (talk) comment about elaborating on the meaning of glial cells, we did not feel this was necessary to include in our article. We have multiple links to glial cells and specific types of glial cells such as astrocytes and microglia; therefore, we did not provide additional explanation on our glia limitans page. We felt that the links were sufficient and that readers researching the glia limitans either already know about glial cells or would benefit from reading the full glial cells article to get a complete definition. Katie44gb (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to MKMurphy's comment about the first couple of paragraph's being to heavy on the scientific jargon. We have tried to go through and add short descriptions of confusing terms, however, we felt that in many situations this was not possible and would actually detract from the article to go through wordy explanations of every term when there was a link to a page that could explain it better than we ever could. One of our reoccurring terms that may cause confusion is parenchyma (meaning the functional component of an object). I have tried to add the briefest bit of clarification in the Function and Location section, but unfortunately finding a good replacement word for this term has not been possible. The only option we came up with was replacing it with "neurons and glia" every time it occurred, which would result in even more use of the word glia (it is already used a lot) and could result in even more confusion. In response to the suggestion that we find a picture that shows the glia limitans in a larger anatomical context. We did find several pictures that showed this division clearly, however, all were strictly under copyright, which is why we resorted to making our own image for the header. Oconnedp (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Smguro's (talk) comment about elaboration on the immunological barrier section, we reorganized the information and tried to reword it to be more clear and straightforward. Unfortunately, we were not able to find a great deal of information on the secretion of pro- and anti-inflammatory factors by astrocytes. The information we did find simply stated that because the astrocytes are known to secrete these factors, it is clear that the glia limitans functions as an immunological barrier in addition to functioning as a physical barrier. In response to the comment about zonular intercellular junctions, the research article referencing them compared these junctions to functioning as gap junctions. Therefore, we added a link to the wikipedia page on gap junctions, as it describes gap junctions as intercellular connections and elaborates further. Katie44gb (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Sean J. Dikdan's comment about the addition of secondary articles. We spent a great deal of time looking for addtional sources both during our initial posting and the revision period. However, we were unable to find any new articles that would further contribute to our article. Very little research has been published on the glia limitans in recent years, so reviews of older literature are difficult to come by. Oconnedp (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This has a peer review mostly for compliance with WP:MOS issues at Wikipedia:Peer review/Glia limitans/archive1. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project[edit]

Nice job Katie, Christian and Danny. I like the diagram of the limitans that you made in Powerpoint. The blood vessel in there should be labeled but other than that it's a nice guide for those new to the topic. NeuroJoe (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)