Talk:Mitosis/Archive 1

Pics[edit]

Diagrams and photographs of real life cells and computer generized cells dipictions would be highly usefull in these parts.

The links to main articles are pointless[edit]

Most of them lead back to the main articles, others are stubs that are exact replicates of the text in this article. We need some writers and researches to flesh this section out. Ambush Commander 03:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) Needs addition of p53 and p21 proteins for inhibition of cDK due to errors in replication.

Not Clear[edit]

Is endomitosis a phase of mitosis, or is it something else? --Mac Davis 10:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

agh, I just realised - cellular biology is VERY lacking in Wikipedia[edit]

How horrible. I thought Wikipedia was doing well - then I see that the entire subject of cellular biology in Wikipedia is extremely scant. For example, cellular signals during mitosis are not elaborated, nor references to key concepts of cellular signals given, nor to protooncogenes, which speed up mitosis, and tumor suppressor genes, which slow it down, or premature mitosis, none of that! How infuriating! -- Natalinasmpf 03:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll say this much -- this article needs A LOT of work. Even after being out of school for several years, I can tell upon quick perusal that there are NUMEROUS mistakes here, including in the very first sentence of the article, where mitosis (as of today) is defined as producing "two daughter cells" with the very next sentence indicating that mitosis is usually quickly followed by cytokinesis....My brain hurts! Another random mistake that needs fixing is that the reference under "Prophase" to "each chromosome HAVING 2 chromatids." It would be much clearer to indicate that each chromosome in Prophase "CONSISTS OF" 2 sister chromatids. Someone with a PhD and great writing skills needs to do a major clean up here. 208.54.95.251 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

I just put up a major rewrite of the article. I created an overview section that simplifies mitosis for the laymen, added some more technical information for the student, and redid the grammar and diction to improve article readability. I split up the pictures from Gray's Anatomy into the individual subphase sections so it's easier to follow the process and got a better picture of the cell cycle.

The section on homologous vs. sister chromosomes is a little confusing, but it was the best I could word it. It may not even be necessary. Any improvements appreciated. -D. Wu 04:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to Vocabulary, but I'm not sure that's best. I remember learning this in my Biology course: it was really confusing. I'll take a look. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 16:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding revision at 13:54, 21 July 2005. I backtracked a little of User:Natalinasmpf's changes because I felt that it detracted from the cohesiveness of the article. I liked the light micrographs of mitosis, but I felt the second and third were placed rather haphazardly. In particular, the third micrograph replaced the original anaphase diagram from Gray's Anatomy, which interrupted the theme of the section.

I also shuffled the images, mainly back to their original locations. The diagram of the cell cycle is intended to be in the section where the cell cycle is talked about. Furthermore, the general diagram of mitosis is intended to be in the section where mitosis is first talked about. I cooked up an image that illustrates how genetic information is distributed so the section won't be bare.

The LM pictures were placed in a gallery at the bottom.

I also thought the links, especially in the first micrograph image, were extraneous and cluttered the article. I have therefore "de-over-wikified" accordingly. -D. Wu 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was too ambitious. I wish to have the one or two photos reintegrated into the main article rather than a gallery sometime (near?) future, when the article is much longer, and with far more elaborations (I could think of expanding the metaphase section, for example, concerning the "tug of war" part). By the way, could we start aiming for FAC? -- Natalinasmpf 01:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I think the article's at its most comfortable size. I'd rather not see it get unweildy like the menstrual cycle article. My hope is that the subpages like metaphase will actually start fleshing out now that the basic information is on the main page. I'm not quite sure where another LM would go without disrupting the flow, though, but they do make perfect additions to the subpages. -D. Wu 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends. Menstrual Cycle does need to get reorganised, but there's plenty of cultural and social references to it (other than the scientific explanation of it itself), but the thing I'm thinking of is that first thing, the idea is that eventually all articles can be submitted as a featured article if worked upon - why not mitosis? But it has to be slightly longer, maybe 25% longer. The "errors of mitosis" I will expand on, but for example, the Gray's Anatomy drawings don't really capture the drama. What they may need is some colour - I'll go over them with gimp tonight and see what I can do. Implications of mitosis in the larger scope of life, as well as key signals involved in mitosis, is not present (although yes, biologists probably don't even know much of the signals involved in cellular functions yet!), but needs to be implied. For one thing, we need some plant cell depictions. Mitosis, such a fundamental principle, should ideally for Wikipedia's standard (which is why I complained about it above) be 3-4 tiered, ie. an article with over 2 to 3 tiers of subarticles - however currently it only seems to have one (describing the phases). I could envision the subarticles (when we are more knowledgable) containing info about the cellular signals involved in each phase, and the transition, as currently all we have is the anaphase-promoting complex and the spindle checkpoint. Say, since you're a university student, can you see about obtaining some photos too? It would be great. Some kind of photo is missing to make it feel "complete", but I just don't know what. -- Natalinasmpf 03:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biologists do understand a great deal about the signalling pathways in mitosis, but biochemistry is beyond the range of what you or I can authoritatively write about, and esoteric information such as it is should be in the subarticles. I agree that a mention that mitosis is controlled by signal transduction is warranted, but keep in mind that all biological process are controlled by signal transduction.

I completely agree with an Introduction section before Overview that talks in general about the importance of mitosis in life. We cannot forget, however, that mitosis is overall a mechanistic process. We mustn't get ahead of ourselves and expand beyond our knowledge--otherwise we're just talking. I'll eventually fold anaphase-promoting complex and spindle checkpoint into the cell cycle article under a section about controlling cellular division, because the checkpoints in mitosis exist as part of the greater assortment of checkpoints in the cell cycle.

Especially in the process section, we need to keep the feel academic and not dramatic. I agree that the Gray's Anatomy diagrams can be spruced up with color, but I think you'll also agree with me when I say that a glossy coat will only harm the intended purpose of this article. It's a succinct educational analysis, not a guided tour.

My general point is that any further significant expansion of mitosis should be within the subarticles, and if information must be added to the main article, great care should be taken. Because mitosis is an amazingly intricate process, this article can easily become derailed and balloon into just a collection of facts. -D. Wu 14:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aging?[edit]

I'd like a section on the connection between mitosis and senescence...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.174.218.52 (talk • contribs) .

Check out telomere. -- Natalinasmpf 21:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plants/Animals Mitosis[edit]

I think this article should at least point out the more prominent differences in plant and animal mitosis Jds10912 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are much differences in plant and animal mitosis. The only different part is in the telophase, where plant cells don't form cleavage furrow but having vesicles to gather at the equator to form a cell plate, then eventually become a cell wall to separate two cells -- this is in cytokinesis. Correct me if I have any mistakes. (EDIT: ...and also the absence of centrioles in plant cells. I totally forgot about this) — Yurei-eggtart 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, plant cells have an additional mitotic stage (preprophase) and several mitotic structures not found in animal cells, such as phragmosomes, preprophase bands, phragmoplasts and cell plates. I've added some of that information. - tameeria 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever Heard of Kinetochore Microubules?[edit]

Did you know that currently most scientists believe that the kinetochores do not hook on to the spindle microtubules. It is currently thought that the kinetochore creates tubules of its own and sends it to either ends of the spindle. At each eand of the spindle is a pool of enzymes that slowly digests the tubules, and therefore pulls the chromatid(s) apart. Seriously, This is too big to miss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.229.199 (talk)

Could you provide a link to a scholarly work that suggests this? My current understanding is that kinetochore microtubules are nucleated by the centrosomes, which then attach to the chromosome at the kinetochore. The kinetochore then walks along the microtubule and degrades the tubulin along the way. Essentially the reverse of what you said. -D. Wu 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article improperly altered[edit]

I was reading through the article when I noticed the following after a mention of binary fission:

It is important to remember that binary fission is still illegal, and so it is carried out on a very small scale.

I also noticed that the article was trunkated somewhere in the metaphase section. I think the edits shown here should be reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitosis&diff=prev&oldid=45723866

I'm not sure if this was malicious, or just someone who made a couple really odd mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harrold (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2006

Also, Who is this Mr. Gordon mentioned in the first section? And I want to know why it is revelant to the article that the editor of that section has a crush on him. I believe that part should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.185.41 (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

It would be helpful if a pronunciation was included in the mitosis and meiosis articles. -R. S. Shaw 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonic for mitosis/meiosis distinction?[edit]

Anybody know a good way of remembering that meiosis is the chromosome-reducing process? I find the words too similar to easily keep them straight. -R. S. Shaw 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Mitosis happens in your TOES.--160.5.228.53 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A scientist was once working in his laboratory when he discovered mitosis. He was so excited that he knocked the microscope onto his feet. In pain, he shouted,'My toe, sis!' " -Chaotic cultist 23:54, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic cultist (talk • contribs)

M phase taken out of the article[edit]

Maybe M phase should have its own article with links to mitosis and cytokinesis, as M phase has two parts: mitosis and cytokinesis? Andrius 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides cytokinesis, it would just be repeating this article, so it's probably not worth the trouble. Cytokinesis is only a 4.4kb stub at this point anyway :) Richard001 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed[edit]

I noticed this article listed at the Good article candidates page and took a moment to review it. Unfortunately, the article does not meet good article standards due to the total lack of inline citations. Taking a quick look at the rest of the article, I don't see other major issues, so I'd recommend renominating the article for GA after the problem with citations is fixed. Good job, and good luck. Neil916 (Talk) 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Renomination[edit]

I still think the "How mitosis distributes genetic information" needs inline cites, lest someone may fail its nomination again. LuciferMorgan 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section just reworded what was in the overview, so I just removed the whole section as redundant. – Clockwork Soul 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA On Hold[edit]

This GA nominated article is on hold for the following reasons:

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.

Lead shortened to 3 paras and made a better summary. TimVickers 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.

Done by another editor. TimVickers 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
- Addressed [1]. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please convert all numbered lists into prose.

Done be another editor. TimVickers 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to notify me when the problems are addressed. Tarret 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed[edit]

Good job, here are a few bot-generated suggestions on how the article may be brought to FA status. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: fiber (A) (British: fibre), organize (A) (British: organise), isation (B) (American: ization), signaling (A) (British: signalling), check (A) (British: cheque), mould (B) (American: mold).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

Hope this helps. Tarret 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interphase[edit]

Suggested edit:

"It alternates with the much longer interphase, where the cell prepares itself for division."

Not an expert on the topic, so I will leave it as is. If someone can confirm this change and make the edit...

Should be B rated[edit]

I am surprised the article was rated GA. Although it would be of good enough quality for a occasional reader, it does not meet the standard of quality required for a student or a researcher. The wording is not precise enough and although I corrected some (e.g. protein cohesin -> cohesin complex, centrosome sprout(!??) microtubules -> nucleate aso,...not to mention the nuclear enveloppe dissolving!?) their is still a lot to be done. I also feel that it too superficial and that more should be said for each specific phases, even if they have their own page.Wikivax0 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article could do with some improvements and additions. I recently added plant-specific information, but not much is said yet about closed mitosis in fungi and protists, for example. Nuclear envelope-embedded spindle pole bodies as MTOCs forming intranuclear spindles are not even mentioned. There could be a whole new section on mitotic mechanisms with a figure illustrating these differences in spindle formation, open versus closed mitosis, theories on the evolution of mitosis from karyomastigont duplication in early protists etc. - tameeria 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The fluorescence picture of the newt cell stained for microtubules and DNA is not a metaphase but a prometaphase, as there is still a chromosome with an unaligned kinetochore and should be replaced (or the legend changed). BTW, the same problem is present in the metaphase page of wikipedia.Wikivax0 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say you are wrong on that one. Metaphase ends with congression of the chromosomes at the metaphase plate, yes, but until they get there, that's also already Metaphase. See also Prometaphase for a definition when this ends. --Dietzel65 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point, but wouldn't it be better to have a picture where all the chromosomes have congressed?Wikivax0 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Erased Intro?[edit]

Someone erased the entire introduction and put DICK HEAD. For now, I'm going to rewrite the intro, but someone needs to restore it to its original form!!! Frankly, I didn't get the chance to memorize the intro before the culprit did this, so the intro will not be the same in quality at all. I'm only a kid in school! If you are an expert on the subject, feel free to rewrite! --Gabycs 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just saw that it was put back to normal! I thank the person who did this!!!--Gabycs 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabycs, the user is 72.80.225.112.--Chaotic cultist 11:49, 12 September 2007

messed up headlines[edit]

I noticed that some of the headings seem to be in the wrong order. Would it be possible to correct that?--RanDawg 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time[edit]

All through middle and high school, i had been exposed to the process of mitosis, i'd seen the nucleus dissolve, the chromosomes get torn apart, and two cells formed.

This page elaborated on some of the processes, however, there's something i've never been told about this whole blasted confusing process*: on what scale of time does this process take?? Exactly how long does prophase last??? (Kinda driving me insane)

(let alone the molecular biology; knowing what i know about wavefunctions and quantum mechanics makes me question everything i thought i used to know about anything chemical these days)

I can not tell about prophase but the whole mitosis last around 1h.Wikivax0 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mitosis can last from as little as 1/2 an hour to several days/weeks. (At least that's what I've read :S) --DoomedKenny86 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well,on that, 1-4 hours, the liver cells mitosis time is a pretty good example. It's pretty average if you know what I mean. But, no I never heard of a time when mitosis takes more than a 12 hour period. I'm not sure if it's always less than 12 hours though, I might need to do some checking.

76.173.217.110 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

I looked up this article to watch a video of a live cell undergoing mitosis but there doesn't appear to be one. I've added a link to a windows media video I found to the end of this article. Hope it's ok. to do this.

Gareth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.206.133.13 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try going on Google: Videos, then search for: cell division. The videos aren't perfect, but they are videos. I mean, if you are still looking for videos. Ha, ha, video.

76.173.217.110 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong diagram![edit]

One of the pictures is meiosis not mitosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.163.251 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Tim Vickers 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third one down. It's meiosis, and the diagram is confusing. Mitosis give rise to two daughter cells not 4.

I'm not sure if they didn't intend the two arrows to represent two daughter cells, but that diagram is very confusing. Tim Vickers 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. It got me confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.163.251 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHORT NOTE ON PROCESS OF MITOSIS. (ROSHNI)[edit]

SHORT NOTE ON PROCESS OF MITOSIS

PROCESS OF MITOSIS

MITOSIS :-

       This type of cell division occurs in somatic cells.They are divided in six Phases.They are:-(1)INTERPHASE

(2)PROPHASE (3)METAPHASE (4)ANAPHASE (5)TELOPHSE(6)CYTOKINESIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.178.120 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On centrosomes[edit]

I'm no phD or graduate but I'm positive that plant cells have centrosomes but no centrioles. If anyone can look into this and clarify I'd appreciate it. 99.237.14.239 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to lack a single MTOC, so have a more diffuse set of microtubules that form around the nucleus and are organised by the chromosomes. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't centrosomes and centrioles the same thing? I'm very very sure they are.

76.173.217.110 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH![edit]

This might seem useless and irrevalent now, or whatever, but, HOLY SMOKES these pages are chaotic (and is missing some major facts and things). I'm too lazy to rewrite it (or use commas) so will someone please please do it for me? Oh darn that sounded awkward. Anyway will someone with the time and resources please edit it. It dosen't even even mention DNA replication and protien forming and other facts that are essential to cell division. Or maybe it's in another article. Either way, this talk page should have major revisions. Anyone bold enough to do it?

76.173.217.110 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, and I need pictures!

76.173.217.110 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, and another thing, cytokinesis is not essential to cellular division. Actually they (cytokinesis & telophase) can work fine by themselves, just better together. Just sayin'. It's more badly worded than anything really important, but still.

76.173.217.110 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]