Talk:Reelin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Reelin was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Comments[edit]


(I moved this self-described conjecture from the original article here) Reelin and Schizophrenia Please note : THIS IS CONJECTURE NOT FACT.

I believe that schizophrenia is a clinical syndrome which is caused by reduced neuronal interconnectiviy and plasticity. The reduction of interneuronal connectivity could be:

  1. non structural (eg drugs such as Ketamine, or metabolic defect),
  2. structural with abnormalities caused by in Reelin, receptors or by abnormalities in the receptor complex.

The role of the Cajal Retzius cell, which secretes reelin, is interesting. Since it lies just below the pial surface (an area that is typically inflamed in syphilis) it may explain the appearance of schizophrenia in some cases of neurosyphilis. Death of this cell might also be a mechanism by which a viral meningitis or encephalitis could trigger Schizophrenia. (As far as I know there is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS THEORY, but it seems plausible).


Refactored/stubified, replacing the entire text. Significant removed text which may be reincorporated as it is verified:

This exciting finding opens the possibility of explanation of at least some cases of schizophrenia and also the possibility of a useful animal model of the disease.

What does reelin do?

There are two main and probably distict roles:

  1. It controls neuronal layering in the developing brain.
  2. It regulates the growth of dendritic spines in the cortex and cerebellum.

NB: The information below has good experimental support. There will be numerous small errors of fact but the overall concepts are well founded.

Brain Layering.[edit]

The brain starts growth as a single layer of epithelium, thickens and then develops a single layer of neurones called the primary plate. Neurones then develop and move along a glial framework (a sort of microscopic neuroskeleton. The cells drop off at various points to form the 6 or so layers (variable from site to site ) of a normal adult neocortex. The act of dropping off is controlled by reelin. Without reelin neurones get stuck around the primary plate and normal layering is lost. Reelin is secreted by the Cajal Retzius cells which are a special type of nuerone found just below the pial or outside surface.

Human diseases that may be related abnormalities of this role of reelin include:

  1. lissencephaly (smooth brain) associated with severe mental retardation.
  2. Autism (some cases)

Neuroplasticity[edit]

The second role of reelin controls neuroplasticity and uses the same molecular mechanisms as the neurodevelopmental functions. 1. Reelin is excreted into the extracellular space of the brain by Cajal Retzius cells near the brain surface. It seeps down to the middle pyramidal layer of the grey matter where pyramidal and intermediate neurones expresses reelin receptors. These receptors are similar to VLDL or cholesterol receptors. (This significance of this is uncertain but is interesting because of the relationship between ApoE3 and Alzheimers disease).

The stimulation of reelin then triggers a phosphokinase mechanism which encourages the production of mRNA and the production of actin. Actin is a "muscle protein" which then allows the neurone to actively alter its shape via "dendritic spines". The dendritic spines carry synapses which allow neurones to communicate with each other. (The synapses in the prefrontal cortex carry GLU or NDMA receptors). The phosphokinase receptor complex is a very large and complex molecule composed of several subunits. One subunit is the Fragile X protein. This is an abnormal protein that is associated with the commonest (known) from of inherited mental retardation and the Fragile X syndrome is also associated with an increased incidence of schizophrenia.

... end of removed text. Andrewa 19:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I discovered reelin- there are many errors in this section- why not link to the original papers?

Plea for help to people skilled with graphics[edit]

here is a great graphical illustration of the difference in corticogenesis between the "normal" and the "reeler" mice. Alas, as I understand, the image is copyrighted. But it is quite simple drawing. If somebody will re-draw the image and upload free version on the Reelin page, it would be great!--CopperKettle 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To Do list[edit]

  1. Write in more detail about the DNMT1-induced hypermethylation of RELN promoter region (CpG islands)
  2. Read on amphetamine-induced decrease in RELN expression.

--CopperKettle 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To Read[edit]

  1. Reelin pathway and.. pancreatic cancer --CopperKettle 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. NPAS3 is associated with schizophrenia; positioned inside the HAR21 region(Pollard 2006). HAR1 -\-, HAR3 -\-, and double mice knockouts display lowered reelin expression in the cortex. Strangely there is only one study dating back to 2004 though, and p-values seem rather high. --CopperKettle 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mental disorders[edit]

I have to comment about the very excellent and heavily sourced information in the schizophrenia section, that some of it does have a sense of original research about it, could I clarify? E.g. the second paragraph seems to mix sentences and sources on animal model studies, with sentences and sources on human schizophrenia studies - do the sources themeslves make the links between them? Then "SAM, being a methyl group donor neccessary for DNMT activity, could further shift epigenetic control of gene expression" is unsourced, is that proposition being synthesized here? The fourth paragraph starts "Other interesting findings probably linking reelin pathway to developmental hypotheses of schizophrenia are noted in the studies on mice that..." who is saying that they probably link? "These data run in parrallel with the findings of increased risk of schizophrenia in humans" - who is saying they parallel them? Later "Considering the role of reelin in promoting dendritogenesis,[3][59] suggestions were made..." - the sources are different - did those making those suggestions consider that, or is the link just being made here? "Reelin pathway could also be linked to schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders through its interaction with risk genes. One example is..." can I check, do all these examples make the link between reelin and risk genes themselves, or is that partly being made here? "Along the same line, it is worth noting that the gene coding for the subunit NR2B that is presumably affected by reelin in the process of NR2B->NR2A developmental change..." are the sources presuming that, or just here?

Different point - the significant reelin findings are cited up top, but the null findings separately further down. Wouldn't it be more NPOV to give a balanced indication up top that there have been inconsistent findings?

One other more incidental point, can I query the rationale for the lead describing schizophrenia and bipolar as "brain diseases"? I realise they are sometimes described in those terms, especially in neuroscience, but of course in many fields and in the DSM & ICD, they are classed as mental disorders. EverSince (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two "null finding" articles reporting no hypermethylation indeed should be mentioned furhter up; maybe the table of antipsychotic action could too be moved to the top of the section on "brain disease".
As to the possible original research - the implications: SAM in schizophrenia and reelin, NPAS3 and reelin, dendritogenesis and reelin, prenatal infection and reelin expression (parralleled in humans and mice; there exists a "psychosis dev. model" that is called "Maternal Immune Activation", MIA) - as far as I remember - are made in the published articles (see the "epigenetic hypothesis" at Schizophreniaforum.org by Costa et al) or in the recent book by Fatemi. Moreover, in the book there are links to dopamine pathway (with only one somewhat distant ref, so I do not mention it here yet) and more links to NMDAr.
I was unsure only about the NMDA developmental shift so I've looked up NR2A right now in the book - Costa et al discuss the fact in chapter 23 "Reelin Downregulation as a Prospective Treatment Target for GABAergic Dysfunction in Schizophrenia". They discuss it in the subsection on Heterosygous Reeler Mice as a partial schizophrenia model; yes, maybe it is proper to transfer this one finding to the reeler article. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if they are considered more strictly the "mental disorders", the section could be renamed; how about "role in neuropsychiatry" or something like that?
I'm planning to send letters to several reelin researchers so that they could weed out the wrong statements and maybe improve the article in other ways, if they want. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about the section name, but I think the 2nd para of the article lead could be reworded a little to indicate the difference in classification of bipolar/schiz (and perhaps that the significant findings have not been found in all the studies?)
I don't know if the antipsychotics table should be moved up, but I agree that the general point should be covered in a paragraph on the range of findings and possible explanations. I noticed it has also been suggested that epigenetic differences may be a result of psychosis-induced neural changes?
I think it would help the general reader if the secondary sourcing as you've outlined it could in some way be gradually clarified within the article, so it's easier to see which citations are supporting which syntheses of the primary findings. Incidentally, just out of interest, the Schizophreniaforum article[1], which doesn't itself seem to be a peer-reviewed publication as such (but with an advisory board etc) seems to attribute what they call their novel hypothesis to an earlier journal article, Costa et al., 2002, which seems to be "Pharmacogenomics of schizophrenia: a proactive role for histone deacetylase inhibitors" but unlike the others they don't link to it and a quick search didn't turn it up on the journal website or pubmed/google. I may be getting mixed up somewhere... Cheers, EverSince (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K., I'll try to refurbish the second para a bit. As to what goes first, the psychosis or the methylation and gene structure changes, it's very early to judge IMHO, the epigenetic research in psychiatry, it seems to me, just took up in recent 10 years or so. Costa and his colleagues have a row of papers on epigenetics of GAD67 and RELN in psychotic disorders, so there is no problem with publications in peer-researched journals; I linked to the SRF.org site because it's the most clear and fresh snapshot of this emerging hypothesis, which itself seems to be a part of the moving-and-changing-leading-edge of psychiatric epigenetics. I'll try to sort out the refs, like maybe moving the "implicating" ones closer to the verbs.. or giving a citation in the ref section below. Thanx for the advices, Ever! --CopperKettle (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I saw they'd authored many of the peer-reviwed articles too (and I think it's great to have the more accessible source in there), was just curious why couldn't find that one where they apparently earlier outlined their hypothesis. Very nice work building up the article btw... EverSince (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Normalised the second paragraph a little. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Autism[edit]

A note to myself:

Interesting anonymous edits (25 dec 08)[edit]

These edits add some facts but also there is an additional claim that reelin-schizophrenia link is very weak; that may be, and I am all for the good "critique" paragraph, with sources or explanations why reelin may be a false lead. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I havent really understood this bit:

this result implied that they were receptors it was the later papers that demonstrated Reelin binding that confirmed this identity.

- did the paper was the first to acknowledge that VLDLR and ApoER2 are receptors? From the abstract, it seems that they are mentioned as receptors, as if it was already known. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But as for the "Most scientists don't accept these inflated claims.", " this is not generally accepted." - these are very bold statements; there should be references at least to the blog or media publicatons. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A new allele was obtained[edit]

I quote: "In 1994 a new allele of reeler was obtained by insertional mutagenesis (Miao et al., 1994)". Is this the right phrasing? I do not fully understand that this means, maybe it should be rephrased or the terms wiki-linked to appropriate articles for further "self-study". --CopperKettle (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Interesting bit[edit]

  • A quote from the article:

    One study indicated the upregulation of histone deacetylase HDAC1 in the hippocampi of patients.[109]

    - but HDAC1 may be protective against injury:[1]

    "Indeed, reducing HDAC1 activity using small interfering RNA or a specific inhibitor in cultured cortical neurons or in vivo resulted in increased numbers of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), the expression of cell cycle proteins and cell death. Increasing HDAC1 function by overexpressing it had the opposite effect, protecting cells against DSBs and neurotoxicity."

    Hmm.. what if HDAC1 increase is the brains' reply to toxic medication.. --CopperKettle 04:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the "Autism" section[edit]

The addition by User:DavidJWu seems to be too extensive and a bit loosely related (IMHO):

Kanner in 1943 was the first to report on the neurological disorder autism and among his many observations he noticed that a portion of his cohort had enlarged heads.[2] This observation of macrocephaly was corroborated by numerous studies and some suggest that accelerated growth is an early warning sign of risk of autism.[3][4][5][6] These studies led researchers to examine the neurophysiology of autistic subjects. However, the small research sample sizes lead to a lack of statistical power compounded with the natural heterogeneity of the disorder introduced many confounding variables that have made results inconclusive. What has been concluded thus far is that there is a decrease number of Purkinje cells throughout the cerebellum and cortical dysgenesis reminiscent of the reeler mouse.[7]


In 2002, Fatemi et al. measured the blood levels of unprocessed Reelin in 28 autistic twins, their parents and siblings. A statistically significant reduction of the unprocessed Reelin was found in the twins along with their parents and even unaffected siblings when compared to controls.[8] Despite the inconclusive neuropathology studies, some abnormalities were reminiscent of the reeler neuropathology and the identification of reduced Reelin levels by Fatemi et al. led to the genomic screening of reelin.


Autistic family and twin studies have suggested that genetic factors might lead to a predisposition of autism.[9] The proposition by many is that reelin is one of those candidate genes for autism. Studying 95 autistic subjects, Itailian in ethnicity, and 186 matched controls, there was a significant association with a polymorphic repeat located immediately preceding the 5’ ATG initiator codon of reelin.[10] Longer triplet repeats in the 5’ region were associated with an increase in autism susceptibility. The 5’ end of reelin was further analyzed using 125 multiple-incidence families. There was no significant difference between the length of repeats found between affected and controls however, family based association test found that larger reelin alleles were transmitted more frequently than expected to affected children[11].
  • Why is there a whole paragraph on large heads?
  • Fatemi et al., 2002 is already cited by me above
  • After that comes the second mention of "abnormalities reminiscent". Could be merged into one, IMHO
  • General mention of genetic factor of autims could be dropped, and a "main article" template leading to the Heritability of autism article could be added to the subsection instead.

Best regards, --CopperKettle 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That whole section was way too long as a summary of Reelin and autism. Also, it cited primary studies, where it should be citing reliable reviews (as per WP:MEDRS). I took a crack at the problem by rewriting the section to make it briefer and to cite a reliable review, Pardo et al. 2007 (PMID 17919129). Eubulides (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the summary but I would like to expand on the triplet polymorphism --DavidJWu (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Kim D, Frank CL, Dobbin MM, Tsunemoto RK, Tu W, Peng PL, Guan JS, Lee BH, Moy LY, Giusti P, Broodie N, Mazitschek R, Delalle I, Haggarty SJ, Neve RL, Lu Y, Tsai LH (2008). "Deregulation of HDAC1 by p25/Cdk5 in neurotoxicity". Neuron. 60 (5): 803–17. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.015. PMID 19081376.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Kanner, L., Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child 1943. 2: p. 217-250.
  3. ^ Bailey, A., et al., Autism and megalencephaly. Lancet, 1993. 341(8854): p. 1225-6.
  4. ^ Courchesne, E., R. Carper, and N. Akshoomoff, Evidence of brain overgrowth in the first year of life in autism. Jama, 2003. 290(3): p. 337-44.
  5. ^ Palmen, S.J., et al., Neuropathological findings in autism. Brain, 2004. 127(Pt 12): p. 2572-83.
  6. ^ Fidler, D.J., J.N. Bailey, and S.L. Smalley, Macrocephaly in autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2000. 42(11): p. 737-40.
  7. ^ Palmen, S.J., et al., Neuropathological findings in autism. Brain, 2004. 127(Pt 12): p. 2572-83.
  8. ^ Fatemi, S.H., J.M. Stary, and E.A. Egan, Reduced blood levels of reelin as a vulnerability factor in pathophysiology of autistic disorder. Cell Mol Neurobiol, 2002. 22(2): p. 139-52.
  9. ^ Steffenburg, S., et al., A twin study of autism in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 1989. 30(3): p. 405-16.
  10. ^ Persico, A., et al., Reelin gene alleles and haplotypes as a factor predisposing to autistic disorder. Molecular Psychiatry, 2001. 6: p. 150-159.
  11. ^ Zhang, H., et al., Reelin gene alleles and susceptibility to autism spectrum disorders. Mol Psychiatry, 2002. 7(9): p. 1012-7.

Test attempt see if the article could be improved using LDR citation style[edit]

I've completed my test attempt to convert a portion of the article to the WP:LDR reference style.

The test included the lead, and first three sections (through Tissue distribution and secretion)

Results can be seen here

The view will look slightly different, because the TOC is shorter.

(edit - see also reelin testing take 2 for sample with only the LDR change)

I made two types of changes, the first of which is the main point and more significant:

  1. I converted the references to LDR style, the goal of which is to move the bulk of the reference to the reference section and leave only a stub in the main article
  2. When there were two citations for the same point, I combined the two citations into a single footnote

Covering the second item first, I think that while the presence of footnotes helps signal that it is a professional article, the existence of footnotes detracts from the appearance, so if I can use one footnote instead of two, I think it looks better. Note importantly that this decision is independent of the LDR decision; combining of citations into a single footnote can be done or not, in either LDR or traditional citation style. If you object to this combination, I can do the LDR without it. Implementing it will slightly change the footnote numbering, as old footnote 1 and 2 are now footnote 1.

The bigger change is the use of LDR.

The first four sections took up 20.7K of space. When I convert to LDR, the aggregate space used is up slightly, but the main article space now takes up 10.2K, and the Reference section takes up 12.4K. In other words, this article have more bytes devoted to references than to text. This isn't meant to imply anything good or bad regarding content, what it means is that an editor trying to find one's way through the edit text has to wend one's way through more reference material than non-reference material. Whomever organized it did a clever job of separating out the footnotes, but it is still a chore to read the material in edit mode, when you are trying to find exactly where to make an edit change.

The revised version is much easier to edit. The visual impact of the article to the reader is virtually unchanged (the only change is due to combining citations), but the LDR conversion changed nothing about the reader impression.

However, the visual view to the editor is much improved, as it looks more like the original article. It still has <ref name="xxxx"/> interspersed in the article, but that's far less visually distracting than the full citation.

As a minor note, I now have each reference in the reference section separated by a blank line, so it is relatively easy to scan through all the references.

It's a fair amount of work to do the complete conversion, so I would like to get a consensus of those who regularly edit this page before proceeding. I hope you will agree it is worth doing, but I'd hate to invest the time necessary, and then have someone simply revert it.--SPhilbrickT 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather like it. Two thumbs up from me. (Though I do think that each reference should have its own footnote. More closely mirrors how most journals do it...) Nice job... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for the change, thank you, Sphilbrick! But I'm also unsure of combining article references into single footnotes. I usually combine into a single footnote a ref to a journal article only with some popular reviews on the same matter (in press\blogs). --CopperKettle 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I am all for the change to LDR style since it makes the raw wiki text much less clutter and easier to read and edit. I am not so sure about combining references however. The same reference is sometimes used more than once in the same article. In one section citing a group of references might be appropriate but in another section, only one reference of from this same group might be appropriate to cite. Combining references would also interfere with the use of the {{rp}} template (see for example Benzodiazepine#Side_effects, where references 22 with a specific page number and 59 are cited together). Finally I note that a script to convert references in an article to LDR style. This works great if the same reference is not cited more than once but messes up when the same reference is cited more than once. Hopefully this bug will be worked out since it would make these conversions much easier to carry out. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, one of the first things I worked on with LDR was a situation where someone had seven or eight references for the same claim, and didn't like the look, so we combined them to improve the visual appearance. That said, I understand that it isn't typical scientific style. I'll redo the example to see it with one citation per footnote. Thanks, Boghog, for pointing out the script. I had asked at Village Pump, but hadn't recevied an aswer. I'll check it out.--SPhilbrickT 11:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So far, there's positive response for the modified change. I'm leaving for Zurich for a week, and don't to start something, then have a problem and leave anything in error, so I'll wait till I return next week.--SPhilbrickT 02:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LDR citation conversion[edit]

I interpret the discussion above to be a consensus for trying the change, but not doing the combination of citations. I plan to start doing the conversion about 1PM EDT. I mention this because it will be helpful if others do not make edits while I am doing the changes. While I will endeavor to make each edit stand on its own, without going into gory details, intervening edits makes my job a bit harder. I will post a notice on the page, and remove it when I'm done or take a break. If anyone wants to make a change, and doesn't want to wait, post a note to my talk page and I'll take a break. --SPhilbrickT 15:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Completed. I think it looks fine, but while removing the former hidden spacing symbols I may have accidentally added or removed a space here and there. Tried not to, but if you see any spacing issues, that's why.

If you see any substantive problems, please let me know and I will address them.

As a measure of improvement, the original article had 133.4K of material from the start to the beginning of the reflist section. Now it has 49.8K before the reflist section with exactly the same material, so it should be easier to navigate. All refs are now following the reflist, with a space separating each one. A couple refs didn't have names, so I created names - if there is a convention for names, you might want to change them.--SPhilbrickT 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Capital[edit]

I see "Reelin" is written almost everywhere in this article with a capital, but is this necessary? The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Lissencephaly Section[edit]

In the explanation of the cause of this disorder it states that the cDNA of the reelin gene is improperly spliced - this doesn't make sense as there is no cDNA in a cell (cDNA is complementary DNA, created from a mature mRNA transcript and is not the same as mRNA). It looks to me that whoever wrote this part just quoted straight off of the reference without really thinking about it - I have changed cDNA to mRNA transcript. Prudhommei1 (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reelin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk message contribs count) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Inital comments[edit]

I am in the process of reviewing this article, and it will probably take me a few days to comb through it all since it is a long article. In the mean time, I have found one or two items in need of attention that hopefully someone can address while I'm working on the rest of the article.

  • The section "Mechanism of action" is in need of organization. There are a lot of stray sentences floating about so that there is a lack of flow and I find it difficult to keep track of everything that is going on. I would like to see the section broken up into subsections, if possible, to highlight the major mechanisms.
  • The section "Function" could also use some more organization and subsection splitting.

I would appreciate if someone could work on those while I finish reviewing the rest of the article. Thanks. --Tea with toast (話) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments[edit]

I appreciate the excellent changes in reorganizing the "Mechanism of action" and "Function" sections. Well done! I have found additional items in the article that I feel need to be addressed:

In regard to images:

  • in the "Reeler lamination" image, please specify Normal (left), reeler (right) if that is correct (Right now, it could be confused for top vs bottom). I also feel more explanation is needed in the caption. The text states that the 2 major differences are in the cerebellum and in the laminar, but I don't feel the image captures that. What is the significance of the darkened lines found in the left image but not the right?
  • I don't feel that the video is all that convincing that something is wrong with the mouse. I would either put up an additional video showing a normal mouse to compare, or else state in the caption what to look for in the video. (Also, if someone was interested in redoing the video, it would be best to have the camera stationary, as it appears to be handheld-shaking)
  • I don't understand the "Intense reelin IR/ Punctate reelin IR" image, and don't find any corresponding text to go with it. I think it might be best to remove it since there is already a wealth of good images in the article.
  • In "Factors effecting expression" section, the introduction of "LG=licking and grooming" could be a cause of some head scratching. I am assuming that "LG" refers to maternal care. If so, please state this in the text. Also, the Western blot is not all that convincing. It is okay to keep it, but if there is a more convincing image that could be used, I would replace it.

Other items:

  • What is the importance of the section "Interactions" at the end of the article. Hasn't the VLDLR and ApoER2 info been stated already in the article? I would either move the sentences to another section or get rid of it.
  •  Done – I agree that the interactions section is redundant. I have therefore copied the citations from the interaction to into the receptor section and removed the interaction section. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the "Alzheimer's" section: "Some authors consider the reelin pathway to be a link between the Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia." What link? I have never heard of link between the two, and the content in those respective articles do not mention any link. Being that there is no evidence presented to support the claim (and the claim comes from an obscure journal), I would remove it.
  •  Done – Links between reelin, schizophrenia, and AD have been hypothesized (see for example PMID 20417248 that is more recent and in a less obscure journal). However this link is still only a hypothesis so I have removed it from the text. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I will put this article on hold until these items can be address. Thus far, I am impressed by the depth of this article! --Tea with toast (話) 22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your GA review of this article. I am far from an expert on Reelin, but I will try to do my best to respond to your suggestions. I have alerted the primary author of this article and hopefully he can participate. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? No comments in a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been waiting for the primary editor of this article, CopperKettle, to respond to the issues that have not yet been addressed. The user appears to have taken a leave of absence, although being that they appear to be a prolific editor, I doubt they are gone for good. I have alerted them on the Russian wikipedia [2], which appears to be the user's primary account. If I do not get a response in a week's time, then I will take care of the article myself. The article is good enough to pass GA, but I'm still concerned about the images. If I get no response, I think I will remove the images and content that I find questionable in order to pass it. It's just that I'd hate to do that if the images could be made beneficial. --Tea with toast (話) 04:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
That may be best, as said editor is clearly editing, but there remains no progress on the article since my last cmt. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Final review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Please see comments above about the images and the captions that are needed
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am sorry to have to fail this article since the majority of the article is very solid and there are only minor things that prevent me from passing it. However, I don't feel I have enough expertise to make the changes needed, so I hope someone else can do that in the future. Once the items I have listed in this review page are addressed, the article should be prepared to be submitted to GAN. Thanks to everyone who has worked on this article! --Tea with toast (話) 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Location[edit]

The mouse homologue, Reln, is located on mouse chromosome 5. 7q22 is the location of the human homologue, RELN. The article should be edited to reflect this (currently no time to do this myself). --Crusio (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One study associates RELN mutations with a form of epilepsy[edit]

I'm busy elsewhere; will look into the issue in late July: Heterozygous Reelin Mutations Cause Autosomal-Dominant Lateral Temporal Epilepsy --CopperKettle 06:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly involved in atherosclerosis[edit]

Loss of Reelin protects against atherosclerosis by reducing leukocyte–endothelial cell adhesion and lesion macrophage accumulation in a mice model - Rod57 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reelin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)