Talk:Cell nucleus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Are you a teacher? Recommend this site to your students-it's extremely helpful! Good luck!

[1]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:11, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

changed image

i changed one of the images becouse i believe that the new one has more information and becouse the new one is of public domain.LadyofHats 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Love the image, but can we make the labels a bit larger please. I think the font is a bit too small to read comfortably. Rozzychan 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A nucleus stores genetic material and it is the contol center of a cell. Only eukaryotic cells have nuclei in them. Prokaryotic cells don't.

Proposed Article Outline

I threw together a tentative article outline. By no means is it final. Feel free to change anything - headings topics etc. I think an outline would be a good place to start. It gives anyone with knowledge on any subject to add their 2 cents.

A problem with seperating structure and function is that it is akward, for eg. to write about nuclear pore structure and funtion seperatly. What about a structure and function heading, under which subsections about the main components, and another subsection for all those misc. details. ShaiM 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

History/Discovery

• Who discovered it?

Structure

• Basic structure - size(relative or approx).
• Nuclear Membrane
• Nuclear Pores

Maybe a short summary with a link to the main article

• Chromosomes

Good start: need heterochromatin, euchromatin, heterogenous RNA, nucleolus, nuclear lamins, histones, cross references to replication, transcription, translation. Mention of steroid receptors into nucleus by cross reference.GetAgrippa 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to mention hetero/euchomatin. The only need to mention histones might be that they are transported into the nucleus.ShaiM 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hetero and euchromatin are useful histologically features and DNA structural features that indicate activity. Histones (acetylation,etc.) and nucleosomes are essential to this section. They are critical to understanding getting to DNA for replication and transcription. Telomeres would also fall into this discussion. I would agree that a lot of detail would be cross referenced to another article.GetAgrippa 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Function

• Role in protein synthesis

An example of protein movement into the nucleus can be mentioned. An eg. being - at high fructose 6-phosphate cystolic concentrations a regulator protein removes hexokinase (responsible for G6P→F6P) into the nucleus. I'll still need to find a reference for that, and I'm not sure what the unnamed protein is. ShaiM 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NF-kB/IkappaB is probably a better example, since I'm not sure what the effect of relocalising hexokinase to a compartment at equilibrium with low-molecular mass sugars would be. TimVickers 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree NF-kB or steroid receptors would be good examples for protein movement into nucleus.GetAgrippa 04:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That can also be used to illustrate the role of NLS (if needed). ShaiM 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Central dogma

• Production of ribosomes
• Connection to endomembrane system (Maybe described in structure?)

• Connection to ER

• Role in mitosis/meosis

GAThrawn22 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking

According to Man. of style, "[do not create links to t]he same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder". I'll remove some of the multiple links. ShaiM 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nucleus in MOST eukaryotic cells

Some cells, (I'll try and find out which, so as to specify), get rid of their nucleus as they mature. It might also be good to mention (not in the intro) that some cells have more than one nucleus, eg. some fungi cells, (muscle?). ShaiM 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Erythrocytes and platelets are textbook examples of cells without nuclei. The former shed the nuclei as they mature, and the latter are cleaved from megakaryocytes. There are no doubt many more, but those two should suffice as examples. And yes, muscle cells are multinucleated (at least the one's I've read about). – ClockworkSoul 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Skeletal muscle is truly multinucleated as are osteoclast. Megakaryocytes are multiploidy but I don't think are multinuclear? Cardiac cells are functional syncytiums by their intercalated disc, but not multinuclear cells. Smooth muscle is not multnuclear.GetAgrippa 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

central densities?

"The nuclear pores are 100nm in diameter, however, after the annulus and other regulatory gating system molecules are present, the space left for molecules to enter is reduced to 9nm, due to the central densities."

What is central densities? Is it like Van Waal's radius?ShaiM 12:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The central density or central granule is an electron microscopic structure that occupies the lumen of the nuclear pore complex. It consists or a radial spoke structure and is essential to transport and appears to be calcium sensitive.GetAgrippa 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. This page http://www.chem.ku.edu/rdunngroup/new_page_1.htm explained it well, (has refs. for those interested). It seems to me to be a) too much detail for that section, and b) more related to nuclear transfer, as it relates to control of envelope permeability. If it is to be added later, it should be placed in the Nuclear transport section and explained.ShaiM 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nucleoplasm

I'm not exactly sure what are the requirements are for when to have two articles and when one. And while many articles relating to nucleus obviously require their own page (eg. nuclear pores, etc), I am unsure that nucleoplasm requires its own. Can the two articles (ie. nucleus and nucleoplams) be converged? Should they? ShaiM 12:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is shaping up well

Whoever (Shaim) is writing this article is doing an excellent job! Perhaps we should have a section on evolution of nucleus?? GetAgrippa 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Nucleus

I think an actual photo of a cell nucleus would be very nice.Maybe an em photo of a nucleus in a cell during mitosis or meosis showing the chromosomes and nuclear membrane. I've tried looking, I haven't had much luck finding public domain pictures. Can anyone help? GAThrawn22 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I took several images of BY-2 cells specially for Wikipedia in Nomarski DIC. I plan to upload them to commons later, but now I am quite overloaded at work. There are some pictures with nicely outlined nuclei. It would be nice to take a section for purposes mentioned above, I will do it after time. Reo ^ON | +++ 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply impressed with the transformation of this article since I last had a look at it a couple of months ago! (The only criticism I might have is that many details seem humano-centric. For example yeast or Drosophila nuclei are way smaller than 10 µm, except Drosopila polytene nuclei which may be way larger than 20 µm). In case you are still interested in an image of a nucleus, how about this mouse nucleus? Apart from the DNA (blue), two kinds of chromosome territories are painted by flurescence in situ hybridization (see legend on commons). A larger version with more examples is Image:MouseChromosomeTerritoriesBMC Cell Biol6-44Fig2.jpg. On my commons:User:Dietzel65 page you can find some additional images with nuclei. I have uploaded them to illustrate the Chromosome article in the German Wikipedia. --Dietzel65 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nice nucleus! I put it in the chromosomes section to illustrate chromosome territories, and added a gallery with a few of the others. These are great, I'm going to put a couple in chromosome and karyotype too. The German article is impressive; makes our version look wimpy. (The 'molecular structure' section is pretty cramped with images though.) Thanks for sharing these!

Also, I think you're right on the stage of the mitotic cell below, though I'm not a cell biologist - I had assumed the original source specifically referenced it as anaphase, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Opabinia regalis 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Journal urls

It's not a big deal. But for some reason the ref - "cite journal" - url, (you can see it if you go down to the references), writes "http://example.com [space]". It puts a space after the end of the link and before the closing quotation marks.ShaiM 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to be a general problem in IE, but fine in firefox.ShaiM 09:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Nucleus

I added an evolution of nucleus section base on a Science review article. I have more references that are more current to add to this section and I will add soon. I may modify slightly with some newer papers I am reading. GetAgrippa 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I would've guessed invagination to be the big one after symbiosis.ShaiM 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is correct and that even applies to organelle evolution of mitochondria,etc. I remember reading a recent article to the effect. I had forgotten about finishing this section, so I'll fill in the gaps. GetAgrippa 12:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I started correcting and adding to the section. I'll finish it as soon as I get a chance.GetAgrippa 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Opabinia regalis for improving the section. Perhaps you can think of some further improvements. Like the origin of the nucleolus, and don't the nuclear lamins predate the cytosolic intermediate filaments as evolutionary precursors?GetAgrippa 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GTPase activating protein

Can someone who knows how, go to GTPase Activating Protein, and change the appropriate letters in the last two words to lower case.ShaiM 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. (Just hit the "move" tab at the top of the page and enter the new title.) Opabinia regalis 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, on that note: the transport section could really use a diagram. I can't think of a way to simplify it any further without omitting some of proteins, but it's kind of alphabet soupy. Opabinia regalis 12:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And- is there anyone who can make one of those flow-diagrams? ShaiM 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked this person - User:JWSchmidt - if he doesn't mind helping, as I saw that he made a signal diagram for another page.ShaiM 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Saw his response, I left a note on the awesome illustrator User:WikipedianProlific's talk page if he has some time. Otherwise, MSPaint it is :) Opabinia regalis 05:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:adenosine as well, he's made a couple of impressive cell signalling diagrams already.ShaiM 08:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressive may be pushing it ShaiM (but thank you!); I'd love to help. Cell trafficking is a little out of my area of expertise (too macro for us biochemistry/microbiology people), but I think it could be an effective image. I started today (Sept19) on a diagram, I thought a better nuclear pore diagram would be a good place to start. I've made a suitable pore picture, It's on the nuclear pore page. I hope you like it. I think it will be a good start to this flow diagram. Any comments? It is in SVG format so if anyone wants they can jump in and use it for any purpose! I have stolen the diagram of the nucleus from Lady of Hats; She is in my opinion the most talented artist on wikipedia, next time go to her first, she's better than me ;-) I'll keep working on this, thanks for asking me! Adenosine | Talk 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Adenosine's First Draft of Nuclear import

So here's my very first draft, I don't like it so much, I dunno, seems busy. Please help! Give critiscms, artistic ideas, etc. The file is a freaking 4mb, I am no SVG master (first project that I've used SVG for!) so please can we make it more managable?! Edit it yourself, anything! This is just import, I thought about a seperate image for in and out, to keep it less cluttered. The image of the pore complex is by me, you can see it in it's solitary glory at nuclear pore. Thanks! Adenosine | Talk 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh-Oh, just did a nuclear transport diagram. This is one of the problems that occurs when several artists are asked to do a diagram at the same time. But nevermind, I think Adenosines' one still adds on mine, as its more chemically detailed. Its a bit of a shame though to have two virtually duplicate diagrams. I've added mine to the article earlier today in the nuclear transport section. Usually I'd recommend putting one in a different section but they're both so specific I don't seem them fitting elsewhere. Heres mines:

"The Ran-GTP nuclear transport cycle"

WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Once it is fixed up, user:adenosine's img will be about export and so will go in that section.

Screw that, WikipedianProlific's diagram is much better in my opinion, I dislike looking at mine, I'll put more work in to if people want, but if we have a vote, my vote's for WikipedianProlific. I believe asthetics are extremely important in this, I'm no artist, just a scientist. Adenosine | Talk 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So I'm no Cell Biologist, so can someone look at both the 'proposed' diagrams and find what's wrong, WikipedianProlific's diagram and mine don't agree on a couple facts, could someone see what looks right Adenosine | Talk 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mine should be 100% correct because its basically a redrawing and reworking of a simpler diagram in 'Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th Ed.', by alberts et al. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have all the faith in your work, I even own that text book too! I took my concepts from ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mcb.figgrp.2930 ), I don't know what's right Adenosine | Talk 05:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the overlap; in retrospect, we should've coordinated better. It's entirely possible that I'm blind, but the major difference that I see between the two is that WP's doesn't explicitly include the interactions with GAP and GEF. I'm kind of undecided about whether they should be included for completeness or left to the text for simplicity. There is the terminological matter of "im/exportin" versus "nuclear im/export receptor" - I have always used the "exportin" but (As a minor note, I don't know if it's just my color scheme, but the red "Ran-GTP" text label is a little hard to read on the blue background.) Opabinia regalis 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I see it now. WP, presumably following MBoC, has a couple of karyopherin/Ran complexes without cargo. I believe the release is actually the other way around - the karyopherin/Ran complex is transient and dissociates first. That's how the Lodish book describes it; I'll see if I can dig up a literature reference to figure it out. I'm starting to think showing GAP/GEF would be useful, and maybe color the little rectangle attached to the Ran a different color for GTP and GDP. Opabinia regalis 01:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can adjust colours quite happily. However as for making changes to the diagramtic nature of the image I'm not so confident about, as I simply don't know enough about the subject to make those changes. I'm now fast approaching what is out of my depth as a BSc (hons) 2nd year undergraduate. The diagram is technically correct as its a regurgitation of one of one from one of the most popular cell biochem. text books available (MBoC), it sounds like they've simply omitted some of the fine detail, am I correct in my analysis? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of MBoC handy, but that sounds right, with the exception of the order in which the components dissociate. But I can't find a specific reference to support either order over the other, so MBoC is a better source to copy than most. I'd suggest adding, either as a footnote in the text or on the image description page, that that is the source.

I was thinking it might be worthwhile to have a second simpler diagram like this one that just illustrates the Ran cycle without complicating the import/export stuff, especially since it's unclear to me whether the nucleotide exchange should be represented before or after the karyopherin-cargo dissociation. (I'm fairly sure the nucleotide exchange happens after dissociation of the karyopherin-Ran interaction.) What do you think?

Another possibility is to fork off some of the transport stuff into a separate article if it's too messy here. Opabinia regalis 01:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think thats a very good idea. To be honest MBoC makes about a chapter out of nuclear transport I think off the top of my head, and stryer et al's integrated Biochemistry has a similar set up. Its a lot of very specific detail for a vauge article like cell nucleus. Perhaps branching it into a new 'Nuclear Transport' article is not a bad idea at all. Theres also the issue of the transport of nucleic acids and so on. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Current transport section has been forked and trimmed; feel free to trim further or reorganize. Opabinia regalis 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit more information, because I felt that reading that section alone was more vague that it deserved to be.ShaiM 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Role in cell division

(I realise I created the subsection, however...) re. "Role in cell division", I'm thinking that there's not enought to justify it. All there really is in detailing envelope + lamina dis/assembly. I think I might just incorporate those facts into the "Nuclear envlope" and "Cytoskeleton" subsections. Of course then that leaves "Role in compartmentation" on its own, meaning that the "Function" section can be deleted. Perhaps the details, (most of which still need to be done) for the "...comparmentation" section can be incorporated into the "Nuclear transport" section, either under a new subsection or not. Please tell me if there are any objections. ShaiM 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Have decided to turn "Role in cell cycle"→"Assembly and disassembly", so as to allow discussion of cell cycle, viral infection, and apoptosis. ("Role in cell compartementation" will remain as it is for the moment, pending further work).ShaiM 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I change it, is "compartmentation" a regionalism? I would say "compartmentalization", and the relative google hits for the former and the latter seem to indicate that "compartmentalization" is, if not dominant, at least the more common term. Opabinia regalis 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. They both work for me, but I don't mind if you change it.ShaiM 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Discovery

I read this "The nucleus was the first intracellular structure discovered and was originally described by Franz Bauer in 1802 and later popularized by Robert Brown", sourcing "Harris, H. (1999) The Birth of the Cell, Yale University Press, New Haven/1st Citation 2nd" I don't know much about this. And not sure if it is a controversial issue.ShaiM 14:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I thought it was someone else, but my memory banks are often hazy nowadays. GetAgrippa 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct! I always thought it was Brown or Hooke, but the first reliable account is by Bauer and later Brown. GetAgrippa 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image rearrangement

What do people think about:

• Moving the nucleus image from the top to the the nucleolus image
• Moving the nucleus-ER-golgi-membrane image from the nuclear membrane section to the top
• Adding adenosine's new nuclear pore image to the nuclear membrane section

ShaiM 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the image that shows the entire endomembrane system is a great choice as the header image... it has alot of components and the cell nucleus gets "lost in the noise". On the other hand, I'm very much in agreement that adenosine's nuclear pore image needs to be added, and the rearrangement that you propose is the most logical way to get it in there without having to discard otherwise perfectly good image. I'm grudgingly in support for lack of a better idea. – ClockworkSoul 19:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we don't include the endomembrane pic at all?ShaiM 13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC?

This article has made incredible progress over the last month. I think that the time has come to send it to peer review for an outside perspective, in preparation for a featured article candidacy. What do you all think? – ClockworkSoul 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted for peer review.ShaiM 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...in a week, when its MCB article of the thingy is over perhaps? Theres adenosine's new image coming, mines just been added, not even half of the items in the to do list have been completed yet. Its good at the moment...but not quite FA I think. For what it is (one of the most import articles on wikipedia! think how many people especially kids will base masses of their work on it) its not quite FA status yet, but we are getting there. A peer review wouldn't hurt, but I think we already know what needs doing - now its just a case of doing it. I think a peer review will simply identify the things which have already been done so. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• We do indeed know what the article requires in terms of content, but PR has a great way of humbling editors by pointing out important details that they may have missed. Maybe in a few days we can submit this to PR and see what shakes out. – ClockworkSoul 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3 sections that (in my opinion) are below par:

• The lead!
• The subnuclear bodies needs a minimum of one line for each body
• The cell compartmentation needs examples, and when those are provided, the list should be turned into paragraphsShaiM 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Processing of pre-mRNA

I know that a lot of work went into "Processing of pre-mRNA", but I think it should be cut down. I'll copy some of its information and add it to Post-transcriptional modification, and then add a link to that. As for cutting it down, won't do that until I hear what other people think.ShaiM 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Gave it a bit of a trim. I was surprised to see how stubby the post-transcriptional modification article was; somehow I hadn't looked at it before. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendly side-boxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShaiM/sandbox - an example of what I mean.

I saw these blue-boxes used for quotes on some FA and was quite impressed by their aesthetic effect + potential. What do you think; using them for simple summaries of key sections? (Maybe not simplified as I have there, but just the general concept...) ShaiM 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction to those is negative - it just seems like another layer of "dumbing down", though given the likely audience of this article, that might not be a bad thing. I've noticed a lot of textbooks using something like this as a standard style lately, and as a textbook reader I would find it distracting and a bit condescending. But it's become so widespread that there must be something to it. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I also hate those giant quote boxes. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where else have you seen them? I'm not a big fan of them myself, but I can't claim to have noticed them elsewhere. – ClockworkSoul 11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we go with nay. (By the way I saw it at Pericles)ShaiM 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Clockwork, I was referring to the examples I'd seen in textbooks and teaching materials, not to other Wikipedia articles. They aren't so bad in Pericles, I don't think, because they keep long quotes contained (and avoid those boxes in the middle of the text with the big cartoony quotation marks) but I think we can more effectively use the space they'd take up with more images. Definitely a micrograph of a nucleus in thin section would be nice, though I'm not sure where to look for one with an appropriate license. Opabinia regalis 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

(Although I realise that its not a FA requirement), I think it would improve the usability of the article if there was a clear Further reading section. Also (and I realise this isn't required by the WP:MOS) it would make the Further reading useful (for once) if there were short annotations. eg:

• Smith, John. Immunohistological staining and the ontological argument. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

A textbook focussing on immunohistochemical staining and its relevance to the catholic church.

• Frankenstein, Victor. "The effects of electricty on dead body parts and the problems that may occur". Ye olde natural philosophy journyl. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

A review paper focussing on the historical difficulties in creating life with an emphasis on moral issues

If this would be acceptable. I would propose say 1-2 textbooks, no papers (unless necessary), 2-3 reviews on structure, 1 review on nuclear transport, and 1 review on evolution. ShaiM 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea (and cute examples ;) - as an addendum, maybe one basic/high school level text and one college level text to cover all audiences. Opabinia regalis 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But are you (or anyone else) familiar with a school level text book that deserves to be particularly recommended and is widely available?ShaiM 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Progress

Wow, This article is really progressing-Good job Shaim. Kudos to all the contributors. ShaiM I agree with you on the futher reading section. It is good for the inquisitive mind. Thank you Opabinia regalis your expertise and editing will greatly improve the article. 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear pore picture

Can someone able + willing, please edit adenosine's picture of the NPC so as to remove the white space on the right hand side which is just taking up room. Once that's done it can/should be added to the article. Cheers. ShaiM 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, see Image:NuclearPore_crop.svg. I directly edited the svg markup to alter the cropping (I don't have access to Illustrator for personal use) so I won't add it to the article until someone who isn't me can confirm that it's being rendered correctly and isn't malformed.

On a related note, how's the stained microscopy image coming? Opabinia regalis 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's strange, it seems someone beat me to it, with the same filename. But I didn't get the "this image already exists" note when uploading it. Anyway, there is a cropped nuclear pore in existence. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the image over, removing the endomembrane one. ShaiM 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Re. changes to the lead:

• It seemed that too much room was taken up by giving context, so I deleted a bulk, and replaced by what is now the second paragraph. (I apoligise to whoever wrote it, it was otherwise very good)
• I moved the history paragraph to the bottom, 'cause otherwise it's stuck in the middle.
• I realise that there's no mention of evolution, but not sure how much larger the lead can be
• I don't think the lead need mention nuclear dis/assembly, or a/polykaryotic cells

Still needs work, especially polishing up the flow. (For content issues, Wikipedia:Lead section is useful) ShaiM 13:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead is not to have information that isn't also in the main body, however we've got those two sentences re. the nucleus' discovery. Any ideas what to do with it? (It's the last paragraph of the lead for the moment.) ShaiM 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine where it is; WP:LEAD is more suggestion than dictum. The lead does seem a bit long, but two sentences' worth of history doesn't really fit anywhere else, and there's not much more to say on the subject. Opabinia regalis 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reading additions

Re. the three additions to Further reading (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cell_nucleus&diff=82037030&oldid=82022211): While they may be quite interesting, and even relate to this topic, is there any reason for them to be included. They are free, but don't all directly address the article topic. Furthermore, they're not reviews, and they're quite specific, and they're old. Does anyone mind if I remove them, othewise it justifies Further reading becoming a list of all available literature. ShaiM 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed these and took them out; stuff from 1982 just isn't useful as a current reference and these didn't seem to have any specific historical value. The anon who added them had also added similar links to several other pages - weird links to spam, but there it is. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Error

There's an error in the article (bookmark 11). The article states there that import needs GTP and export too. This can't be true. Please would somebody correct it? I don't know how to do it.

If I understand correctly, one requires GTP to dissociate from its cargo, and the other to bind to its cargo. 128.250.5.248 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Steroids

Is anyone familiar with a steroid that can be used as an example, and which crosses across the nuclear envelope? This could be included, as a sentence under the "Nuclear envelope and pores" section, to illustrate alternative movement into the nucleus. ShaiM 09:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a short blurb on nuclear receptors and steroid hormones, but not too much detail since this is getting surprisingly long already.

There are several nuclear hormone receptors that are bound to DNA in their apo state (e.g., thyroid hormone receptor; TR). Thyroid hormone diffuses or is transported from the cytoplasm to the nucleus and then binds to TR. But I would agree this article is becoming too long.Boghog2 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subnuclear bodies section: I didn't notice this before, but the bodies in the table are different than the ones in the text. PIKA have a table entry but not their own section, and Gems are the opposite. (Also, do nemaline rods merit their own section, since they're not normal nuclear components?) Opabinia regalis 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really know much about subnuclear bodies before I did this, and so information is available per what I was able to find. I couldn't find the size of Gems, and I couldn't find any info re. PIKA. However PIKA is mentioned in the introduction part of that section. As for the rods, I don't mind including them, especially since their inclusion doesn't imply that a whole hord of other quasi-subnuclear-bodies are about to be added.

I may be wrong about this, but aren't there steroids that once inside the cytoplasm, can diffuse accross the nuclear enveope?

We haven't received much feedback at the review. Do you think we could submit for FA and see how things go? ShaiM 14:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were some steroids that diffused into the nucleus also, but when I looked I couldn't find a specific example. Voet&Voet says that some can but doesn't give an example, and Lodish says only that they diffuse into the cytoplasm. I couldn't find any reference to direct diffusion in primary literature, though I admit I didn't put too much effort into sifting through the endless "treating cell type X with steroid Y localizes protein Z to the nucleus" papers. My general impression is that it may be possible but not the primary mechanism.

I think there's a couple of minor things left before sending this to FAC - the to-do list should probably be chucked, since a lot of the list elements are old and what's left is more like a to-do list for nuclear lamina. If Reo above did/can get an image of an actual nucleus in section, that would be perfect, though not critical. Also, I'm a bit concerned about Image:Metaphase-flourescent.JPG - it has an obsolete PD tag, but I question the reasoning; as far as I know works of the US federal government are inherently PD, but not works of individual state governments, which is the claimed source of this image. I'm doubtful it's really PD, but I'm not copyright clueful - is this something you'd know more about? Opabinia regalis 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the todo. Also asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Question_re._image_copyright) about the img copyright as I really don't know anything about how all that stuff works. :) ShaiM 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; I couldn't think of where to put that question. I gave Reo a poke yesterday too. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I added a small micrograph that is definitely PD. It would still be nicer to have one where we know the cell type, but this one isn't bad. Opabinia regalis 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just switched the questionable-copyright image with one I stumbled across on Commons. It's extremely similar, with a similar description, but is definitely from a US government source. I kind of suspect the original one might also have been originally from federal work and reused by the NY site, but I think both images get the same point across. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cell Nucleus-Therory.or.fact.

What.guidelines.are.in.place.for.information.published.this.or.in.text.books.etc. It.seem.like.this.article.has.been.proven.but.if.that.were.true.would.it.also.state..?.also.if.anyone.knows.how.to.do.a.look.up.on.proven.theories.thanks.

Mahw chtwayki 07:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure

(1) citation from the text: The nucleus ... varies in diameter from 11 to 22 micrometers (μm) ... That's wrong. Even flat human fibroblast nuclei are only about 5 µm thick (and 20 µm long). But for non-vertebrate organisms, like Drosophila or yeast, the whole cell may be smaller than, let's say, 4 µm in diameter. (2) In my firefox 2.0 browser the thumbnail for the scheme "The eukaryotic cell nucleus" doesn't show, just a white area is visible. Is that a more general problem or just my configuration? Best regards --Dietzel65 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

image invisible

The image labelled "The eukaryotic cell nucleus ..." is not visible in my Browser (Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3). When I click at the image, I do see it (in the wikimedia realm). I don't know if this is reproducable on other user's systems. Jakob.scholbach 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that another person had the same problem. Please fix it... Jakob.scholbach 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that better? TimVickers 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks better to me.--71.201.226.112 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now I can see it. Thanks. Jakob.scholbach 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

cystolic face of the envelope -> cytosolic face of the envelope

I've made a change, thought it was a typo. If I'm wrong, reverse. CopperKettle 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest organelle?

An IP changed this to "The largest cellular organelle in animals" I'm wondering if this is correct, as the cell vacuole in plants is huge. Tim Vickers 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In many plant cells it can be hard to find the nucleus, as it can be lost among the largest chloroplasts. And you are correct that the plant vacuole is huge; it typically fills most of the cellular volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

reflist

I put in the {{reflist}} template to avoid confusion. In particular, scrollbars have been disallowed in the list of references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates.--Francine3 08:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Franz Bauer

"Franz Bauer" in history section / Franz Bauer

are they same person? --Luuva (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation in the nucleus

Since it has been shown that some kind of protein translation takes place in the nucleus ( Ref: Francisco J. Iborra, Dean A. Jackson, Peter R. Cook: Coupled Transcription and Translation Within Nuclei of Mammalian Cells ) I suggest that it should be included in this article. --Gustavocarra (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic is still pretty controversial, see PMID 15145360 and PMID 12554869 for recent reviews. However, I think it could be mentioned, but we would need to make it clear that it is still an open question. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend splitting off a subnuclear organelles article

Have a look at this review:

Handwerger KE, Gall JG. 2006. Subnuclear organelles: new insights into form and function. TRENDS in Cell Biology 16 (1), pp 19-26.

There are tons and tons of subnuclear organelles, and there's a lot of research that hasn't been incorporated into this article. Furthermore, the presence of a few select organelles in this article places undue emphasis on those--when we really know very little about which are the most important, etc. I propose creating a new article, either subnuclear organelles or list of subnuclear organelles containing links to a page for each.

I'm also concerned that many of the structures specifically mentioned in this article are not described with the standard vocabulary. Right now, searching for "nuclear speckles," it's not very easy to find this page. I've added redirects for both that term and splicing speckles. Thanks! --aciel (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

With the caveat that many of these organelles have several different names, this sounds a good idea. If you write the article we can then summarise it in a section of this article and give a link to Subnuclear organelles as the main article on this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation Theory

Four different theories of cell evolution are presented. A large percentage of the scientific community also holds to the theory of creation. This would be a very short section giving the central idea that the human cell and it's complex machinery is the product of one designer who most simply title as "God." References would be from Genesis chapter 1 and 2 where the creation of humans is described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman5 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ms price knows it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.191.79 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A large percentage of the scientific community? I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's way, way off. The current best estimate is that less than 0.15% of scientists working in relevant fields are creationists. Second, creationism isn't a scientific theory in any sense: it makes no testable predictions, and isn't even close to being falsifiable. – ClockworkSoul 03:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Size?

I can find several bits about the size of microstructures composing the nucleus, but nowhere can I find anything about the size of the nucleus. I'm sure this varies to some extent, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said of it. I feel like this article is seriously lacking for not having such information in the opening paragraph. Please correct me if I'm being an idiot and the information actually is there and I simply have failed to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.70.8 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

According to one source I have available, it varies from 5 to 500 microns in diameter in vertebrates alone, corresponding to an approximate 10⁴ fold difference in volume. Its size and shape depend on both taxon and cell type. If a suitably representative compilation of sizes can be found, I agree that it would be useful to include this information. Samsara 11:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Vesicular transport into nucleus?

The article includes a picture that captures the transport of some molecules into nucleus via phagosomes. This probably comes from a article by Gavin and Hosein (Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2007 Dec;64(12):926-35., see [2] or nsf.gov). I am wondering if this is a widely accepted concept or just a hypothesis. In the latter case, It may be inappropriate to include the picture in such an important article.--Vojtech.dostal (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the image as nobody cared. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

Can we replace the diagram in {{Organelle diagram}} with one that is clearer? George8211^{what did I break now?} 19:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dimple not Nucleus

I think the caption "Oldest known depiction of cells and their nuclei" is misplaced because the figure appears to show red blood cells, which don't posses a nuclei, although the have a dimple in the middle. Any thoughts? Can somebody take the image down?--Frozenport (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

CELL NUCLEUS

 NUCLEUS STRUCTURE
        ♠ Nuclear membrane/karyothica
        ♠ Nuclear 
        ♠
        ♠

        ♠
        ♠·
        ♠
        ♠  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.83.2 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cell nucleus. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982201006327
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112023405/https://cellimages.ascb.org:80/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4041coll6 to http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4041coll6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117175431/https://cellimages.ascb.org:80/u/?/p4041coll11,62 to http://cellimages.ascb.org/u?/p4041coll11,62
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306232601/https://cellimages.ascb.org:80/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4041coll11 to http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp4041coll11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1