Talk:Chemotaxis

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

A summary of this article appears in taxis.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harjot Bhandol, Tyleryan. Peer reviewers: Jefft97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Although user Kohlasz may be an expert in the area, I find at least one instance of a contribution that violates WP:NOR. Also, a figure under the subheading In the mirror of publications uploaded by user Kohalasz is misleading in the sense that it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, although, the reader is lead to believe it has.

—―

^{Niubrad (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

CCW And CW rotation

Has anyone noticed that the picture showing CCW and CW rotation of the E. Coli are actually two pictures of CW (Clockwise) rotation? Just that the arrows are at different positions but the direction is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.120.114 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the presence of solid and dotted lines on the figure! This makes sense of the positions of the arrows, too. For sure, the figure is schematic and only helps to understand that when the direction of rotation is changed - itself the swimming behaviour is also significantly altered. Best regards from Kohlasz 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of flagella

In the article on Helicobacter it is mentioned that they have 4-6 flagella, whereas in this article it is mentioned that they only have one. Which is correct?Kghose 01:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kghose, Please check the two pages again. In Helicobacter page mentioned by you there is no 4-6 flagella cited (not even one!!!), while in 'Chemotaxis' you can find that E.coli has 4-6 flagella. This is correct. The number of flagella depends on the type of cell. You should also consider that there is another component of the cell 'pilus' which helps the cell to stick on the surface, however, it is not an active moving component. Taking together from 0-several the number of flagella is correct if the cell type is correct. Thank you for your help around page Chemotaxis! Best regrds from Kohlasz 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sperm...?

is this how sperm move? 86.9.73.56 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, sperm cells are propelled by the regular beat of their eukaryiotic flagellum. A eukaryiotic flagellum is not to be confused with a bacterial flagellum.

Sperm cells of many species show chemotaxis, an area of active research (see work by Eisenbach, Brokaw, Kaupp, ...).--91.67.241.244 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and spelling corrections

I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the English grammar and spelling. Somebody with more knowledge of the subject should review the changes to make sure the content is still correct, since I know very little about this subject, and I had to take a guess at the original meaning in a couple of places.

In addition, the following sentence is still hard to parse in English, and I didn't want to guess as to the meaning:

Chemoattractant moiety of fMLF elicited in neutrophil granulocytes and monocytes.

--Salsa man 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconception about wide-range sensitivity in bacterial chemotaxis

There is a misconception in the paragraph dedicated to E. Coli chemotaxis, it states:

"However, the methylation system alone cannot account for the wide range of sensitivity that bacteria have to chemical gradients."

That is not correct, the integral feedback created by the methylation pathway is the only responsible for wide range sensitivity, as it allows the system to maintain its high sensitivity operating point over a wide range of backgrounds. more about this can be found in [1]. The article further states:

"Additional regulatory mechanisms such as receptor clustering and receptor-receptor interactions also modulate the signalling pathway."

It is known today that receptor interactions and clustering do not modulate the signaling pathway. It is true however that the total value of the high sensitivity (not the range on which it is maintained) is enhanced by mechanisms such as receptor-receptor interactions, receptors clustering, and the ultrasensitive response of the flagellar motor to the CheY-P signal [2,3].

Because of this I will slightly edit those lines.

[1] Effects of Adaptation in Maintaining High Sensitivity over a Wide Range of Backgrounds for Escherichia coli Chemotaxis

   Biophysical Journal, Volume 92, Issue 7, Pages 2329-2337
   B. Mello, Y. Tu

[2] Receptor clustering and signal processing in E. coli chemotaxis

   V Sourjik - TRENDS in Microbiology, 2004

[3] An Ultrasensitive Bacterial Motor Revealed by Monitoring Signaling Proteins in Single Cells

   Philippe Cluzel, 1* Michael Surette, 2 Stanislas Leibler 1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.70.144 (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etymology?

Hi, all

Could we include a snippet on the etymology of "chemotaxis"? Chemo - chemical, taxis - purposefully directed organization (greek).

Best, Dale S 129.59.115.14 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

According to its first sentence, Biased random walk (biochemistry) is about chemotaxis, so it makes sense to merge it with this article. There is not even an article about Biased random walks in general yet. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chemotaxis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link archive.org/web/20080427114159/http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx?id=1572 with https://web.archive.org/20121022100707/http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx?id=1572 on http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx?id=1572

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badly structured article

A(nother) poorly structured article with section after section of unsourced material, and sophistication and rigour of draft student work. Placing an expert needed tag. A summary of any one good review article would be sufficient to redirect this from the non-authoritative editorial hodgepodge that it is becoming, to a reliably structured outline with the vast majority of material needed (to dispense with most of the accumulated nonsense). Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. (A day off, and eight hours later, and unable to create a coherent web of information around one topic, because each article consulted is another mares nest of more-time-required-than-value-returned.) Le Prof 73.110.42.68 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Prof, you have some valid concerns, but I think you have gone overboard with your tags. If several sections have problems with sources, it's best to just tag the whole article. Also, the expert tag is rather verbose - why not just say it on the talk page? RockMagnetist(talk) 04:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do copyrights appear on images in this article?

Is this appropriate, to have the (c) appear, with the creator's name, on the image appearing in WP? If no respone here, will raise it elsewhere. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems quite inappropriate, although I am not well versed in the rules for images. Where there is technical content, there should also be attribution of a source. Although the images come with CC-by-SA 3.0 licenses, they may be the same as or very similar to publications by Köhidai, and if so the rights may be owned by the journal and not the authors. Lots of reasons for concern. I'm not sure what the best forum is for raising these issues. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, so consistent with the licence conditions, I edited the files so that these statements no longer appear; authorship being acknowledged through Wikimedia Commons. Klbrain (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemotaxis. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927231111/http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~painter/publications/articles/hilpaisch07.pdf to http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~painter/publications/articles/hilpaisch07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]