Talk:Immunoglobulin M

	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).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope?

(only isotype IgG) Maybe that was supposed to be isomer? Isotopes are variations of atoms from the same element, not variations of compounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.216.139 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isotype is the correct word. Take a look at Janeway's text "Immunobiology" for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.76.50.5 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this article has bad links -- look at the last publication on protective IgM -- wrong link to paper, and no pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.146.231 (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be completely redone. An editor(?) has judged that the section on structure is too technical. In my view the problem is that the background info and terminology is not explained. The two diagrams in this article are inconsistent with each other and with diagrams presented in other Wikipedia articles on antibody structure. The language is often imprecise. To give one example from the first sentence: "IgM is a basic antibody." Does basic mean fundamental or the opposite of acidic? I might be able to do this, but I need to know how one submits a total rewrite.The Scientific Gadfly (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be addressed

The article is improving but some problems have been introduced (I plan to work on these, but many hands make for light work):

It is written more like an immunology text, or review article, than an encyclopedic work; in particular, it addresses competing hypotheses that have been considered, rather than current consensus
Linked to #1, the figures depict competing models for IgM structure, when the current consensus should be shown
There are too many primary references

This is an important article, and worthy of attention. — soupvector (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these two sentences self-contradictory?

(1) IgM antibodies do not pass across the human placenta (only isotype IgG).

(2) Demonstrating IgM antibodies in a ... neonate's serum indicates intrauterine infection.

If they do not pass across the human placenta,how can they indicate intrauterine infection?

(I am not a doctor ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:7D08:9077:7FB5:6AD (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]