Talk:Cell nucleus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cell nucleus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
project's importance scale. | ||
 | This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance). | |
MCB Collaboration of the Month history . |
 |
This article contains
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
WP:FAR
Hi, the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.Graham Beards (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:FARC
I'm copy/pasting some text here from Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Cell_nucleus so that we can discuss page improvements here instead of there. This can serve as a rough starting to-do list. Feel free to add more to-do items or check-off items as you get to them. For comments on whether or not this should remain listed as an FA, go to the actual FARC page.
There is an extreme
]- I'm sorry to say that in my opinion the article needs some serious work to meet the FA criteria. A few issues jump out as I read through the article:
- Well-written - The prose is not engaging (and I love molecular biology!). It needs a serious copyedit. The fact that SandyGeorgia – regular editor of medicine articles – can't follow parts of the article suggests it could stand to be clarified. There are several places where factoids of varying levels of detail have crept in. The prose needs to be ironed out so they don't startle the reader.
- Comprehensive - I'm by no means a nucleus expert, but it seems a few things are missing or could be tweaked to make the article comprehensive:
- The "History" section should be expanded to include post-19th century material.
- Several sections seem overly human-focused (I'm looking at the beginning of "Structures" now).
- In Structures>Chromosomes maybe we could replace some of euchromatin/heterochromatin material with a more detailed description of chromosome structure?
- It seems we have a lot more on the structure of the nucleus than the function of the nucleus. I'm not sure if the balance should be corrected by having less structure information, or more function information. I'm guessing the latter.
- Here I'll show my biases since I'm a unicellular-eukaryotes guy, but could we spare a few more words for multinucleated eukaryotic cells? It's pretty common across eukaryotes. For instance ciliates typically have a quiescent germ nucleus and an actively transcribed expression nucleus.
- Focused - on the flipside of the above, some material seems to have crept in that is probably better explained elsewhere (sometimes just in other parts of the article, sometimes in other articles). Examples include the small paragraph on lupus in Structure>Chromosomes, the level of detail on ribosome assembly in Structure>Nucleolus, and more. Also a huge amount of space is devoted to the 7 least important structures in the nucleus (the "Other nuclear bodies" subsection). I'm sure we can come up with a more concise way to describe these structures and their importance.
- References - Could use an update. The most cited reference is the 5th edition (2004) of Harvey Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I have a PDF of the 6th edition (2008) that I'm happy to share, but I can reach out my tentacles and see if anyone has the current version (a quick Google suggest we're already on the 8th edition, out since 2016! My how time flies) and would be willing to share. I do have a more recent PDF of Bruce Alberts' competing Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th edition (2015), which may still be the current version. Happy to share that as well. Otherwise, we'll just have to do some scraping for recent reviews et al. I've not kept up with broad literature on the nucleus, so I don't really have a head-up over anyone else.
- The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time. Boghog if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Ajpolino for your detailed review. I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help. I will also work to update citations to the 5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015)[1] and Lodish (2016).[2] My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ISBN 978-0-8153-4524-4.
- ISBN 978-1-4641-8339-3.
- Other to-do list items
In no particular order, feel free to add more items, and to check items off as we get to them.
- History - Can anyone find some secondary sources for the history section? It mostly cites primary work now. Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Tidbits I cut from somewhere that could be re-added, but I haven't sorted out where yet (feel free to decide!)
|
|---|
References
|
Introduction change
I believe the introduction is quite wordy and could be more concise while achieving the same goal.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristenadams3821 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Cell nucleus or nucleus
I believe the title should be nucleus, since in biology it is mainly used as in the second form; as a biologist I never came across the phrase "cell nucleus". perhaps, "cellular nucleus", though it is also rare. Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Nucleus Size
Under "Structures" is written:"The size of the nucleus depends on the size of the cell it is contained in, with a nucleus typically occupying about 8% of the total cell volume." [Cantwell H, Nurse P (2019). "Unravelling nuclear size control". Current Genetics. Springer. 65 (6): 1282. doi:10.1007/s00294-019-00999-3. PMC 6820586. PMID 31147736.]
This is an excellent citation. I just read it. But the 8% are related to a fission yeast experiment! It is not in all cell types typical, that the nucleus occupies 8% of the cell volume.
Actually, I am working currently with two mammalian cell types. The NC ratio of this cell is about 20%. And these are not abnormal cells I am working with.
In my opinion, I would just delete "with a nucleus typically occupying about 8% of the total cell volume". The rest, inclusive citation, I would leave as it is. Ulmusfagus (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"IGCs function as storage sites for the splicing factors.[46]" is no longer a supported statement as per new research, see below.
Change to: "Although IGCs were previously thought to be storage sites for splicing factors [46], new genomics technologies have revealed a functional role for nuclear speckles in pre-mRNA splicing. Specifically, nuclear speckles serve as hubs containing high concentrations of splicing factors that diffuse away from the speckles to interact with nascent pre-mRNAs. When a nascent pre-mRNA is located near a nuclear speckle, the volume through which these splicing factors need to diffuse is reduced. This reduction in diffusion volume increases the local concentration of splicing factors around genes positioned near speckles, leading to enhanced spliceosome binding to these pre-mRNAs and more efficient conversion into spliced mRNA [Bhat, P., Chow, A., Emert, B. et al. Genome organization around nuclear speckles drives mRNA splicing efficiency. Nature 629, 1165–1173 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07429-6]." BiologyEditorPerson (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Already done While the editor didn't include this entire text, the study and its conclusions are mentioned, and more is likely too much for a study this new. PianoDan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)