Talk:Cell nucleus

Cell Nucleus Review

Is the article easy to understand?

   The article is fairily easy for people with or without backgrounds in biology to understand.  The terminology is not too technical for people without advanced knowledge in biology to understand.  When the article starts getting into more detail about the nucleus such as the structures, everything is clearly explained and easy to comprehend for just about anyone.  Some of the descriptions can get slightly word with the terminology, but with links provided to certain terms that are not common knowledge the article is easier to understand.  Overall, this article on the cell nucleus is a great way for people to learn more about the nucleus.

Is the article well organized?

   The article is well organized for the most part.  The introduction is a bit lengthy and contains information that could be put into a different section.  After the introduction, the article is broken up into sections containing different information about the cell nucleus which I think is great.  Each section has a heading to let the reader know what that particular section is going to be about.  It is easy for the reader to pinpoint exactly what section they need to read to find the information they are looking for.  Each section is also split up into subheadings for more indepth information about each topic.  Overall, the article has decent organization to make it flow for the reader.

Aruland25Aruland25 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Multi-nucleated Cells

With multinucleated cells, do the multiple nuclei function within the cell the same as a single nucleated cell, or are certain functions distributed among the other nuclei?

Mammals were often used as examples throughout the article, do the nuclei of plants or any other class of animals share the same nuclei functions or do they differ in any ways? The same can be asked for Eukaryotic organisms.

The article is full of useful information on the subject, making it easier to understand the topic. The nucleus is a complex organelle that is needed in the basic understanding of cellular function. The sections the article covers is clear and gives a summary of the sections in detail. A student needing to understand the nucleus would find this article useful. However, there are some minor details. The questions asked above will help give the article more information on the subject by answering them, ultimately, giving the intended reader a better understanding of the nucleus.

Ian P. 9/30/2016 (IPletka (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

Assembly and Disassembly

In this section the links for closed and open cytosis links do not work. It takes you to a page that has not yet been created. I would also like to mention that I think the adage of the relationship between prophase and mitosis is a good addition. Reading further down I think that cell envelope could have link since cell envelope is a researched topic. Lamina is also mentioned near the same part and also does not have a link. I would also like to talk a little about the fluidity of the section. Would there be a way to still provide clarity to the cycles of the cell assembly and disassembly but make the apoptosis link at the beginning closer to the paragraph that describes it below? Lastly, the section below it, discussions potential sources of illness, could have some more information or be added to another section. Ellis245 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

History

A little ways down there is reference to work of Franz Bauer but no inclusion of his findings despite all of the other names mentioned having one. Shortly after that there is a sentence that reads "he did not suggest a potential function". If it has to be there I think it should be mentioned in the paragraph above, or not in it at all, since it is informative. I do like the part that talks about cells coming from cells then goes to a paragraph about sex cells creating a cell. This transition is very smooth. Near the very end should there be a description or a link to the chromosome theory of heredity since it is the concluding finding of the information given above it?

 Ellis245 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is information necessary regarding the process of transcription that occurs in the nucleus?Erinmwolfe (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Are further citations necessary under the subnuclear bodies topic? The first sentence mentioning Cajal bodies is very specific but does not contain a citation to a reputable source. The source occurs later under the next sub heading, but should it also be cited when Cajal bodies are first mentioned?Erinmwolfe (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I became lost regarding the subnuclear bodies and their relations to each other, although their individual functions seemed pretty specific. Could their relationshios be clarified?Erinmwolfe (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I understood sections on the structure and function of the nucleus, nuclear envelope and pores, chromosomes, and nucleolus, but became lost with subnuclear bodies. Gene expression was clear but could be more detailed, as with the process of transcription. Processing of pre-mRNA could also be made more clear. There is another article for post-translational modificaiton, but the section on the cell nucleus page could be clarified; additionally, it only contains 1 citation despite being specific, should it be cited further?Erinmwolfe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104104/http://intl.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/5/1195 to http://intl.jcb.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/5/1195
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp4041coll6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/u/?%2Fp4041coll11%2C62
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp4041coll11

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) 01:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102032704/http://www.antibodypatterns.com/cytoplasmic.php to http://www.antibodypatterns.com/cytoplasmic.php

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) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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 MOS:SANDWICH problem everywhere. I suspect that attention to wikilinking is needed, but the topic is too dense for me to follow. Ajpolino would you be able to give this a quick glance to see if there are significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• 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) and Lodish (2016). 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

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!)

From Structures - The dynamic behaviour of structures in the nucleus, such as the nuclear rotation that occurs prior to mitosis, can be visualized using label-free live cell imaging. and the file File:Slow motion arrows.gif with caption Nuclear rotation implicated in cellular reorganization before mitosis in mouse breast cancer cells. From structures - In most types of granulocyte, a white blood cell, the nucleus is lobated and can be bi-lobed, tri-lobed or multi-lobed. 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

"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)