![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
GAThrawn22 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
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)
What do people think about:
ShaiM 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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? – Clockwork Soul 18:50, 23 September 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)
The 3 sections that (in my opinion) are below par:
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShaiM/sandbox - an example of what I mean.
(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:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)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)
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)
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)
Re. changes to the lead:
Still needs work, especially polishing up the flow. (For content issues, Wikipedia:Lead section is useful) ShaiM 13:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Re. the three additions to Further reading (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Is that better? TimVickers 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks better to me.-- 71.201.226.112 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a change, thought it was a typo. If I'm wrong, reverse. CopperKettle 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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" in history section / Franz Bauer
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)
Have a look at this review:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
NUCLEUS STRUCTURE ♠ Nuclear membrane/karyothica ♠ Nuclear ♠ ♠
♠ ♠· ♠ ♠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.83.2 ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982201006327When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
GAThrawn22 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
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)
What do people think about:
ShaiM 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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? – Clockwork Soul 18:50, 23 September 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)
The 3 sections that (in my opinion) are below par:
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShaiM/sandbox - an example of what I mean.
(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:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)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)
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)
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)
Re. changes to the lead:
Still needs work, especially polishing up the flow. (For content issues, Wikipedia:Lead section is useful) ShaiM 13:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Re. the three additions to Further reading (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Is that better? TimVickers 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks better to me.-- 71.201.226.112 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a change, thought it was a typo. If I'm wrong, reverse. CopperKettle 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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" in history section / Franz Bauer
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)
Have a look at this review:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
NUCLEUS STRUCTURE ♠ Nuclear membrane/karyothica ♠ Nuclear ♠ ♠
♠ ♠· ♠ ♠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.83.2 ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982201006327When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |