This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
A lot of the information on the sample cd molecules was simply wrong. Suggest checking out the other ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ? ( talk • contribs) ?/?/? (UTC)
Yippee, finally some expansions, including common-sense explanations about some CD molecules. Will there ever be a page on CD117 (
c-kit)? For now, most material is on
gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
JFW |
T@lk 12:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
You've made judicious use of the
Edit History!
JFW |
T@lk 09:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The info about CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8 is missing. Important because this relates to T cell development and function. Just wanted to remind. -- Eleassar777 08:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Boys and girls, the Blood this week lists all CD molecules. See here. Sadly, this important document is not available for free. I'm considering mailing the editor. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The article in Blood only lists the newly classified CD factors (primarly those numberd 190 and above). Also, while it doesn't help now, it looks like Stanford University's Highwire will be making it available for free in October '06. MarcoTolo 17:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Please note the change of the list from List of clusters of differentiation to List of human clusters of differentiation at the request of an anonymous user (see the history of the article). The original list however still links to the new article. Maybe someone would like to change this to a disambiguous page? Create a list with mouse and other organismal CD linked off the original page? JeffreyN 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this article is completely fine for anybody who would actually be interested in cluster of differentiation molecules, as this is really an artificial distinction of cell surface molecules that applies only to biologists. I'm going to delete the warning, and if you want to reinstate it, give reasons why. 66.65.7.197 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't tell us what CDs actually do! What is their role in the immune system?!
If you read the article, CDs have a wide variety of functions, the only thing they all have in common is that they are on the surface of cells allowing for labelling by antibodies. The CD nomenclature is just a method of naming and numbering. Philman132 ( talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In the diagram on the right of the page, a CD3+CD8+ cell is mis-labelled as a "Suppressor T-lymphocyte" when it should be a "Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte." Besides being incorrect (or am I missing something?), it also clashes with the table on the left of the article.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. Photoshop and re-upload?
-tretcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.30 ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I LOVE this page! doctorwolfie ( talk) 11:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear all,
it seems the CD15 data may be outdated in the image. The Uniprot CD list http://www.uniprot.org/docs/cdlist does not show CD15 to be a valid protein.
I suggest editing the figure as it is misleading - what are other people's views ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.111.250 ( talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:List_of_human_clusters_of_differentiation to consider rename proposals for CD articles. - Kyle (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It js CD41 and not CD45. PLZ correct it. Or i will do But i dont have valid citations Drajaytripathi ( talk) 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of the + desigation on a CD number? For example, CD8 means that the cell expresses CD8. What is the meaning/added value of including a + sign? "CD8" alone should be sufficient, shouldn't it?
Relatedly, what is the purpose of the - (minus sign) designation? Does it imply the absence of the molecule when it would otherwise be expected (for whatever reason)?
Could someone add the answers to these questions to the appropriate paragraph of the article? Thanks.
− 2603:9000:ac08:a600:48f7:d91e:4989:e04e - 18 April 2020
From my understanding, there are way too many CDs in a cell. They are also expressed in different quantities. So my guess this is not exactly to say all CDs that are present in a cell, this would be mostly to help a researcher identify a cell, if they just test two or tree of the most common CDs, they could already know which cell it is. This explain the minus sign (-). But I don't know why there is the plus sign in some, and there no sign at all on others.
There is a lost more info in this article that can be of some help:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)− Arthurfragoso ( talk) 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know 2405:201:A426:D013:204C:B5DD:1DE1:7624 ( talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
A lot of the information on the sample cd molecules was simply wrong. Suggest checking out the other ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ? ( talk • contribs) ?/?/? (UTC)
Yippee, finally some expansions, including common-sense explanations about some CD molecules. Will there ever be a page on CD117 (
c-kit)? For now, most material is on
gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
JFW |
T@lk 12:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
You've made judicious use of the
Edit History!
JFW |
T@lk 09:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The info about CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8 is missing. Important because this relates to T cell development and function. Just wanted to remind. -- Eleassar777 08:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Boys and girls, the Blood this week lists all CD molecules. See here. Sadly, this important document is not available for free. I'm considering mailing the editor. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The article in Blood only lists the newly classified CD factors (primarly those numberd 190 and above). Also, while it doesn't help now, it looks like Stanford University's Highwire will be making it available for free in October '06. MarcoTolo 17:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Please note the change of the list from List of clusters of differentiation to List of human clusters of differentiation at the request of an anonymous user (see the history of the article). The original list however still links to the new article. Maybe someone would like to change this to a disambiguous page? Create a list with mouse and other organismal CD linked off the original page? JeffreyN 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this article is completely fine for anybody who would actually be interested in cluster of differentiation molecules, as this is really an artificial distinction of cell surface molecules that applies only to biologists. I'm going to delete the warning, and if you want to reinstate it, give reasons why. 66.65.7.197 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't tell us what CDs actually do! What is their role in the immune system?!
If you read the article, CDs have a wide variety of functions, the only thing they all have in common is that they are on the surface of cells allowing for labelling by antibodies. The CD nomenclature is just a method of naming and numbering. Philman132 ( talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In the diagram on the right of the page, a CD3+CD8+ cell is mis-labelled as a "Suppressor T-lymphocyte" when it should be a "Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte." Besides being incorrect (or am I missing something?), it also clashes with the table on the left of the article.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. Photoshop and re-upload?
-tretcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.30 ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I LOVE this page! doctorwolfie ( talk) 11:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear all,
it seems the CD15 data may be outdated in the image. The Uniprot CD list http://www.uniprot.org/docs/cdlist does not show CD15 to be a valid protein.
I suggest editing the figure as it is misleading - what are other people's views ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.111.250 ( talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:List_of_human_clusters_of_differentiation to consider rename proposals for CD articles. - Kyle (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It js CD41 and not CD45. PLZ correct it. Or i will do But i dont have valid citations Drajaytripathi ( talk) 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of the + desigation on a CD number? For example, CD8 means that the cell expresses CD8. What is the meaning/added value of including a + sign? "CD8" alone should be sufficient, shouldn't it?
Relatedly, what is the purpose of the - (minus sign) designation? Does it imply the absence of the molecule when it would otherwise be expected (for whatever reason)?
Could someone add the answers to these questions to the appropriate paragraph of the article? Thanks.
− 2603:9000:ac08:a600:48f7:d91e:4989:e04e - 18 April 2020
From my understanding, there are way too many CDs in a cell. They are also expressed in different quantities. So my guess this is not exactly to say all CDs that are present in a cell, this would be mostly to help a researcher identify a cell, if they just test two or tree of the most common CDs, they could already know which cell it is. This explain the minus sign (-). But I don't know why there is the plus sign in some, and there no sign at all on others.
There is a lost more info in this article that can be of some help:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)− Arthurfragoso ( talk) 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know 2405:201:A426:D013:204C:B5DD:1DE1:7624 ( talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)