This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has an unclear
citation style. (June 2007) |
This article needs a lot of work. Firstly, the title is "neurogenesis," but the article itself entirely focuses on "adult neurogenesis." Secondly, the article completely ignores more historical examinations of adult neurogenesis, e.g. the work of Altman and Kaplan in the 1960s and the work of Nottebohm in the early 1980s. Thirdly, a number of the citations reflect confirmatory or seconday, rather than primary, findings. The "adult neural stem cells" sections needs a lot of work. As far as I understand, there exists controvery still on whether the cells isolated via the neurosphere method are indeed stem cells, or even bona fide progenitor cells. A formal possibility remains that these cells represent "dedifferentiated" or "reprogrammed" states induced by the presence of high concentration of mitogens.
My recommendation would be that primary references for specific ideas be cited in text with a link to PubMed, and that the reference list at the end be limited to general reviews of Adult Neurogenesis. There are plenty of excellent reviews summarizing the literature (for exmaple, Ambrous et al., 2005; Ming and Song, 2005 among many others).
I added a source (number 6), it is about neural stem cells. It relates to adult development. Do you agree? Aileenacosta1 ( talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Per the problems described above, I have lowered the quality assessment for this article to "Start" class. It needs a lot of work to deal with the topic appropriately. Looie496 ( talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to add links to notable scientists in this field, or is that outside the scope of this article? I would like to make Brian_Christie_(neuroscientist) and other such scientists connect to articles in the fields they work in, but I'm unsure as to whether or not this article would be a good place for a link. - moritheil Talk 09:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK. But I am not sure if cannabis should be mentioned here in neurogenesis. There are clearly some positive effects of some cannabis constituents in certain conditions, for example cannabidiol (CBD) in schizophrenia, but I don't think it is not correct to claim that cannabis use per se contributes to neurogenesis in healthy human brains. I needed to add this human study because we know for quite awhile now that hippocampus volumes are clearly reduced in chronic cannabis exposure. Again, that does not mean that some cannabinoids might be useful in certain conditions. Also, if citing an article, please use correct protocols, just inserting a link is not the way to do it. I will observe this page for awhile, and I am tempted to delete the cannabis section in neurogenesis altogether. ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This entire section needs to be reworked. The statements made in this section are not only farfetched, but also unfounded. The sources are cited in inappropriate contexts. Not one of those studies looks at neurogenesis in the VTA. They mention synaptic plasticity, neuroprotection, and growth factor expression, however, none make such claims that amphetamines increase neurogenesis in the VTA. While there definitely could be involvement of neurogenesis in behavioral sensitization, until a working explanation is put together with both reliable and pertinent sources, I propose the section is removed from the article. Serotonick ( talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I was struck by a statement in an article at phys.org, "Adult brains produce new cells in previously undiscovered area" [1], saying:
Checking the linked page at the The University of Queensland, Queensland Brain Institute, "Adult neurogenesis" [2] contains the statement:
And that page links to a paper "De novo generation of neuronal cells from the adult mouse brain" [3] that was supposedly the revolutionary paper.
Strangely, none of these people or articles are referenced here. Is this yet another example of colleagues promoting work by colleagues, and institutions making broad claims of the 'shocking' 'stunning' importance of the work by their researchers? PR excesses in the sciences? Who'da thunk it! Shenme ( talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to what the article says this Nature article contradicts it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25975.epdf Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 02:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has an unclear
citation style. (June 2007) |
This article needs a lot of work. Firstly, the title is "neurogenesis," but the article itself entirely focuses on "adult neurogenesis." Secondly, the article completely ignores more historical examinations of adult neurogenesis, e.g. the work of Altman and Kaplan in the 1960s and the work of Nottebohm in the early 1980s. Thirdly, a number of the citations reflect confirmatory or seconday, rather than primary, findings. The "adult neural stem cells" sections needs a lot of work. As far as I understand, there exists controvery still on whether the cells isolated via the neurosphere method are indeed stem cells, or even bona fide progenitor cells. A formal possibility remains that these cells represent "dedifferentiated" or "reprogrammed" states induced by the presence of high concentration of mitogens.
My recommendation would be that primary references for specific ideas be cited in text with a link to PubMed, and that the reference list at the end be limited to general reviews of Adult Neurogenesis. There are plenty of excellent reviews summarizing the literature (for exmaple, Ambrous et al., 2005; Ming and Song, 2005 among many others).
I added a source (number 6), it is about neural stem cells. It relates to adult development. Do you agree? Aileenacosta1 ( talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Per the problems described above, I have lowered the quality assessment for this article to "Start" class. It needs a lot of work to deal with the topic appropriately. Looie496 ( talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to add links to notable scientists in this field, or is that outside the scope of this article? I would like to make Brian_Christie_(neuroscientist) and other such scientists connect to articles in the fields they work in, but I'm unsure as to whether or not this article would be a good place for a link. - moritheil Talk 09:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK. But I am not sure if cannabis should be mentioned here in neurogenesis. There are clearly some positive effects of some cannabis constituents in certain conditions, for example cannabidiol (CBD) in schizophrenia, but I don't think it is not correct to claim that cannabis use per se contributes to neurogenesis in healthy human brains. I needed to add this human study because we know for quite awhile now that hippocampus volumes are clearly reduced in chronic cannabis exposure. Again, that does not mean that some cannabinoids might be useful in certain conditions. Also, if citing an article, please use correct protocols, just inserting a link is not the way to do it. I will observe this page for awhile, and I am tempted to delete the cannabis section in neurogenesis altogether. ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This entire section needs to be reworked. The statements made in this section are not only farfetched, but also unfounded. The sources are cited in inappropriate contexts. Not one of those studies looks at neurogenesis in the VTA. They mention synaptic plasticity, neuroprotection, and growth factor expression, however, none make such claims that amphetamines increase neurogenesis in the VTA. While there definitely could be involvement of neurogenesis in behavioral sensitization, until a working explanation is put together with both reliable and pertinent sources, I propose the section is removed from the article. Serotonick ( talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I was struck by a statement in an article at phys.org, "Adult brains produce new cells in previously undiscovered area" [1], saying:
Checking the linked page at the The University of Queensland, Queensland Brain Institute, "Adult neurogenesis" [2] contains the statement:
And that page links to a paper "De novo generation of neuronal cells from the adult mouse brain" [3] that was supposedly the revolutionary paper.
Strangely, none of these people or articles are referenced here. Is this yet another example of colleagues promoting work by colleagues, and institutions making broad claims of the 'shocking' 'stunning' importance of the work by their researchers? PR excesses in the sciences? Who'da thunk it! Shenme ( talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to what the article says this Nature article contradicts it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25975.epdf Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 02:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)